Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Am J Manag Care ; 23(8): e259-e264, 2017 Aug 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29087149

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To compare geographic variation in healthcare spending and utilization between the Military Health System (MHS) and Medicare across hospital referral regions (HRRs). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. METHODS: Data on age-, sex-, and race-adjusted Medicare per capita expenditure and utilization measures by HRR were obtained from the Dartmouth Atlas for 2007 to 2010. Similarly, adjusted data from 2007 and 2010 were obtained from the MHS Data Repository and patients assigned to HRRs. We compared high- and low-spending regions, and computed coefficient of variation (CoV) and correlation coefficients for healthcare spending, hospital inpatient days, hip surgery, and back surgery between MHS and Medicare patients. RESULTS: We found significant variation in spending and utilization across HRRs in both the MHS and Medicare. CoV for spending was higher in the MHS compared with Medicare, (0.24 vs 0.15, respectively) and CoV for inpatient days was 0.36 in the MHS versus 0.19 in Medicare. The CoV for back surgery was also greater in the MHS compared with Medicare (0.47 vs 0.29, respectively). Per capita Medicare spending per HRR was significantly correlated to adjusted MHS spending (r = 0.3; P <.0001). Correlation in inpatient days (r = 0.29; P <.0001) and back surgery (r = 0.52; P <.0001) was also significant. Higher spending markets in both systems were not comparable; lower spending markets were located mostly in the Midwest. CONCLUSIONS: In comparing 2 systems with similar pricing schemes, differences in spending likely reflect variation in utilization and the influence of local provider culture.


Subject(s)
Health Expenditures/statistics & numerical data , Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Medicare/statistics & numerical data , Military Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Residence Characteristics/statistics & numerical data , Age Factors , Humans , Military Personnel , Racial Groups , Retrospective Studies , Sex Factors , United States
2.
JAMA Surg ; 152(6): 565-572, 2017 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28249083

ABSTRACT

Importance: Although many factors influence the management of carotid artery stenosis, it is not well understood whether a preference toward procedural management exists when procedural volume and physician compensation are linked in the fee-for-service environment. Objective: To explore evidence for provider-induced demand in the management of carotid artery stenosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Department of Defense Military Health System Data Repository was queried for individuals diagnosed with carotid artery stenosis between October 1, 2006, and September 30, 2010. A hierarchical multivariable model evaluated the association of the treatment system (fee-for-service physicians in the private sector vs salary-based military physicians) with the odds of procedural intervention (carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting) compared with medical management. Subanalysis was performed by symptom status at the time of presentation. The association of treatment system and of management strategy with clinical outcomes, including stroke and death, was also evaluated. Data analysis was conducted from August 15, 2015, to August 2, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: The odds of procedural intervention based on treatment system was the primary outcome used to indicate the presence and effect of provider-induced demand. Results: Of 10 579 individuals with a diagnosis of carotid artery stenosis (4615 women and 5964 men; mean [SD] age, 65.6 [11.4] years), 1307 (12.4%) underwent at least 1 procedure. After adjusting for demographic and clinical factors, the odds of undergoing procedural management were significantly higher for patients in the fee-for-service system compared with those in the salary-based setting (odds ratio, 1.629; 95% CI, 1.285-2.063; P < .001). This finding remained true when patients were stratified by symptom status at presentation (symptomatic: odds ratio, 2.074; 95% CI, 1.302-3.303; P = .002; and asymptomatic: odds ratio, 1.534; 95% CI, 1.186-1.984; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Individuals treated in a fee-for-service system were significantly more likely to undergo procedural management for carotid stenosis compared with those in the salary-based setting. These findings remained consistent for individuals with and without symptomatic disease.


Subject(s)
Carotid Stenosis/economics , Carotid Stenosis/surgery , Decision Support Techniques , Endarterectomy, Carotid/economics , Fee-for-Service Plans/economics , Health Services Needs and Demand/economics , Military Medicine/economics , Physician's Role , Reimbursement Mechanisms/economics , Salaries and Fringe Benefits , Stents/economics , Aged , Female , Health Care Costs , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Odds Ratio , United States , Unnecessary Procedures/economics
3.
Mil Med ; 178(2): 135-41, 2013 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23495457

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: Patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) are intended to actively provide effective care by physician-led teams, where patients take a leading role and responsibility. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Walter Reed PCMH has reduced costs while at least maintaining if not improving access to and quality of care, and to determine whether access, quality, and cost impacts differ by chronic condition status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: This study conducted a retrospective analysis using a patient-level utilization database to determine the impact of the Walter Reed PCMH on utilization and cost metrics, and a survey of enrollees in the Walter Reed PCMH to address access to care and quality of care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Inpatient and outpatient utilization, per member per quarter costs, Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set metrics, and composite measures for access, patient satisfaction, provider communication, and customer service are included. RESULTS: Costs were 11% lower for those with chronic conditions compared to 7% lower for those without. Since treating patients with chronic conditions is 4 times more costly than treating patients without such conditions, the vast majority of dollar savings are attributable to chronic care. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest focusing first on patients with chronic conditions given the greater potential for early gains.


Subject(s)
Health Care Costs , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Military Medicine , Patient-Centered Care/organization & administration , Quality Assurance, Health Care , Chronic Disease , Humans , Patient-Centered Care/economics , Quality Assurance, Health Care/organization & administration , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...