Further opportunities for cost reduction of medical care.

The already high and still rising cost of health care has become a matter of serious concern and a subject of political dispute. The problem has no magic cures but, as is shown here, there are a number of promising modifications in current practice that promise to reduce the required outlays without impairing appropriate health care. Continual reports of new medicines, new tests, and new procedures have created an urgent need for careful comparison and evaluation of the advantages and beneficial results that these innovations offer. The same is true for the growing knowledge of genetic variations, which affects the course of therapy for some patients. Costs also can be saved, in some instances, by utilization of medical therapy, rather than interventional procedures. Preventive medicine provides still more opportunities for cost savings. This paper provides an overview of promising potential approaches to reduce the cost of health care.

Improving lipid evaluation and management in medicare patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The control of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in patients with known coronary artery disease, particularly in those with acute myocardial infarction, has been shown to reduce the rates of disease progression, recurrent events, and mortality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and improve hospital-based processes for measuring and treating, when necessary, LDL-C levels above 3.36 mmol/L (>130 mg/dL) in patients with an acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN: A nonrandomized retrospective baseline study followed by a collaborative educational intervention with participating hospitals and a second nonrandomized postintervention study. PATIENTS: Four hundred six preintervention patients discharged from the hospital alive after a confirmed acute myocardial infarction in 1996, and 498 postintervention patients discharged from the hospital in 1999. INTERVENTIONS: Performance of lipid profiles on admission to the hospital and during hospitalization and drug and dietary interventions. RESULTS: The measurement of LDL-C level on admission to the hospital increased from 8% preintervention in 1996 to 32% postintervention in 1999. The measurement during hospitalization increased from 14% preintervention to 48% postintervention. Hospitals that initiated programs to ensure early lipid evaluations through preprinted orders and policy changes achieved an average patient LDL-C measurement rate of 70% in 1999. Hospitals lacking standard policies averaged only 23% at the same time. Of the patients with a measured LDL-C level greater than 3.36 mmol/L (>130 mg/dL) who were not undergoing drug therapy on admission to the hospital, 46% were given lipid-lowering agents by discharge from the hospital during the postintervention period. During this same period, only 11% of the patients were prescribed this therapy if they had either a lower measured level or no LDL-C measurement at all. CONCLUSION: Active hospital-based programs to ensure routine LDL-C measurements in patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction increased the use of appropriate lipid-lowering therapy in these high-risk individuals and could contribute to reducing the incidence of recurrent coronary artery disease.

Concurrent improvements in ambulatory cardiac catheterization practices following inpatient interventions.

Questions have been increasingly raised about the value of performing right heart catheterization. A preliminary analysis done in 1992 revealed significant interhospital variation in the frequency of the procedure among Medicare Part A and Medicaid patients in New York State, and it also suggested that the procedure was being performed routinely in some hospitals. In 1993, IPRO initiated a cooperative health care quality improvement program involving the state's 53 catheterization laboratories. As a result of this educational intervention, the rate of bilateral catheterization among Medicare Part A patients fell from 89/100,000 beneficiaries in 1992 to 65/100,000 in 1996, and the overall percentage of catheterized Medicare patients undergoing bilateral catheterization fell from 30.5% in 1992 to 17.4%. A major question was whether a corresponding decrease had occurred among ambulatory patients (Medicare Part B). To determine the answer, the Medicare Part B database was analyzed for the identical period of time. It was found that the percentage of ambulatory Medicare patients who underwent bilateral catheterization at the 53 laboratories fell from 37.6% in 1992 to 17.0% in 1996, paralleling the decline observed among inpatients. The results of this quality improvement study show that an educational intervention directed at inpatient practice patterns can have a similar impact on outpatient patterns.

Impact of an educational program on bilateral heart catheterization practice patterns.

The value and necessity of performing right heart catheterizations for coronary artery disease have been increasingly questioned. Preliminary analyses of the procedure among Medicare and Medicaid patients in New York State revealed significant inter-hospital variations in the frequencies with which such catheterizations were performed. These data suggested that right heart catheterizations (RHC) were being performed routinely. Medicare and Medicaid claims data for bilateral catheterizations were analyzed before and after an educational intervention program involving the state's 53 catheterization laboratories. The educational intervention was multifaceted and consisted of disseminating suggested guidelines established with the assistance of the New York State Chapter of the American College of Cardiology, the Committee on Cardiovascular Disease of the Medical Society of the State of New York, and the Cardiac Advisory Council of the New York State Department of Health. Posteducational intervention assessments were made over a 4-year period. The baseline data for 1992 demonstrated that 10 (18.4%) laboratories had performed RHC routinely (70-100%) on Medicare and Medicaid patients undergoing catheterization. In contrast, 34 (64.2%) laboratories performed RHC in less than 20% of their Medicare cases, whereas 39 (73.5%) did so among Medicaid cases. Eighteen (34%) laboratories performed RHC in less than 10% of Medicare cases. These data indicated that there was significant inter-hospital variation in the frequency with which RHC was performed. Beginning in 1993, ongoing educational meetings and conferences were held with all laboratories, but especially with the 10 that were at the high end of the RHC performance level. As a result of this ongoing intervention, the rate of RHC among Medicare patients fell from 89/100,000 in 1992 to 65/100,000 beneficiaries in 1996. From another perspective, the percentage of catheterized Medicare patients undergoing RHC fell from 30.5% in 1992 to 17.4% in 1996. The decline among the 10 laboratories was even more dramatic; the percentage of catheterized Medicare patients undergoing RHC fell from 89.1% in 1992 to 31.6% in 1996. The parallel drop for Medicaid patients over the same time period was from 92.8 to 32.7%. The results of the study indicate that many previously performed RHC in patients with coronary artery disease were routine and not medically indicated. The dramatic decreases in RHC documented in this study over a 4-year period demonstrate the success of quality improvement efforts jointly undertaken by providers and a peer review organization.

Impact of peer review in reduction of permanent pacemaker implantations.

Because of a sharp increase in the number of permanent pacemakers inserted at The Brooklyn Hospital between 1972 and 1976, a peer-review committee was established to monitor subsequent pacemaker implantation. Total initial implants declined from 48 to 22 per year in the two years that followed. The number of implantations for sinoatrial bradycardias declined from 50 to 27 and the number of implantations for intraventricular conduction defects declined from 32 to five in the two years after peer review, compared with the two years before. There was no change in the number of pacemakers implanted for complete or advanced heart block. Almost 10% of patients who received a pacemaker between 1972 and 1976 had other conditions that might have accounted for the events that precipitated the decision to implant a pacemaker. The symptoms for which the pacemaker was implanted persisted in 19% of patients, despite a normally functioning pacemaker system. Patients receiving a permanent pacemaker before peer review had a 17% one-year and a 43% three-year mortality. When a more critical patient selection process was instituted, a smaller percentage remained symptomatic (9% vs 19%) and three-year survival rate was improved (86% vs 57%). From 1977 through 1978, when permanent pacemaker implantations declined, the number of hospital, medical service, and coronary care unit admissions increased. It is concluded that peer review can have substantial impact on permanent pacemaker implantations.