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.
JAMA Netw Open ; 7(5): e2411006, 2024 May 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38739388

ABSTRACT

Importance: Understanding the association of telehealth use with health care outcomes is fundamental to determining whether telehealth waivers implemented during the COVID-19 public health emergency should be made permanent. The current literature has yielded inconclusive findings owing to its focus on select states, practices, or health care systems. Objective: To estimate the association of telehealth use with outcomes for all Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries by comparing hospital service areas (HSAs) with different levels of telehealth use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This US population-based, retrospective cohort study was conducted from July 2022 to April 2023. Participants included Medicare claims of beneficiaries attributed to HSAs with FFS enrollment in Parts A and B. Exposures: Low, medium, or high tercile of telehealth use created by ranking HSAs according to the number of telehealth visits per 1000 beneficiaries. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were quality (ambulatory care-sensitive [ACS] hospitalizations and emergency department [ED] visits per 1000 FFS beneficiaries), access to care (clinician encounters per FFS beneficiary), and cost (total cost of care for Part A and/or B services per FFS Medicare beneficiary) determined with a difference-in-difference analysis. Results: In this cohort study of claims from approximately 30 million Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age in 2019, 71.04 [1.67] years; mean [SD] percentage female in 2019, 53.83% [2.14%]) within 3436 HSAs, between the second half of 2019 and the second half of 2021, mean ACS hospitalizations and ED visits declined sharply, mean clinician encounters per beneficiary declined slightly, and mean total cost of care per beneficiary per semester increased slightly. Compared with the low group, the high group had more ACS hospitalizations (1.63 additional hospitalizations per 1000 beneficiaries; 95% CI, 1.03-2.22 hospitalizations), more clinician encounters (0.30 additional encounters per beneficiary per semester; 95% CI, 0.23-0.38 encounters), and higher total cost of care ($164.99 higher cost per beneficiary per semester; 95% CI, $101.03-$228.96). There was no statistically significant difference in ACS ED visits between the low and high groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries across all 3436 HSAs, high levels of telehealth use were associated with more clinician encounters, more ACS hospitalizations, and higher total health care costs. COVID-19 cases were still high during the period of study, which suggests that these findings partially reflect a higher capacity for providing health services in HSAs with higher telehealth intensity than other HSAs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Services Accessibility , Medicare , Quality of Health Care , Telemedicine , Humans , United States , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , Telemedicine/economics , Retrospective Studies , Medicare/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Male , Aged , Quality of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Fee-for-Service Plans/statistics & numerical data , Aged, 80 and over , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data
2.
Health Econ ; 29(3): 382-390, 2020 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31930636

ABSTRACT

Policymakers in the U.S. have expressed the hope that reducing payments from pharmaceutical companies to physicians will result in lower drug expenditures by reducing branded prescribing. This paper analyzes how the overall use and charges for generic and branded prescriptions change in an inpatient setting after a physician has had a payment from a pharmaceutical company reduced or cut off entirely. This research analyzes the impact of a pharmaceutical company cutting speaking payments to physicians in order to use fewer physicians more often, so the removal of payments is unrelated to a change in the company's product offering. Using hospital discharge data from New Jersey, this research employs a within-physician differences-in-differences design and finds that physicians who have payments reduced do not alter the number of or charges for prescriptions relative to unpaid physicians, neither do physicians who have their payments cut off but are still being paid by other pharmaceutical companies. Physicians who have their payments cut but who are not being paid by other companies, however, increase in the charges for and number of prescriptions written (both branded and generic) relative to their unpaid peers.


Subject(s)
Medicare Part D , Medicine , Physicians , Conflict of Interest , Drug Industry , Drugs, Generic , Humans , United States
3.
Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol ; 55: 191-206, 2015.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25149920

ABSTRACT

The cost of drugs is a major and rapidly rising component of health-care expenditures. We survey recent literature on the ethics and economics of skyrocketing pharmaceutical prices and find that advances in economic research have increased the sharpness and focus of the ethically based calls to increase access by modifying patent protection and reducing prices. In some cases, research supports ethical arguments for broader access. Other research suggests that efforts to broaden access result in unintended consequences for innovation and the medical needs of patients. Both ethicists and economists need to be more cognizant of the real clinical settings in which physicians practice medicine with real patients. Greater cross-disciplinary interaction among economists, ethicists, and physicians can help reduce the disjunction between innovation and access and improve access and patient care. This dialogue will impact private industry and may spur new multistakeholder paradigms for drug discovery, development, and pricing.


Subject(s)
Commerce/economics , Commerce/ethics , Drug Costs/ethics , Drug Industry/economics , Drug Industry/ethics , Pharmaceutical Preparations/economics , Advertising/economics , Advertising/ethics , Commerce/legislation & jurisprudence , Diffusion of Innovation , Drug Costs/legislation & jurisprudence , Drug Industry/legislation & jurisprudence , Drug and Narcotic Control/economics , Government Regulation , Health Services Accessibility/economics , Health Services Accessibility/ethics , Healthcare Disparities/economics , Healthcare Disparities/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Marketing of Health Services/economics , Marketing of Health Services/ethics , Medical Assistance/economics , Medical Assistance/ethics , Patents as Topic/ethics , Pharmaceutical Preparations/supply & distribution , Physician's Role
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...