Participation of Rural Health Care Providers in Accountable Care Organizations: Early Indications.

Recently, some rural health clinics (RHCs) throughout the country have chosen to join groups of health care providers in accountable care organizations (ACOs). Examined are characteristics of Southeastern RHCs and the counties they serve; it is shown how those characteristics compare with other regions across the country and suggested what role those differences might play in an RHC's decision to participate in an ACO. Rural health clinic-related data were collected and summarized for 2 time periods: 2007 and 2011: for 2007, data from RHCs throughout the United States; for 2011, summarized demographic data related to region 4 RHCs specifically. Several characteristics about region 4 RHCs indicate that they may be slow to participate in ACOs. However, other characteristics, including their perception that ACOs may improve the quality of care and health outcomes of their patients and communities, may facilitate the process of RHCs joining ACOs, should they choose to do so. Addressing the health care needs and health care quality of rural populations must be part of the design, development, and performance monitoring of ACOs of the future.

The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy.

BACKGROUND: The goal of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is to explain the differential benefits and harms of alternate methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care. To inform decision making, information from the patient's perspective that reflects outcomes that patients care about are needed and can be collected rigorously using appropriate patient-reported outcomes (PRO). It can be challenging to select the most appropriate PRO measure given the proliferation of such questionnaires over the past 20 years. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we discuss the value of PROs within CER, types of measures that are likely to be useful in the CER context, PRO instrument selection, and key challenges associated with using PROs in CER. METHODS: We delineate important considerations for defining the CER context, selecting the appropriate measures, and for the analysis and interpretation of PRO data. Emerging changes that may facilitate CER using PROs as an outcome are also reviewed including implementation of electronic and personal health records, hospital and population-based registries, and the use of PROs in national monitoring initiatives. The potential benefits of linking the information derived from PRO endpoints in CER to decision making is also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations presented for incorporating PROs in CER are intended to provide a guide to researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to ensure that information derived from PROs is applicable and interpretable for a given CER context. In turn, CER will provide information that is necessary for clinicians, patients, and families to make informed care decisions.

The cost of providing comprehensive HIV treatment in PEPFAR-supported programs.

BACKGROUND: PEPFAR, national governments, and other stakeholders are investing unprecedented resources to provide HIV treatment in developing countries. This study reports empirical data on costs and cost trends in a large sample of HIV treatment sites. DESIGN: In 2006-2007, we conducted cost analyses at 43 PEPFAR-supported outpatient clinics providing free comprehensive HIV treatment in Botswana, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda, and Vietnam. METHODS: We collected data on HIV treatment costs over consecutive 6-month periods starting from scale-up of dedicated HIV treatment services at each site. The study included all patients receiving HIV treatment and care at study sites [62,512 antiretroviral therapy (ART) and 44,394 pre-ART patients]. Outcomes were costs per patient and total program costs, subdivided by major cost categories. RESULTS: Median annual economic costs were US$ 202 (2009 USD) for pre-ART patients and US$ 880 for ART patients. Excluding antiretrovirals, per patient ART costs were US$ 298. Care for newly initiated ART patients cost 15-20% more than for established patients. Per patient costs dropped rapidly as sites matured, with per patient ART costs dropping 46.8% between first and second 6-month periods after the beginning of scale-up, and an additional 29.5% the following year. PEPFAR provided 79.4% of funding for service delivery, and national governments provided 15.2%. CONCLUSION: Treatment costs vary widely between sites, and high early costs drop rapidly as sites mature. Treatment costs vary between countries and respond to changes in antiretroviral regimen costs and the package of services. Whereas cost reductions may allow near-term program growth, programs need to weigh the trade-off between improving services for current patients and expanding coverage to new patients.

Use of effect size to determine optimal dose of duloxetine in major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: At effective doses, patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with duloxetine have been found to experience significant symptom improvement as measured by HAMD(17) total score. In addition, duloxetine-treated patients have significantly higher remission and response rates compared with placebo. The objective of this analysis is to determine the optimal dose of duloxetine in MDD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Effect size for duloxetine 40mg, 60mg, 80mg, and 120mg per day were estimated using all 6 acute phase III clinical trials in patients with MDD. The tolerability of duloxetine 40mg, 60mg, 80mg, and 120mg were evaluated using pooled data from the 6 studies. The primary efficacy measure in all trials was the HAMD(17) total score, from which were determined the effect size for HAMD(17) change scores, response rates (50% reduction from baseline to endpoint), and remission rates (HAMD(17) total score < or =7). RESULTS: A total of 1619 randomized patients were included in these studies, of which 632 were treated with placebo; 177 with duloxetine 40mg/day; 251 with 60mg/day; 363 with 80mg/day; and 196 with 120mg/day. An evaluation of increments in effect size between doses consistently showed that the most notable gain in effect size for efficacy was the 40-60mg/day dosage range. All dosages from 60 to 120mg were effective. The tolerability assessment indicated duloxetine at 40-120mg/day is well tolerated. Furthermore, the initial doses of 40-80mg/day were found to have comparable tolerability. CONCLUSIONS: The effect size analyses demonstrate that duloxetine 40mg has minimum efficacy, and that duloxetine 60-120mg/day is effective in the treatment of patients with MDD. An initial dose less than 60mg/day might provide better tolerability for some patients diagnosed with MDD.

The clinical characteristics and impact of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease on health-related quality of life.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although it is accepted that reflux of stomach acid causes gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), it is less well understood that it also contributes to the clinical signs and symptoms of laryngitis in the form of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). Study objectives were to identify what is known about the impact of LPR on health-related quality of life (HRQL) compared with the impact of GERD on HRQL and to assess whether currently available HRQL instruments adequately measure this impact or if a new disease-specific instrument should be recommended. METHODS: The authors combined a systematic literature review with prospective patient evaluation via focus groups. The review, using MEDLINE, focused on clinical characteristics and HRQL measurement and impact. Focus groups involving a total of 30 patients with LPR provided input on clinical manifestations of the disease and its HRQL impact. RESULTS: Information gleaned from the literature indicates that less than 40% of patients presenting with symptoms of laryngitis directly attributable to reflux also report experiencing the classic symptoms of heartburn and acid regurgitation associated with GERD. Reflux laryngitis is thus a distinct clinical entity from GERD and may have a unique impact on HRQL. Although multiple instruments are available to assess the impact of GERD on HRQL, no specific instruments are available for LPR. Focus group discussions identified voice problems, chronic cough, throat clearing, and swallowing difficulties to be key concerns of patients with LPR. These manifestations negatively impact HRQL as described by the focus group participants, notably in role functioning, physical well-being, and emotional well-being. CONCLUSIONS: A disease-specific instrument to assess the impact of LPR on HRQL would contribute to clinical care and the evaluation of new therapies. This instrument would ideally be sensitive to the variety of LPR's symptomatic presentations.