Dataset Information

A Randomized Trial of Displaying Paid Price Information on Imaging Study and Procedure Ordering Rates.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Prior studies have demonstrated how price transparency lowers the test-ordering rates of trainees in hospitals, and physician-targeted price transparency efforts have been viewed as a promising cost-controlling strategy. OBJECTIVE:To examine the effect of displaying paid-price information on test-ordering rates for common imaging studies and procedures within an accountable care organization (ACO). DESIGN:Block randomized controlled trial for 1 year. SUBJECTS:A total of 1205 fully licensed clinicians (728 primary care, 477 specialists). INTERVENTION:Starting January 2014, clinicians in the Control arm received no price display; those in the intervention arms received Single or Paired Internal/External Median Prices in the test-ordering screen of their electronic health record. Internal prices were the amounts paid by insurers for the ACO's services; external paid prices were the amounts paid by insurers for the same services when delivered by unaffiliated providers. MAIN MEASURES:Ordering rates (orders per 100 face-to-face encounters with adult patients): overall, designated to be completed internally within the ACO, considered "inappropriate" (e.g., MRI for simple headache), and thought to be "appropriate" (e.g., screening colonoscopy). KEY RESULTS:We found no significant difference in overall ordering rates across the Control, Single Median Price, or Paired Internal/External Median Prices study arms. For every 100 encounters, clinicians in the Control arm ordered 15.0 (SD 31.1) tests, those in the Single Median Price arm ordered 15.0 (SD 16.2) tests, and those in the Paired Prices arms ordered 15.7 (SD 20.5) tests (one-way ANOVA p-value 0.88). There was no difference in ordering rates for tests designated to be completed internally or considered to be inappropriate or appropriate. CONCLUSIONS:Displaying paid-price information did not alter how frequently primary care and specialist clinicians ordered imaging studies and procedures within an ACO. Those with a particular interest in removing waste from the health care system may want to consider a variety of contextual factors that can affect physician-targeted price transparency.

SUBMITTER: Chien AT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5377881 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Randomized Trial of Displaying Paid Price Information on Imaging Study and Procedure Ordering Rates.

Chien Alyna T AT Lehmann Lisa Soleymani LS Hatfield Laura A LA Koplan Kate E KE Petty Carter R CR Sinaiko Anna D AD Rosenthal Meredith B MB Sequist Thomas D TD

Journal of general internal medicine 20161202 4

<h4>Background</h4>Prior studies have demonstrated how price transparency lowers the test-ordering rates of trainees in hospitals, and physician-targeted price transparency efforts have been viewed as a promising cost-controlling strategy.<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the effect of displaying paid-price information on test-ordering rates for common imaging studies and procedures within an accountable care organization (ACO).<h4>Design</h4>Block randomized controlled trial for 1 year.<h4>Subjects< ...[more]

PMID: 27913910

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMany health systems are considering increasing price transparency at the time of order entry. However, evidence of its impact on clinician ordering behavior is inconsistent and limited to single-site evaluations of shorter duration.ObjectiveTo test the effect of displaying Medicare allowable fees for inpatient laboratory tests on clinician ordering behavior over 1 year.Design, setting, and participantsThe Pragmatic Randomized Introduction of Cost data through the electronic health record (PRICE) trial was a randomized clinical trial comparing a 1-year intervention to a 1-year preintervention period, and adjusting for time trends and patient characteristics. The trial took place at 3 hospitals in Philadelphia between April 2014 and April 2016 and included 98 529 patients comprising 142 921 hospital admissions.InterventionsInpatient laboratory test groups were randomly assigned to display Medicare allowable fees (30 in intervention) or not (30 in control) in the electronic health record.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was the number of tests ordered per patient-day. Secondary outcomes were tests performed per patient-day and Medicare associated fees.ResultsThe sample included 142 921 hospital admissions representing patients who were 51.9% white (74 165), 38.9% black (55 526), and 56.9% female (81 291) with a mean (SD) age of 54.7 (19.0) years. Preintervention trends of order rates among the intervention and control groups were similar. In adjusted analyses of the intervention group compared with the control group over time, there were no significant changes in overall test ordering behavior (0.05 tests ordered per patient-day; 95% CI, -0.002 to 0.09; P = .06) or associated fees ($0.24 per patient-day; 95% CI, -$0.42 to $0.91; P = .47). Exploratory subset analyses found small but significant differences in tests ordered per patient-day based on patient intensive care unit (ICU) stay (patients with ICU stay: -0.16; 95% CI, -0.31 to -0.01; P = .04; patients without ICU stay: 0.13; 95% CI, 0.08-0.17; P < .001) and the magnitude of associated fees (top quartile of tests based on fee value: -0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to -0.01; P = .04; bottom quartile: 0.03; 95% CI, 0.002-0.06; P = .04). Adjusted analyses of tests that were performed found a small but significant overall increase in the intervention group relative to the control group over time (0.08 tests performed per patient day, 95% CI, 0.03-0.12; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceDisplaying Medicare allowable fees for inpatient laboratory tests did not lead to a significant change in overall clinician ordering behavior or associated fees.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02355496.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The frequency of head computed tomography (CT) imaging for mild head trauma patients has raised safety and cost concerns. Validated clinical decision rules exist in the published literature and on-line sources to guide medical image ordering but are often not used by emergency department (ED) clinicians. Using simulation, we explored whether the presentation of a clinical decision rule (i.e. Canadian CT Head Rule - CCHR), findings from malpractice cases related to clinicians not ordering CT imaging in mild head trauma cases, and estimated patient out-of-pocket cost might influence clinician brain CT ordering. Understanding what type and how information may influence clinical decision making in the ordering advanced medical imaging is important in shaping the optimal design and implementation of related clinical decision support systems. METHODS:Multi-center, double-blinded simulation-based randomized controlled trial. Following standardized clinical vignette presentation, clinicians made an initial imaging decision for the patient. This was followed by additional information on decision support rules, malpractice outcome review, and patient cost; each with opportunity to modify their initial order. The malpractice and cost information differed by assigned group to test the any temporal relationship. The simulation closed with a second vignette and an imaging decision. RESULTS:One hundred sixteen of the 167 participants (66.9%) initially ordered a brain CT scan. After CCHR presentation, the number of clinicians ordering a CT dropped to 76 (45.8%), representing a 21.1% reduction in CT ordering (P?=?0.002). This reduction in CT ordering was maintained, in comparison to initial imaging orders, when presented with malpractice review information (p?=?0.002) and patient cost information (p?=?0.002). About 57% of clinicians changed their order during study, while 43% never modified their imaging order. CONCLUSION:This study suggests that ED clinician brain CT imaging decisions may be influenced by clinical decision support rules, patient out-of-pocket cost information and findings from malpractice case review. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03449862 , February 27, 2018, Retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundRadical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) is an isolation procedure in pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic body/tail cancer. Connective tissues around the bifurcation of the celiac axis are dissected, followed by median-to-left retroperitoneal dissection. This procedure has the potential to isolate blood and lymphatic flow to the area of the pancreatic body/tail and the spleen to be excised. This is achieved by division of the inflow artery, transection of the pancreas, and then division of the outflow vein in the early phases of surgery. In cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the procedure has been shown to decrease intraoperative blood loss and increase R0 resection rate by complete clearance of the lymph nodes. This trial investigates whether the isolation procedure can prolong the survival of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who undergo distal pancreatosplenectomy (DPS) compared with those that undergo the conventional approach.Methods/designPatients with PDAC scheduled to undergo DPS are randomized before surgery to undergo either a conventional procedure (arm A) or to undergo the isolation procedure (arm B). In arm A, the pancreatic body, tail, and spleen are mobilized, followed by removal of the regional lymph nodes. The splenic vein is transected at the end of the procedure. The timing of division of the splenic artery (SA) is not restricted. In arm B, regional lymph nodes are dissected, then we transect the root of the SA, the pancreas, then the splenic vein. At the end of the procedure, the pancreatic body/tail and spleen are mobilized and removed. In total, 100 patients from multiple Japanese high-volume centers will be randomized. The primary endpoint is 2-year recurrence-free survival by intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary endpoints include intraoperative blood loss, R0 resection rate, and overall survival.DiscussionIf this trial shows that the isolation procedures can improve survival with a similar R0 rate and with a similar number of lymph node dissections to the conventional procedure, the isolation procedure is expected to become a standard procedure during DPS for PDAC. Conversely, if there were no significant differences in endpoints between the groups, it would demonstrate justification of either procedure from surgical and oncological points of view.Trial registrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000041381 . Registered on 10 August 2020. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04600063 . Registered on 22 October 2020.

Project description:BackgroundRedundant use of diagnostic tests in primary care has shown to be a contributor to rising Dutch healthcare costs. A price display in the test ordering system of the electronic health records (EHRs) could potentially be a low-cost and easy to implement intervention to a decrease in test ordering rate in the primary care setting by creating more cost-awareness among general practitioners (GPs). The aim of this study was to assess the effect of a price display for diagnostic laboratory tests in the EHR on laboratory test ordering behavior of GPs in the Westelijke Mijnstreek region in the Netherlands.MethodsA pre-post intervention study among 154 GPs working in 57 general practices was conducted from September 2019, until March 2020, in the Netherlands. The intervention consisted of displaying the costs of 22 laboratory tests at the time of ordering. The primary outcome was the mean test ordering rate per 1.000 patients per month, per general practice.ResultsTest ordering rates were on average rising prior to the intervention. The total mean monthly test order volume showed a non-statistically significant interruption in this rising trend after the intervention, with the mean monthly test ordering rate levelling out from 322.4 to 322.2 (P = 0.86). A subgroup analysis for solely individually priced tests showed a statistically significant decrease in mean monthly test ordering rate after implementation of the price display for the sum of all tests from 67.2 to 63.3 (P = 0.01), as well as for some of these tests individually (i.e. thrombocytes, ALAT, TSH, folic acid). Leucocytes, ESR, vitamin B12, anti-CCP and NT-proBNP also showed a decrease, albeit not statistically significant (P > 0.05).ConclusionsOur study suggests that a price display intervention is a simple tool that can alter physicians order behavior and constrain the expanding use of laboratory tests. Future research might consider alternative study designs and a longer follow-up period. Furthermore, in future studies, the combination with a multitude of interventions, like educational programs and feedback strategies, should be studied, while potentially adverse events caused by reduced testing should also be taken into consideration.

Project description:IntroductionNicotine replacement medications are moderately effective in increasing quit rates. However, some smokers reject such aids, suggesting the value of considering alternative options. Snus, a smokeless tobacco product with low nitrosamine content, could offer an alternative. This study compared smoking cessation rates for snus, with and without information about reduced risk relative to smoking, with a nicotine lozenge (without relative risk information).MethodsA randomized, open-label, multicenter clinical trial was performed with 649 smokers, aged 21 to 65, who smoked at least 10 cigarettes per day for the past year and who were motivated to quit smoking. Participants were followed for up to 12 months and were provided no counseling or support. Smoking cessation was analyzed as continuous smoking abstinence (no smoking following quit date) and repeated point prevalence abstinence (no smoking within past 7 days).ResultsAbstinence rates did not differ significantly between snus and the nicotine lozenge-continuous abstinence did not differ at any time point, and point prevalence rates differed only at month 3, when the lozenge group showed higher abstinence rates (17.4%) than either of the two snus groups (snus alone: 8.7%; snus plus information: 10.1%). Large percentages of participants used the products during the treatment period. Providing relative risk information to snus users did not affect snus use. The amount of use did not predict subsequent outcome. Adverse events were reported at similar rates across the three groups.ConclusionsSmoking cessation rates were comparable between snus and a nicotine lozenge, but success rates in this trial were low.ImplicationsThis randomized trial of the nicotine lozenge, snus, or snus plus information on the relative risks of smokeless tobacco versus smoking found comparable but low smoking cessation rates for all three groups at weeks 12, 26, and 52. The one-time provision of relative risk information did not lead to greater snus use among those provided the information, suggesting no effect for this brief intervention.

Project description:Little is known about how primary care physicians (PCPs) in routine outpatient practice use paid price information (i.e., the amount that insurers finally pay providers) in daily clinical practice.To describe the experiences of PCPs who have had paid price information on tests and procedures for at least 1 year.Cross-sectional study using semi-structured interviews and the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.Forty-six PCPs within an accountable care organization.Via the ordering screen of their electronic health record, PCPs were presented with the median paid price for commonly ordered tests and procedures (e.g., blood tests, x-rays, CTs, MRIs).We asked PCPs for (a) their "gut reaction" to having paid price information, (b) the situations in which they used price information in clinical decision-making separate from or jointly with patients, (c) their thoughts on who bore the chief responsibility for discussing price information with patients, and (d) suggestions for improving physician-targeted price information interventions.Among "gut reactions" that ranged from positive to negative, all PCPs were more interested in having patient-specific price information than paid prices from the practice perspective. PCPs described that when patients' out-of-pocket spending concerns were revealed, price information helped them engage patients in conversations about how to alter treatment plans to make them more affordable. PCPs stated that having price information only slightly altered their test-ordering patterns and that they avoided mentioning prices when advising patients against unnecessary testing. Most PCPs asserted that physicians bear the chief responsibility for discussing prices with patients because of their clinical knowledge and relationships with patients. They wished for help from patients, practices, health plans, and society in order to support price transparency in healthcare.Physician-targeted price transparency efforts may provide PCPs with the information they need to respond to patients' concerns regarding out-of-pocket affordability rather than that needed to change test-ordering habits.

Dataset Information

A Randomized Trial of Displaying Paid Price Information on Imaging Study and Procedure Ordering Rates.

Publications

A Randomized Trial of Displaying Paid Price Information on Imaging Study and Procedure Ordering Rates.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure