Literature DB >> 12585825

The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 1: the content, quality, and accessibility of care.

Elliott S Fisher1, David E Wennberg, Thérèse A Stukel, Daniel J Gottlieb, F L Lucas, Etoile L Pinder.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The health implications of regional differences in Medicare spending are unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether regions with higher Medicare spending provide better care.
DESIGN: Cohort study.
SETTING: National study of Medicare beneficiaries. PATIENTS: Patients hospitalized between 1993 and 1995 for hip fracture (n = 614,503), colorectal cancer (n = 195,429), or acute myocardial infarction (n = 159,393) and a representative sample (n = 18,190) drawn from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (1992-1995). EXPOSURE MEASUREMENT: End-of-life spending reflects the component of regional variation in Medicare spending that is unrelated to regional differences in illness. Each cohort member's exposure to different levels of spending was therefore defined by the level of end-of-life spending in his or her hospital referral region of residence (n = 306). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Content of care (for example, frequency and type of services received), quality of care (for example, use of aspirin after acute myocardial infarction, influenza immunization), and access to care (for example, having a usual source of care).
RESULTS: Average baseline health status of cohort members was similar across regions of differing spending levels, but patients in higher-spending regions received approximately 60% more care. The increased utilization was explained by more frequent physician visits, especially in the inpatient setting (rate ratios in the highest vs. the lowest quintile of hospital referral regions were 2.13 [95% CI, 2.12 to 2.14] for inpatient visits and 2.36 [CI, 2.33 to 2.39] for new inpatient consultations), more frequent tests and minor (but not major) procedures, and increased use of specialists and hospitals (rate ratio in the highest vs. the lowest quintile was 1.52 [CI, 1.50 to 1.54] for inpatient days and 1.55 [CI, 1.50 to 1.60] for intensive care unit days). Quality of care in higher-spending regions was no better on most measures and was worse for several preventive care measures. Access to care in higher-spending regions was also no better or worse.
CONCLUSIONS: Regional differences in Medicare spending are largely explained by the more inpatient-based and specialist-oriented pattern of practice observed in high-spending regions. Neither quality of care nor access to care appear to be better for Medicare enrollees in higher-spending regions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12585825     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-4-200302180-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  465 in total

1.  Prospective Identification of Patients at Risk for Unwarranted Variation in Treatment.

Authors:  Amy S Kelley; Evan Bollens-Lund; Kenneth E Covinsky; Jonathan S Skinner; R Sean Morrison
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 2.947

2.  Learned helplessness among families and surrogate decision-makers of patients admitted to medical, surgical, and trauma ICUs.

Authors:  Donald R Sullivan; Xinggang Liu; Douglas S Corwin; Avelino C Verceles; Michael T McCurdy; Drew A Pate; Jennifer M Davis; Giora Netzer
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 9.410

3.  Variation in the use of lower extremity vascular procedures for critical limb ischemia.

Authors:  Philip P Goodney; Lori L Travis; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Kerianne Holman; Bjoern Suckow; Peter K Henke; F Lee Lucas; David C Goodman; John D Birkmeyer; Elliott S Fisher
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2011-12-06

4.  Cost effectiveness of evidence-based treatment guidelines for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer in the community setting.

Authors:  Marcus A Neubauer; J Russell Hoverman; Michael Kolodziej; Lonny Reisman; Stephen K Gruschkus; Susan Hoang; Albert A Alva; Marilyn McArthur; Michael Forsyth; Todd Rothermel; Roy A Beveridge
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2009-12-30       Impact factor: 3.840

Review 5.  What works and what doesn't work well in the US healthcare system.

Authors:  Harold S Luft
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Initial treatment of men with newly diagnosed lower urinary tract dysfunction in the Veterans Health Administration.

Authors:  Bradley A Erickson; Xin Lu; Mary Vaughan-Sarrazin; Karl J Kreder; Benjamin N Breyer; Peter Cram
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2013-11-25       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Variation in use of echocardiography among veterans who use the Veterans Health Administration vs Medicare.

Authors:  Vinay Kini; Fenton H McCarthy; Sheeva Rajaei; Andrew J Epstein; Paul A Heidenreich; Peter W Groeneveld
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2015-07-26       Impact factor: 4.749

8.  Global Budgets and Technology-Intensive Medical Services.

Authors:  Zirui Song; A Mark Fendrick; Dana Gelb Safran; Bruce Landon; Michael E Chernew
Journal:  Healthc (Amst)       Date:  2013-06

9.  What is the use of imaging before referral to an orthopaedic oncologist? A prospective, multicenter investigation.

Authors:  Benjamin J Miller; Raffi S Avedian; Rajiv Rajani; Lee Leddy; Jeremy R White; Judd Cummings; Tessa Balach; Kevin MacDonald
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Disease severity and radioactive iodine use for thyroid cancer.

Authors:  M R Haymart; D G Muenz; A K Stewart; J J Griggs; M Banerjee
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 5.958

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.