Kira L Ryskina1, Scott D Halpern2, Nancy S Minyanou3, Susan D Goold4, Jon C Tilburt5. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Electronic address: ryskina@mail.med.upenn.edu. 2. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, and Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 3. School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 4. Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 5. Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine a potential relationship between training environment and physician views about cost consciousness. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of US physicians who responded to the Physicians, Health Care Costs, and Society survey conducted between May 30, 2012, and September 30, 2012, for whom information was available about the care intensity environment of their residency training hospital. The exposure of interest was a measure of the health care utilization environment during residency from the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care Hospital Care Intensity (HCI) index of primary training hospitals. The main outcome measure was agreement with an 11-point cost-consciousness scale. The generalized estimating equations method was used to measure the association between exposure and outcome. RESULTS: Of the 2556 physicians who responded to the survey, 2424 had a valid HCI index (95%), representing 649 residency programs. The mean ± SD cost-consciousness score among physicians trained at hospitals in the lowest quartile of care intensity (31.8±5.0) was higher than that for physicians trained at hospitals in the top quartile of care intensity (30.7±5.1; P<.001). Adjusting for other physician and practice characteristics, a population of physicians trained in hospitals with a 1.0-point higher HCI index would score approximately 0.83 points lower on the cost-consciousness scale (beta coefficient = -0.83; 95% CI, -1.60 to -0.05; P=.04). CONCLUSION: The intensity of the health care utilization environment during training may play a role in shaping physician cost consciousness later in their careers.
OBJECTIVE: To examine a potential relationship between training environment and physician views about cost consciousness. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of US physicians who responded to the Physicians, Health Care Costs, and Society survey conducted between May 30, 2012, and September 30, 2012, for whom information was available about the care intensity environment of their residency training hospital. The exposure of interest was a measure of the health care utilization environment during residency from the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care Hospital Care Intensity (HCI) index of primary training hospitals. The main outcome measure was agreement with an 11-point cost-consciousness scale. The generalized estimating equations method was used to measure the association between exposure and outcome. RESULTS: Of the 2556 physicians who responded to the survey, 2424 had a valid HCI index (95%), representing 649 residency programs. The mean ± SD cost-consciousness score among physicians trained at hospitals in the lowest quartile of care intensity (31.8±5.0) was higher than that for physicians trained at hospitals in the top quartile of care intensity (30.7±5.1; P<.001). Adjusting for other physician and practice characteristics, a population of physicians trained in hospitals with a 1.0-point higher HCI index would score approximately 0.83 points lower on the cost-consciousness scale (beta coefficient = -0.83; 95% CI, -1.60 to -0.05; P=.04). CONCLUSION: The intensity of the health care utilization environment during training may play a role in shaping physician cost consciousness later in their careers.
Authors: Jon C Tilburt; Matthew K Wynia; Robert D Sheeler; Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir; Katherine M James; Jason S Egginton; Mark Liebow; Samia Hurst; Marion Danis; Susan Dorr Goold Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ateev Mehrotra; Rachel O Reid; John L Adams; Mark W Friedberg; Elizabeth A McGlynn; Peter S Hussey Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Andrea N Leep Hunderfund; Stephanie R Starr; Liselotte N Dyrbye; Elizabeth G Baxley; Jed D Gonzalo; Bonnie M Miller; Paul George; Helen K Morgan; Bradley L Allen; Ari Hoffman; Tonya L Fancher; Jay Mandrekar; Darcy A Reed Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Liselotte N Dyrbye; Colin P West; Andrea Leep Hunderfund; Christine A Sinsky; Mickey Trockel; Michael Tutty; Lindsey Carlasare; Daniel Satele; Tait Shanafelt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-11-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: D Wei; C Osman; D Dukhovny; J Romley; M Hall; S Chin; T Ho; P S Friedlich; A Lakshmanan Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: Kira L Ryskina; Cynthia D Smith; Vineet M Arora; Aimee K Zaas; Andrew J Halvorsen; Arlene Weissman; Sandhya Wahi-Gururaj Journal: Acad Med Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Andrea N Leep Hunderfund; Liselotte N Dyrbye; Stephanie R Starr; Jay Mandrekar; Jon C Tilburt; Paul George; Elizabeth G Baxley; Jed D Gonzalo; Christopher Moriates; Susan D Goold; Patricia A Carney; Bonnie M Miller; Sara J Grethlein; Tonya L Fancher; Matthew K Wynia; Darcy A Reed Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Ken Resnicow; Minal R Patel; M Chandler Mcleod; Steven J Katz; Reshma Jagsi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 4.624