Deborah Korenstein1, Kevin Duan, Manuel J Diaz, Rosa Ahn, Salomeh Keyhani. 1. *Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY†Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco‡San Francisco VA Medical Center§Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Widespread restructuring of health delivery systems is underway in the United States to reduce costs and improve the quality of health care. OBJECTIVE: To describe studies evaluating the impact of system-level interventions (incentives and delivery structures) on the value of US health care, defined as the balance between quality and cost. RESEARCH DESIGN: We identified articles in PubMed (2003 to July 2014) using keywords identified through an iterative process, with reference and author tracking. We searched tables of contents of relevant journals from August 2014 through 11 August 2015 to update our sample. SUBJECTS: We included prospective or retrospective studies of system-level changes, with a control, reporting both quality and either cost or utilization of resources. MEASURES: Data about study design, study quality, and outcomes was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. RESULTS: Thirty reports of 28 interventions were included. Interventions included patient-centered medical home implementations (n=12), pay-for-performance programs (n=10), and mixed interventions (n=6); no other intervention types were identified. Most reports (n=19) described both cost and utilization outcomes. Quality, cost, and utilization outcomes varied widely; many improvements were small and process outcomes predominated. Improved value (improved quality with stable or lower cost/utilization or stable quality with lower cost/utilization) was seen in 23 reports; 1 showed decreased value, and 6 showed unchanged, unclear, or mixed results.Study limitations included variability among specific endpoints reported, inconsistent methodologies, and lack of full adjustment in some observational trials. Lack of standardized MeSH terms was also a challenge in the search. CONCLUSIONS: On balance, the literature suggests that health system reforms can improve value. However, this finding is tempered by the varying outcomes evaluated across studies with little documented improvement in outcome quality measures. Standardized measures of value would facilitate assessment of the impact of interventions across studies and better estimates of the broad impact of system change.
BACKGROUND: Widespread restructuring of health delivery systems is underway in the United States to reduce costs and improve the quality of health care. OBJECTIVE: To describe studies evaluating the impact of system-level interventions (incentives and delivery structures) on the value of US health care, defined as the balance between quality and cost. RESEARCH DESIGN: We identified articles in PubMed (2003 to July 2014) using keywords identified through an iterative process, with reference and author tracking. We searched tables of contents of relevant journals from August 2014 through 11 August 2015 to update our sample. SUBJECTS: We included prospective or retrospective studies of system-level changes, with a control, reporting both quality and either cost or utilization of resources. MEASURES: Data about study design, study quality, and outcomes was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. RESULTS: Thirty reports of 28 interventions were included. Interventions included patient-centered medical home implementations (n=12), pay-for-performance programs (n=10), and mixed interventions (n=6); no other intervention types were identified. Most reports (n=19) described both cost and utilization outcomes. Quality, cost, and utilization outcomes varied widely; many improvements were small and process outcomes predominated. Improved value (improved quality with stable or lower cost/utilization or stable quality with lower cost/utilization) was seen in 23 reports; 1 showed decreased value, and 6 showed unchanged, unclear, or mixed results.Study limitations included variability among specific endpoints reported, inconsistent methodologies, and lack of full adjustment in some observational trials. Lack of standardized MeSH terms was also a challenge in the search. CONCLUSIONS: On balance, the literature suggests that health system reforms can improve value. However, this finding is tempered by the varying outcomes evaluated across studies with little documented improvement in outcome quality measures. Standardized measures of value would facilitate assessment of the impact of interventions across studies and better estimates of the broad impact of system change.
Authors: Peter J Fagan; Alyson B Schuster; Cynthia Boyd; Jill A Marsteller; Michael Griswold; Shannon M E Murphy; Linda Dunbar; Christopher B Forrest Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: I Michael Leitman; Ruth Levin; Michael J Lipp; Latha Sivaprasad; Christine J Karalakulasingam; David S Bernard; Patricia Friedmann; David J Shulkin Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2010-08-17 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Seth W Glickman; William Boulding; Jason M T Roos; Richard Staelin; Eric D Peterson; Kevin A Schulman Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Robert J Reid; Katie Coleman; Eric A Johnson; Paul A Fishman; Clarissa Hsu; Michael P Soman; Claire E Trescott; Michael Erikson; Eric B Larson Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Richard J Gilfillan; Janet Tomcavage; Meredith B Rosenthal; Duane E Davis; Jove Graham; Jason A Roy; Steven B Pierdon; Frederick J Bloom; Thomas R Graf; Roy Goldman; Karena M Weikel; Bruce H Hamory; Ronald A Paulus; Glen D Steele Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Judy Y Chen; Haijun Tian; Deborah Taira Juarez; Krista A Hodges; Jennifer C Brand; Richard S Chung; Antonio P Legorreta Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2010-01-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18
Authors: Samantha A Barry; Lena Teplitsky; David V Wagner; Amit Shah; Brian T Rogers; Michael A Harris Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 4.810
Authors: Tianyu Liu; David A Asch; Kevin G Volpp; Jingsan Zhu; Wenli Wang; Andrea B Troxel; Aderinola Adejare; Darra D Finnerty; Karen Hoffer; Judy A Shea Journal: Healthc (Amst) Date: 2016-12-05