Literature DB >> 6767983

Second opinions for elective surgery. The mandatory medicaid program in Massachusetts.

P M Gertman, D A Stackpole, D K Levenson, B M Manuel, R J Brennan, G M Janko.   

Abstract

In 1977, Massachusetts implemented a requirement that Medicaid recipients obtain a second surgical opinion before elective surgery. Using consultants' reports and surveys, we assessed the initial year's results in metropolitan Boston. Of 2060 Medicaid patients originally advised to undergo one of eight elective surgical procedures, 1591 (77.2 per cent) participated in the mandatory second-opinion consultation program, 10.5 per cent received approval for surgery without a second opinion because of clear indications such as cancer, and 12.3 per cent did not keep or accept appointments for a second opinion. Of the 1591 patients who participated, 88.7 per cent were given second opinions in favor of surgery, and 11.3 per cent were advised against surgery. Eight-two of the 180 patients advised not to have surgery sought a third opinion; the negative second opinion was reversed by the third consultant in 57 of these cases (69.5 per cent). Thus, surgery was rejected by a second or third consultant for only 7.7 per cent of the participating patients. We conclude that many negative second opinions are due to honest disagreement about indications for surgery. We also estimate that although the second-opinion program may produce only modest direct savings in Medicaid expenditures, it probably offers important improvements in the quality of health care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1980        PMID: 6767983     DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198005223022103

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  13 in total

Review 1.  Unnecessary surgery.

Authors:  L L Leape
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 2.  Judging whether a patient is actually improving: more pitfalls from the science of human perception.

Authors:  Donald A Redelmeier; Victoria M Dickinson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-05-17       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Do first opinions affect second opinions?

Authors:  Geva Vashitz; Joseph S Pliskin; Yisrael Parmet; Yona Kosashvili; Gal Ifergane; Shlomo Wientroub; Nadav Davidovitch
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Overtreatment in surgery: discussion paper.

Authors:  F G Fowkes
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 5.  Quality measurement and control in physician decision making: state of the art.

Authors:  O W Anderson; M C Shields
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Tonsillectomy in Maine: regulation versus education as modulators of medical care.

Authors:  F D Moore; L W Pratt
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1981-08       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Seeking a second medical opinion: composition, reasons and perceived outcomes in Israel.

Authors:  Liora Shmueli; Nadav Davidovitch; Joseph S Pliskin; Ran D Balicer; Igal Hekselman; Geva Greenfield
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2017-12-08

8.  Teaching status and resource use for patients with acute myocardial infarction: a new look at the indirect costs of graduate medical education.

Authors:  I S Udvarhelyi; T Rosborough; R P Lofgren; N Lurie; A M Epstein
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 9.308

9.  Values and risks of second opinion in Japan's universal health-care system.

Authors:  Sawako Okamoto; Kazuo Kawahara; Atsushi Okawa; Yujiro Tanaka
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Orthopedic surgeons' and neurologists' attitudes towards second opinions in the Israeli healthcare system: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Geva Greenfield; Joseph S Pliskin; Shlomo Wientroub; Nadav Davidovitch
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2012-07-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.