1 / 27

High Value Cost-Conscious Care

High Value Cost-Conscious Care. Apostolos P. Dallas, M.D. March 2, 2013. Disclosures. None relevant to this talk. Objectives. Review some data about inefficient health care Generate ideas/opinions on screening and diagnostic tests

boman
Download Presentation

High Value Cost-Conscious Care

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. High Value Cost-Conscious Care Apostolos P. Dallas, M.D. March 2, 2013

  2. Disclosures None relevant to this talk

  3. Objectives • Review some data about inefficient health care • Generate ideas/opinions on screening and diagnostic tests • Review imaging in low back pain and EGD in GERD • Be conversant about HVCCC initiative • Worry better

  4. Problem with health care costs? • 20% of Gross Domestic Product • US health care is 5th largest country in the world • $2.5 trillion, $765 billion potentially avoidable • $395 physician controlled • $130 billion inefficient care • $55 billion missed prevention opportunities

  5. History of HVCCC • Physician Charter on Professionalism- ABIM/ ACP/EFIM- 2002 • National Physicians Alliance-Promoting Good Stewardship In Medicine • Choosing Wisely-ABIM “He chose poorly”

  6. ACP Top Five In Choosing Wisely • No screening exercise stress test in asx, low risk pts • No imaging studies in non-specific low back pain • Syncope and a normal neuro exam, no CT or MRI • Low pretest probability of venous thrombo-embolism, highly-sensitive D-dimer, not imaging, as initial diagnostic test • No preoperative CXR without clinical suspicion for intrathoracic pathology

  7. History of HVCCC • 2010 ACP initiative • Clinical Guidelines Committee • Charged with developing series of articles to inform discussion

  8. History of HVCCC • No discord over concept of “choosing wisely” • “Rationing” is a dirty word-political; cost/care together negative • Defining terms is key • Educating/updating physicians • Educating/testing trainees • Educating public • Affecting public policy • Just saying HVCCC is difficult

  9. ACP Position Regarding Resource Allocation Decisions 1 Resources devoted to developing needed data on cost-effectiveness of medical interventions 2 Transparent, publicly acceptable process for resource allocation decision 3 Public, patients, physicians, insurers, payers, and other stakeholders’ input 4 Multiple criteria: Patient need, preferences, and values, benefits, safety, societal priorities, fiscal responsibility, QALY 5 Allocation decisions mesh with societal values and reflect moral, ethical, cultural, and professional standards

  10. ACP Position Regarding Resource Allocation Decisions 6 Allocation decisions should not discriminate 7 Allocation process flexible enough to address variations in regional, population-based needs 8 Informed decisions and shared decision-making 9 Medical liability reforms 10 Periodically reviewed to reflect evolving medical, societal values and changes in evidence, and assess for any cost shifting or other unwanted effects

  11. HVCCC • Value=Benefit/Cost • Health benefit: conditions diagnosed/prevented, life-years, QALY • QALY: length and assessed quality of life • Cost-effectiveness ratio=dollars/health outcome

  12. QALY • How much is life/quality of life worth? • HIV screening $15,000/QALY • $50,000/QALY threshold, 1982 • Today $120,000/QALY • People willing to pay $109, 000 (Braithwaite 2008) • UK: 30-50k • WHO: < 3x per capita gross domestic product per disability adjusted life-year gained • US- no consensus

  13. Low Back Pain • $90 billion • Similar or worse mental health, physical functioning, work/school/social limitations 1997 v 2005 • Appropriateness of imaging for LBP • Systematic review (Chou, 2009) • Advice for HVCCC (Chou, CGC 2011)

  14. Low Back Pain-Recommenations • Focused history and PE: nonspecific, pain potentially with radiculopathy/stenosis, or pain with other spinal cause. Assess psychosocial risk • No routine imaging/diagnostic tests • Testing if severe or progressive neuro deficits • Imaging with radiculopathy/stenosis if candidate for surg or epidural • Provide evidence-based info to pts • Use meds with proven benefits • Use spinal manipulation, rehab, exercise, cognitive-behavioral therapy

  15. Low Back Pain-Diagnostic ImagingPatient Discussion • Risk Factor Assessment-CA, infection, cauda equina, severe/progressive neuro deficits • Low underlying disease prevalence with no risks • Natural history favorable • Routine imaging does not improve outcomes • Imaging abls common, poorly correlated • Treatment plans usually don’t change • Radiation exposure

  16. Upper Endoscopy for GERD • 40% of adults with GERD sxs • 20% on weekly basis • Of top 10 meds, 2 are acid suppressive meds • Of GERD pts, 10% have Barrett esophagus • Increased risk of esoph adenocarcinoma (5 year survival <20%) • Men, obese have higher risk of Barrett • 80% of EAC in men= to man with breast CA

  17. Upper Endoscopy for GERD • 13% of Blue Cross pts in PA had EGD • American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy • American College of Gastroenterology • American Gastroenterological Association • Guidelines • Up to 40% not indicated • Alarms: dysphagia, bleeding, anemia, weight loss, recurrent vomiting

  18. Upper Endoscopy for GERD • Errors: gastro but primary care is source • Serial endoscopies in GERD with no Barrett • Exams at too short intervals • Early EGD in pts low risk and no alarm sxs • Why not following advice of organizations? • Primary predictor of EGD in low-yield situations was previous defendant in malpractice case (Rubenstein, AM J Gastr 2008)

  19. Upper Endoscopy for GERDBest Practice Advice 1. Men and women with alarm sxs and heartburn 2. Men and women with sxs and up to 8 week trial of twice daily PPI After two month course of PPI for severe erosive esophagitis. In absence of Barrett, no follow-up endoscopy EGD for history of stricture with recurrent sxs 3. May be indicated: Men >50 with chronic GERD(>5 yrs) with additional risk factors (nocturnal sxs, HH, obesity, tob, abd fat) For Barrett with no dysplasia, 3-5 years For Barrett with dysplasia, more frequent depending on grade

  20. Ideas and Opinions • ACP ad hoc group • Identify overused screening and diagnostic tests • Not rigorous enough for guideline • 37 situations

  21. Appropriate Use of Screening and Diagnostic Tests • Caths in SIHD • Echo in benign sounding murmurs • Imaging stress as first test in pts who can exercise and have no confounding ekg • Annual lipid screening • BNP in pts with clear CHF (follow-up BNP) • Paps after age 65 and in total hysterectomy • Routine preop labs, coags

  22. Appropriate Use of Screening and Diagnostic Tests • Screening for COPD with PFTs without resp sxs • ANA with nonspecific sxs • Follow-up imaging studies for < 4 mm pulm nodules with low risk • Serologic testing for Lyme disease with nonspecific sxs and no evidence of disease • PSA >75 or with <10 yr life expectancy

  23. Future of HVCAn Expected Journey • High ,Value and Care-all good words • Educating/updating physician-guidelines, HVC papers, guidance statements • Educating/testing trainees-ITE, MKSAP, boards and MOC • Educating public-outreach • Affecting public policy-statements in guidelines

  24. High Value Care Questions

More Related