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.

Objectives

To determine the relationship between manufacturer-related financial ties among investigators of published drug trials and rates of discrepant registered and published primary trial outcomes.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Setting

Human subjects drug trials published in 'core clinical' MEDLINE journals in 2013.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

The primary study endpoint was the presence of a prospectively registered, clearly defined primary outcome that matched the published primary outcome for each included trial. Secondary outcomes included assessments of registration timing and quality, and the impact of outcome discrepancies between registration and publication on the statistical significance of the included trials.

Results

Of 192 included trials, 134 (70%) were positive and 58 (30%) were negative. Financial ties were present between first or last authors and drug manufacturers for 130 trials (68%), of which 78% were positive, versus 53% of trials with no financial ties that were positive. Clearly defined, prospectively registered outcomes that matched the published outcomes were present in just 76 of the 192 trials (40%). After adjusting for study start date and sample size, the observed relationship between investigator financial ties and the presence of a match between prospectively registered and published primary outcomes was of borderline statistical significance (OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.998 to 4.50). Studies with financial ties present were more likely than studies without ties to have been prospectively registered (78%vs48%, P<0.001) and were more likely to have prospectively registered a clearly defined primary outcome(62%vs35%, P<0.001).

Conclusions

Less than half of the trials in this cohort were prospectively registered with a clear primary outcome that was consistent with the primary outcome reported in the published manuscript. The presence of investigator financial ties was associated with higher quality registration practices, though this association diminished after adjusting for factors that impact registration quality.

Importance

National guidelines do not agree on the role of carotid screening in asymptomatic patients (ie, patients who have not had a stroke or transient ischemic attack). Recently, several physician organizations participating in the Choosing Wisely campaign have identified carotid imaging in selected asymptomatic populations as being of low value. However, the majority of patients who are evaluated for carotid stenosis and subsequently revascularized are asymptomatic.

Objective

To better understand why asymptomatic patients who undergo revascularization receive initial carotid imaging.

Design, setting, and participants

Retrospective cohort study of 4127 Veterans Health Administration patients 65 years and older undergoing carotid revascularization for asymptomatic carotid stenosis between 2005 and 2009.

Main outcomes and measures

Indications for carotid ultrasounds were extracted using trained abstractors. Frequency of indications and appropriateness of initial carotid ultrasound imaging for patients within each rating category after the intervention were reported.

Results

The mean (SD) age of this cohort of 4127 patients was 73.6 (5.9) years; 4014 (98.8%) were male. Overall, there were 5226 indications for 4063 carotid ultrasounds. The most common indications listed were carotid bruit (1578 [30.2% of indications]) and follow-up for carotid disease (stenosis/history of carotid disease) in patients who had previously documented carotid stenosis (1087 [20.8% of indications]). Multiple vascular risk factors were the next most common indication listed. Rates of appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate imaging were 5.4% (227 indications), 83.4% (3387 indications), and 11.3% (458 indications), respectively. Among the most common inappropriate indications were dizziness/vertigo and syncope. Among the 4063 patients, 3373 (83.0%) received a carotid endarterectomy. Overall, 663 procedures were performed in patients 80 years and older.

Conclusions and relevance

Carotid bruit and follow-up for carotid disease accounted for approximately half of all indications provided by physicians for carotid testing. Strong consideration should be given to improving the evidence base around carotid testing, especially around monitoring stenosis over long periods and evaluating carotid bruits. Targeting carotid ultrasound ordering with decision support tools may also be an important step in reducing use of low-value imaging.