Showing posts with label Health Affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Affairs. Show all posts

Electronic Medical Records Don’t Lower Imaging Utilization


Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is 18%


Researchers from Cambridge Health Alliance reported yesterday in Health Affairs that physicians who had electronic access to the results of imaging tests were 30-70% more likely to order such tests as physicians who did not have access to electronic reports on the results of the imaging studies.    18% of visits to physicians with electronic access to results were associated with an imaging test, compared to 12.9% of visits to physicians without such access.  Note that it wasn’t the presence of an EMR or electronic ordering alone – it was presence of electronic access to the results. They studied a nationally representative database of physician office visits. 

By the way - more than one visit in 8 resulted in an imaging test without EMRs. This suggests rampant overutilization.  

The researchers did an exhaustive number of regression analyses – trying to see if characteristics of patients or physicians were more likely to be the cause.  Could it have been self referral? Or possibly physician specialty?  They came up dry – the overwhelming association was that access to electronic results yielded more testing. 

Many advocates of electronic medical records have overstated their likely cost savings, including duplicative tests.   Duplicated tests often have small marginal costs anyway –and this study suggests that if anything effective EMRs might be associated with more, rather than less imaging.

EMRs are adding value by preventing errors, facilitating coordination, helping encourage physicians to follow evidence-based guidelines, and  by allowing better benchmarking and reporting to physicians about their performance.  They’ll probably eventually save dollars by facilitating reporting on variation, and encouraging more evidence-based care.  There are many benefits to EMRs, even if we can’t claim that they will save billions of dollars through decreased imaging utilization.

The Continuing Saga of “It’s the Prices”


Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is 3.8%


I’m still making my way through the September Health Affairs, and Roehrig and Rousseau have used National Health Expenditure data to demonstrate what portion of the increase in the cost of health care is due to increasing prevalence of disease, and what portion is due to increased prices.

You can tell from the graphic and the title – prices trump again.   Over the 260 conditions the authors reviewed, the overall cost increase in the decade from 1996-2006 was 3.8%.  Roughly three quarters of this difference was due to increasing costs, and only a quarter was due to increased prevalence.  Shockingly, as our population becomes more obese and we worry about our sedentary kids, the increased prevalence of disease wasn’t even more disease – it was rather a higher penetration of treatment of existing disease.  For instance, while there was more hypertension, hyperlipidemia and diabetes – but this was offset by lower prevalence of cigarette-related lung disease and strokes.

Not all unit cost increases are bad.  New drugs that make various cancers and HIV into treatable chronic diseases represent important advances that we want and need. (Of course, over time these will also raise true clinical prevalence of disease. See, for instance, the increase in prevalence of Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia). However, our payment system rewards increased use of technology and increased use of new procedures, and we preferentially disseminate innovation that continues to ratchet up the cost of care.  

This article provides further evidence that we won’t be able to solve our health care cost crisis by focusing all of our attention on improving American lifestyles.  We’ll also have to address our high and rising unit costs.

Below are graphics for the decomposition of increase in costs for a few other conditions:

Note that the large decrease in prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease still couldn't overcome the increased cost per case - so overall per capital spending growth was still positive.