A simple institutional educational intervention to decrease use of selected expensive medications

Digital Health: Unlocking Value in a Post-Pandemic World

The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed health care, spurring a revolution in digital health technologies. Across the world, hundreds of thousands of health care systems are considering a central question: how do we connect with our patients? Digital health has been used as a stopgap in many cases to continue the essential functions of health systems. As the post-pandemic world and our "new normal" come into focus, further needs will have to be met with a digital patient interaction, with an eye toward value transformation. One barrier to fully leveraging digital tools is the lack of a framework for classifying the type of digital health care. This can limit our ability to design, deploy, evaluate, and communicate through digital means. This article presents 3 categories of digital health and their relationships to value metrics: (1) telehealth or direct care delivery, (2) digital access tools, and (3) digital monitoring. An evidence-based discussion reveals past successes, current promises, and future challenges in reducing defects in value through digital care. In the coming years, value transformation will become more crucial to the success of health care systems. By using the taxonomy in this article, health systems can better implement digital tools with a value-driven purpose. Defining the role of digital health in the post-pandemic world is needed to assist health systems and practices to build a bridge to value-based care.

Taking the Leap Toward Cost-Conscious Education in Obstetrics and Gynaecology: A Preliminary Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Residents have a professional obligation with respect to the stewardship of health care resources, yet there is a paucity of research on how to improve residents' cost-awareness. Rising health care expenditures highlight a critical need to improve education related to this competency. This study aimed to test if an educational module can teach residents to make cost-conscious decisions and reduce health care spending.

METHODS

All Canadian obstetrics and gynaecology residents in 2017 were eligible to participate in this randomized controlled trial. The study was administered online via REDCap. Interested residents were enrolled, stratified by level of training, and block randomized. Residents completed a survey to determine their management of 4 obstetrical scenarios. The intervention group reviewed an educational module on cost-effective ordering prior to completing the survey; the control group was given the option to review the module afterward. The primary outcome was mean total expenditures, compared between the 2 groups using the t test.

RESULTS

Eighty-five residents were enrolled between August and November 2017, and 63 residents from 13 Canadian residency programs completed the study requirements (33 control and 30 intervention). Mean total expenditure was CAD$291.03 (95% CI 259.38-322.68) versus CAD$192.98 (95% CI 170.67-215.29) for the control and intervention groups, respectively. These figures corresponded to a 33.69% or CAD$98.05 reduction in total expenditures (P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This educational module decreased expenditures by Canadian obstetrics and gynaecology residents managing hypothetical obstetrical cases. This introduces a potential curriculum innovation to improve resident education in judicious use of health care resources.

A systematic review of educational interventions to change behaviour of prescribers in hospital settings, with a particular emphasis on new prescribers

AIMS

Prescribing is a complex task and a high risk area of clinical practice. Poor prescribing occurs across staff grades and settings but new prescribers are attributed much of the blame. New prescribers may not be confident or even competent to prescribe and probably have different support and development needs than their more experienced colleagues. Unfortunately, little is known about what interventions are effective in this group. Previous systematic reviews have not distinguished between different grades of staff, have been narrow in scope and are now out of date. Therefore, to inform the design of educational interventions to change prescribing behaviour, particularly that of new prescibers, we conducted a systematic review of existing hospital-based interventions.

METHODS

Embase, Medline, SIGLE, Cinahl and PsychINFO were searched for relevant studies published 1994-2010. Studies describing interventions to change the behaviour of prescribers in hospital settings were included, with an emphasis on new prescibers. The bibliographies of included papers were also searched for relevant studies. Interventions and effectiveness were classified using existing frameworks and the quality of studies was assessed using a validated instrument.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies were included in the review. Only 13% of interventions specifically targeted new prescribers. Most interventions (72%) were deemed effective in changing behaviour but no particular type stood out as most effective.

CONCLUSION

Very few studies have tailored educational interventions to meet needs of new prescribers, or distinguished between new and experienced prescribers. Educational development and research will be required to improve this important aspect of early clinical practice.

An educational intervention to improve cost-effective care among medicine housestaff: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

High medical costs create significant burdens. Research indicates that doctors have little awareness of costs. This study tested whether a brief educational intervention could increase residents' awareness of cost-effectiveness and reduce costs without negatively affecting patient outcomes.

METHOD

The authors conducted a clustered randomized controlled trial of 33 teams (96 residents) at an internal medicine residency program (2009-2010). The intervention was a 45-minute teaching session; residents reviewed the hospital bill of a patient for whom they had cared and discussed reducing unnecessary costs. Primary outcomes were laboratory, pharmacy, radiology, and total hospital costs per admission. Secondary measures were length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 30-day readmission, and 30-day mortality. Multivariate adjustment controlled for patient demographics and health. A follow-up survey assessed resident attitudes three months later.

RESULTS

Among 1,194 patients, there were no significant cost differences between intervention and control groups. In the intervention group, 30-day readmission was higher (adjusted odds ratio 1.51, P = .010). There was no effect on LOS or the composite outcome of readmission, mortality, and ICU transfer. In a subgroup analysis of 835 patients newly admitted during the study, the intervention group incurred $163 lower adjusted lab costs per admission (P = .046). The follow-up survey indicated persistent differences in residents' exposure to concepts of cost-effectiveness (P = .041).

CONCLUSIONS

A brief intervention featuring a discussion of hospital bills can fill a gap in resident education and reduce laboratory costs for a subset of patients, but may increase readmission risk.

Do clinical guidelines reduce clinician dependent costs?

Clinician dependent costs are the costs of care that are under the discretion of the healthcare provider. These costs include the costs of drugs, tests and investigations, and discretionary outpatient visits and impatient stays. The purpose of this review was to summarize recent evidence, relevant to both developed and developing countries on whether evidence based clinical guidelines can change hospitals variable costs which are clinician dependent, and the degree of financial savings achieved at hospital level. Potential studies for inclusion were identified using structured searches of Econlit, J-Stor, and Pubmed databases. Two reviewers independently evaluated retrieved studies for inclusion. The methodological quality of the selected articles was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence- Based Medicine (CEBM) levels of evidence. The results suggest that 10 of the 11 interventions were successful reducing financial costs. Most of the interventions, either in modeling studies or real interventions generate significant financial saving, although the former reported higher savings because the studies assumed 100 percent compliance.

A review of cost-effectiveness, cost-containment and economics curricula in graduate medical education

OBJECTIVE

Numerous studies performed over the last 30 years suggest that doctors have poor knowledge of the costs of medical care. In most graduate medical education programmes, trainees do not receive formal training in cost-effective medical practice.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature search of electronic bibliographic databases for articles that describe health economics, cost-containment and cost-effectiveness curricula in graduate medical education. Critical appraisal of the literature and qualitative description is presented. Heterogeneity of curricula precluded quantitative summary of data.

RESULTS

We identified 40 articles that met the inclusion criteria for this review. Internal medicine residents were the targeted learners in 27 studies (68%); Family Medicine and Surgery residents were each targeted in five studies (13%); Rehabilitation, Paediatrics and Emergency Medicine residents were each targeted in one study. In general, the methodological quality of the included studies was poor to moderate and mostly targeted knowledge of health economics or cost-containment as opposed to targeting cost-effectiveness. In terms of describing the standard curricular components, studies sufficiently described the different educational strategies (e.g. didactics, interactive, experiential, self-directed) and the component of learner assessment, but lacked the description of other elements such as needs assessment and curriculum evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Cost-effectiveness curricula in graduate medical education are lacking and clearly needed.

Do randomized controlled trials discuss healthcare costs?

Background

Healthcare costs, particularly pharmaceutical costs, are a dominant issue for most healthcare organizations, but it is unclear if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) routinely discuss costs. Our objective was to assess the frequency and factors associated with the inclusion of costs in RCTs.

Methods and Findings

We randomly sampled 188 RCTs spanning three years (2003-2005) from six high impact journals. The sample size for RCTs was based on a calculation to estimate the inclusion of actual drug costs with a precision of +/−3%. Two reviewers independently extracted cost data and study characteristics. Frequencies were calculated and potential characteristics associated with the inclusion of costs were explored. Actual drug costs were included in 4.7% (9/188) of RCTs; any actual costs were included in 7.4% (14/188) of RCTs; and any mention of costs was included in 27.7% (52/188) of RCTs. As the amount of industry funding increased across RCTs, from non-profit to mixed to fully industry funded RCTs, there was a statistically significant reduction in the number of RCTs with any actual costs (Cochran-Armitage test, p = 0.005) and any mention of costs (Cochran-Armitage test, p = 0.02). Logistic regression analysis also indicated funding was associated with the inclusion of any actual cost (OR = 0.34, p = 0.009) or any mention of costs (OR = 0.63, p = 0.02). Journal, study conclusions, study location, primary author's country and product age were not associated with inclusion of cost information.

Conclusion

While physicians are encouraged to consider costs when prescribing drugs for their patients, actual drug costs were provided in only 5% of RCTs and were not mentioned at all in 72% of RCTs. Industry funded trials were less likely to include cost information. No other factors were associated with the inclusion of cost information.

Physician awareness of drug cost: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceutical costs are the fastest-growing health-care expense in most developed countries. Higher drug costs have been shown to negatively impact patient outcomes. Studies suggest that doctors have a poor understanding of pharmaceutical costs, but the data are variable and there is no consistent pattern in awareness. We designed this systematic review to investigate doctors' knowledge of the relative and absolute costs of medications and to determine the factors that influence awareness.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Our search strategy included The Cochrane Library, EconoLit, EMBASE, and MEDLINE as well as reference lists and contact with authors who had published two or more articles on the topic or who had published within 10 y of the commencement of our review. Studies were included if: either doctors, trainees (interns or residents), or medical students were surveyed; there were more than ten survey respondents; cost of pharmaceuticals was estimated; results were expressed quantitatively; there was a clear description of how authors defined "accurate estimates"; and there was a description of how the true cost was determined. Two authors reviewed each article for eligibility and extracted data independently. Cost accuracy outcomes were summarized, but data were not combined in meta-analysis because of extensive heterogeneity. Qualitative data related to physicians and drug costs were also extracted. The final analysis included 24 articles. Cost accuracy was low; 31% of estimates were within 20% or 25% of the true cost, and fewer than 50% were accurate by any definition of cost accuracy. Methodological weaknesses were common, and studies of low methodological quality showed better cost awareness. The most important factor influencing the pattern and accuracy of estimation was the true cost of therapy. High-cost drugs were estimated more accurately than inexpensive ones (74% versus 31%, Chi-square p < 0.001). Doctors consistently overestimated the cost of inexpensive products and underestimated the cost of expensive ones (binomial test, 89/101, p < 0.001). When asked, doctors indicated that they want cost information and feel it would improve their prescribing but that it is not accessible.

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors' ignorance of costs, combined with their tendency to underestimate the price of expensive drugs and overestimate the price of inexpensive ones, demonstrate a lack of appreciation of the large difference in cost between inexpensive and expensive drugs. This discrepancy in turn could have profound implications for overall drug expenditures. Much more focus is required in the education of physicians about costs and the access to cost information. Future research should focus on the accessibility and reliability of medical cost information and whether the provision of this information is used by doctors and makes a difference to physician prescribing. Additionally, future work should strive for higher methodological standards to avoid the biases we found in the current literature, including attention to the method of assessing accuracy that allows larger absolute estimation ranges for expensive drugs.

Modifying provider behavior: a low-tech approach to pharmaceutical ordering

OBJECTIVE

To determine if a clinically structured, paper-based prescription form can modify pharmaceutical prescribing behavior without restricting physician freedom to select the most appropriate medication for an individual patient.

DESIGN

Uncontrolled, nonrandomized, time series design.

SETTING

The urgent care clinic of a university-affiliated, county-supported hospital that provides care for underserved, vulnerable populations.

PATIENTS

Patients (N = 2189) who had a prescription written at the intervention site during the study.

INTERVENTION

Four-phase interventions lasting 2 weeks each, with a washout period between each phase, consisting of: (1). collection of baseline data utilizing the traditional prescription blank, (2). introduction of the pre-formatted prescription form, (3). use of the pre-formatted prescription form with medication cost added, and (4). pre-formatted prescription form with target drug (ranitidine) removed.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Physicians were less likely to prescribe ranitidine compared to cimetidine after the introduction of the cost information (P <.01) and again after the removal of ranitidine from the pre-formatted prescription form (P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A structured, paper-based prescription order form can shift prescribing practices without inhibiting physicians' ordering freedom.