Expenditures for physician services under alternative models of managed care

Impact of GP gatekeeping on quality of care, and health outcomes, use, and expenditure: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

GPs often act as gatekeepers, authorising patients' access to specialty care. Gatekeeping is frequently perceived as lowering health service use and health expenditure. However, there is little evidence suggesting that gatekeeping is more beneficial than direct access in terms of patient- and health-related outcomes.

AIM

To establish the impact of GP gatekeeping on quality of care, health use and expenditure, and health outcomes and patient satisfaction.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review.

METHOD

The databases MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant articles using a search strategy. Two authors independently screened search results and assessed the quality of studies.

RESULTS

Electronic searches identified 4899 studies (after removing duplicates), of which 25 met the inclusion criteria. Gatekeeping was associated with better quality of care and appropriate referral for further hospital visits and investigation. However, one study reported unfavourable outcomes for patients with cancer under gatekeeping, and some concerns were raised about the accuracy of diagnoses made by gatekeepers. Gatekeeping resulted in fewer hospitalisations and use of specialist care, but inevitably was associated with more primary care visits. Patients were less satisfied with gatekeeping than direct-access systems.

CONCLUSION

Gatekeeping was associated with lower healthcare use and expenditure, and better quality of care, but with lower patient satisfaction. Survival rate of patients with cancer in gatekeeping schemes was significantly lower than those in direct access, although primary care gatekeeping was not otherwise associated with delayed patient referral. The long-term outcomes of gatekeeping arrangements should be carefully studied before devising new gatekeeping policies.

Performance measures of the specialty referral process: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Performance of specialty referrals is coming under scrutiny, but a lack of identifiable measures impedes measurement efforts. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to identify published measures that assess specialty referrals.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature for measures of specialty referral. Searches were made of MEDLINE and HealthSTAR databases, references of eligible papers, and citations provided by content experts. Measures were eligible if they were published from January 1973 to June 2009, reported on validity and/or reliability of the measure, and were applicable to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development healthcare systems. We classified measures according to a conceptual framework, which underwent content validation with an expert panel.

RESULTS

We identified 2,964 potentially eligible papers. After abstract and full-text review, we selected 214 papers containing 244 measures. Most measures were applied in adults (57%), assessed structural elements of the referral process (60%), and collected data via survey (62%). Measures were classified into non-mutually exclusive domains: need for specialty care (N = 14), referral initiation (N = 73), entry into specialty care (N = 53), coordination (N = 60), referral type (N = 3), clinical tasks (N = 19), resource use (N = 13), quality (N = 57), and outcomes (N = 9).

CONCLUSIONS

Published measures are available to assess the specialty referral process, although some domains are limited. Because many of these measures have been not been extensively validated in general populations, assess limited aspects of the referral process, and require new data collection, their applicability and preference in assessment of the specialty referral process is needed.

The effects of gatekeeping: a systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of physician-centred gatekeeping on health, health care utilization, and costs by conducting a systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

Systematic search in PubMed (MEDLINE and Pre-MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, from the databases' respective inception dates up to January 2010, using the search words "gatekeeping", "gatekeeper*", "first contact", and "self-referral". We included RCTs, CCTs, cohort studies, CBAs, and interrupted time-series. We included only studies in which the gatekeeper function was exercised by a physician and that reported health and patient-related outcomes including quality of life and satisfaction, quality of care, health care utilization, and/or economic outcomes (e.g. expenditures or efficiency). Selection was made independently by two reviewers and discrepancies were solved by consensus after discussion. Data on target population, intervention, additional interventions, study results, and methodological quality were extracted. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers following the previously defined criteria. Discrepancies were solved by consensus after discussion.

RESULTS

This review includes 26 studies in 32 publications. The majority of studies (62%) reported data from the United States and in most gatekeeping was associated with lower utilization of health services (up to -78%) and lower expenditures (up to -80%). However, there was great variability in the magnitude and direction of the differences.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the evidence regarding the effects of gatekeeping is of limited quality. Many studies are available regarding the effects on health care utilisation and expenditures, whereas effects on health and patient-related outcomes have been studied only exceptionally and are inconclusive.

The impact of cost sharing of prescription drug expenditures on health care utilization by the elderly: own- and cross-price elasticities

PURPOSE

To estimate healthcare demand elasticity and evaluate the impact of deductible/co-payment policy changes for prescription drugs on the use of drugs and physician visits among seniors with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in British Columbia (BC), Canada.

METHODS

According to the BC drug insurance program, prior to 2002, seniors co-paid the dispensing fee of each prescription to an annual maximum of CAN$ 200 (plan A). Starting in 2002, this plan was split into plan A and plan A1 (Premium Assistance) such that the co-payment amount equaled a maximum of CAN$ 25 and CAN$ 10 per prescription to an annual maximum of CAN$ 275 and CAN$ 200, respectively. Because of the endogeneity of the beneficiary price in the presence of a non-linear price schedule resulting from the cost-sharing policy, we implemented the method of instrumental variables to estimate price elasticities. The instrument was based on the price an individual would face under the new cost-sharing policy if their consumption remained at the pre-policy level.

RESULTS

A total of 8017 patients were included. The estimated own-price elasticity of demand for prescription drugs and the cross-price elasticity of demand for physician visits were found to be negative and positive, respectively. The implications of our findings were that when cost sharing for prescription drugs increased, the demand for prescription drugs decreased and the demand for physician visits increased.

CONCLUSIONS

In a predominantly publicly funded health care system, the selective introduction of market driven cost containment concepts such as patient cost-sharing might have the unintended impact of increasing overall health utilization for seniors with RA.

When patients have to pay a share of drug costs: effects on frequency of physician visits, hospital admissions and filling of prescriptions

BACKGROUND

Previous research has shown that patient cost-sharing leads to a reduction in overall health resource utilization. However, in Canada, where health care is provided free of charge except for prescription drugs, the converse may be true. We investigated the effect of prescription drug cost-sharing on overall health care utilization among elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Elderly patients (> or = 65 years) were selected from a population-based cohort with rheumatoid arthritis. Those who had paid the maximum amount of dispensing fees (200 dollars) for the calendar year (from 1997 to 2000) were included in the analysis for that year. We defined the period during which the annual maximum co-payment had not been reached as the "cost-sharing period" and the one beyond which the annual maximum co-payment had been reached as the "free period." We compared health services utilization patterns between these periods during the 4 study years, including the number of hospital admissions, the number of physician visits, the number of prescriptions filled and the number of prescriptions per physician visit.

RESULTS

Overall, 2968 elderly patients reached the annual maximum cost-sharing amount at least once during the study periods. Across the 4 years, there were 0.38 more physician visits per month (p < 0.001), 0.50 fewer prescriptions filled per month (p = 0.001) and 0.52 fewer prescriptions filled per physician visit (p < 0.001) during the cost-sharing period than during the free period. Among patients who were admitted to the hospital at least once, there were 0.013 more admissions per month during the cost-sharing period than during the free period (p = 0.03).

INTERPRETATION

In a predominantly publicly funded health care system, the implementation of cost-containment policies such as prescription drug cost-sharing may have the unintended effect of increasing overall health utilization among elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Health expenditures for privately insured adults enrolled in managed care gatekeeping vs indemnity plans

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the ability of managed care gatekeeping strategies (i.e., requiring a designated primary care provider to authorize referrals) to control health care costs in the mid-1990s.

METHODS

We analyzed expenditure data from 8195 privately insured adults sampled in the nationally representative 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Managed care gatekeeping plan enrollees included those in health maintenance organizations and other plans requiring a primary care gatekeeper. All others were considered indemnity plan enrollees.

RESULTS

In 1996, total per capita annual health expenditures for adult gatekeeping enrollees were about $50 less than those of indemnity enrollees, primarily owing to lower out-of-pocket expenditures. After multivariate adjustment, mean per capita expenditures were approximately 6% lower for gatekeeping enrollees than for indemnity enrollees.

CONCLUSIONS

In the private sector, gatekeeping strategies resulted in modest cost savings over indemnity plans.

Which enrollees bypass their gatekeepers in a point-of-service plan?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Like Health Maintenance Organizations, point-of-service (POS) health plans use primary care gatekeepers, and they permit self-referral to specialists at increased costs to the enrollee. The main objective of this study was to contrast patients who self-referred with those referred by their primary care physician.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional telephone survey of 606 recent users of specialists in a large Midwestern POS health plan; response rate was 65%. We compared 148 enrollees who self-referred with 458 who had a physician referral.

RESULTS

Self-referral was most common among those with a long-term relationship with a specialist (odds ratio [OR] = 2.08) and those dissatisfied with their primary care physician (OR = 3.65), and was rare among those with a long-standing relationship with a primary care physician (OR = 0.46). Most self-referred enrollees (68%) thought paying the additional cost for self-referral was worthwhile, and they were more dissatisfied with the quality and variety of the plan's specialist network.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuity with a single physician influences how patients access specialty care. Expanding the panel of specialists in-network and encouraging long-term relationships with primary care physicians are likely to limit self-referral in a POS plan.

From physician to consumer: the effectiveness of strategies to manage health care utilization

Many strategies are commonly used to influence physician behavior in managed care organizations. This review examines the effectiveness of three mechanisms to influence physician behavior: financial incentives directed at providers or patients, policies/procedures for managing care, and the selection/education of both providers and patients. The authors reach three conclusions. First, all health care systems use financial incentives, but these mechanisms are shifting away from financial incentives directed at the physician to those directed at the consumer. Second, heavily procedural strategies such as utilization review and gatekeeping show some evidence of effectiveness but are highly unpopular due to their restrictions on physician and patient choice. Third, a future system built on consumer choice is contradicted by mechanisms that rely solely on narrow networks of providers or the education of physicians. If patients become the new locus of decision making in health care, provider-focused mechanisms to influence physician behavior will not disappear but are likely to decline in importance.

Leaving gatekeeping behind--effects of opening access to specialists for adults in a health maintenance organization

BACKGROUND

Gatekeeping refers to the prior approval of referrals to specialists by a primary care physician. Although many health plans view gatekeeping as an essential tool for controlling costs and coordinating care, many patients and physicians object to it.

METHODS

On April 1, 1998, Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, a large, multispecialty, capitated group practice previously known as Harvard Community Health Plan, eliminated a gatekeeping system that had been in place for over 25 years. We determined the effects of opening access to specialists on visits to primary care physicians and specialists by adults. In randomly selected cohorts of 10,000 members each, we analyzed visits during 6-month periods for the 3 years before and 18 months after gatekeeping was eliminated.

RESULTS

Adults visited a primary care physician an average of 1.21 times and 1.19 times per six-month period before and after the elimination of gatekeeping, respectively (P=0.05); the average number of visits to a specialist was 0.78 per six-month period both before and after its elimination (P=0.35). There was little change in the percentage of visits to specialists included in the analysis as a proportion of all visits (39.1 percent before the elimination of gatekeeping and 39.5 percent afterward). The percentage of first visits to specialists as a proportion of all visits to specialists included in the analysis increased from 24.7 to 28.2 percent (P<0.001). There were small increases in the numbers of visits to orthopedists and physical or occupational therapists. The proportion of visits to specialists for low back pain that were new consultations increased from 26.6 to 32.9 percent (P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In a capitated, multispecialty group practice, we found little evidence of substantial changes in the use of specialty services by adults in the first 18 months after the elimination of gatekeeping.

2000 RSNA annual oration in diagnostic radiology: The future of interventional radiology

Origins in imaging, procedural emphasis, and dependence on innovation characterize interventional radiology, which will continue as the field of image-guided minimally invasive therapies. A steady supply of innovators will be needed. Current workforce shortages demand that this problem be addressed and in an ongoing fashion. Interventional radiology's major identity problem will require multiple corrective measures, including a name change. Diagnostic radiologists must fully embrace the concept of the dedicated interventionalist. Interspecialty turf battles will continue, especially with cardiologists and vascular surgeons. To advance the discipline, interventional radiologists must remain involved in cutting-edge therapies such as endograft repair of aortic aneurysms and carotid stent placement. As the population ages, interventionalists will experience a shift toward a greater emphasis on cancer treatment. Political agendas and public pressure will improve access to care and result in managed health care reforms. Academic centers will continue to witness a decline in time and resources available to pursue academic missions. The public outcry for accountability will result in systems changes aimed at reducing errors and process changes in the way physicians are trained, certified, and monitored. Evidence-based medicine will be the watchword of this century. Interventional radiology will maintain its role through development of methods for delivery of genes, gene products, and drugs to specific target sites; control of angiogenesis and other biologic processes; and noninvasive image-guided delivery of various forms of energy for ablation.

Self-referral in point-of-service health plans

CONTEXT

Most health maintenance organizations offer products with loosened restrictions on patients' access to specialty care. One such product is the point-of-service (POS) plan, which combines "gatekeeping" arrangements with the ability to self-refer at increased out-of-pocket costs. Few data are available from formal evaluations of this new type of plan.

OBJECTIVES

To comprehensively describe the self-referral process in POS plans by quantifying rates of self-referral, identifying patients most likely to self-refer, characterizing patients' reasons for self-referral, and assessing satisfaction with specialty care.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis using administrative databases composed of members aged 0 to 64 years who were enrolled in 3 POS health plans in the Midwest (n = 265 843), Northeast (n = 80 292), and mid-Atlantic (n = 39 888) regions for 6 to 12 months in 1996, and a 1997 telephone survey of specialty care users (n = 606) in the midwestern plan.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-referred service use and charges, reasons for self-referral, and satisfaction with specialty care.

RESULTS

Overall, 8.8% of enrollees in the midwestern POS plan, 16.7% in the northeastern plan, and 17.3% in the mid-Atlantic plan self-referred for at least 1 physician or nonphysician clinician visit. The proportions of enrollees self-referring to generalists (4.7%-8.5%) were slightly higher than the proportions self-referring to specialists (3.7%-7.2%) across all 3 plans. Nine percent to 16% of total charges were due to self-referral. The chances of self-referral to a specialist were increased for patients with chronic and orthopedic conditions, higher cost sharing for physician-approved services, and less continuity with their regular physician. Patients who self-referred to specialists preferred to access specialty care directly (38%), reported relationship problems with their regular physicians (28%), had an ongoing relationship with a specialist (23%), were confused about insurance rules (8%), and did not have a regular physician (3%). Compared with those referred to specialists by a physician, patients who self-referred were more satisfied with the specialty care they received.

CONCLUSIONS

Having the option to self-refer is enough for most POS plan enrollees; 93% to 96% of enrollees did not exercise their POS option to obtain specialty care via self-referral during a 1-year interval. The potential downside of uncoordinated, self-referred service use in POS health plans is limited and counterbalanced by higher patient satisfaction with specialist services.