Do healthcare administrators care less about health?

In a recent study conducted by the authors, Seattle-area managers disclosed a high incidence of discrimination against smokers at the hiring point, and expressed strong preferences for further restrictions on smoking in the workplace. Surprisingly, of the six management groups represented in the study, only healthcare administrators were acquiescent toward the presumed rights of smokers as employees. This anomaly, as well as other insights drawn from the research, is discussed in the article. Reader explanations to the apparent contradiction presented here are invited.     

What does the demand curve for medical care measure?

In summary, we stand by our method of using the consumer's willingness to pay for medical care to measure consumer surplus. We have not doubt that consumers' decisions will change as the science of medical effectiveness improves and results are disseminated to consumers and physicians. However, we never expect to see an exact correspondence between consumers' decisions and experts' advice. We believe that measurement of consumer welfare should be based on the consumer's valuation of the advice, not the advice itself. Finally, we note that if there is an inefficiently low level of information in medical care markets, the solution is to inform consumers, not to insure them fully.     

Can hospitals afford to care less?

"Humanistic health care" has a pleasant ring to it, but hospital employees, administrators, physicians, and trustees must support such an environment for it to have any real value.     

Breast cancer: better care for less cost. Is it possible?

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the potential for cost reduction in the acute care setting and the required investment in the home care setting of implementing an outpatient/early discharge strategy for operable (stages I and II) breast cancer in Canada. METHODS: Data from a community hospital were augmented by expert knowledge and incorporated into the breast cancer submodel of Statistics Canada's Population Health Model. For the estimated 90% of patients for whom this approach was assumed to be appropriate, the resource utilization for outpatient breast-conserving surgery and 2 days of hospitalization for those women undergoing mastectomy was quantified and costed, as were the appropriate home care services. A 5% readmission rate for complications was assumed. Cost per case, total cost burden, investment in home care, savings in acute care, and net savings were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed around readmission rates and home care/surgical follow-up costs. All costs were determined in 1995 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: The cost of initial treatment for the 15,399 women diagnosed with stages I and II breast cancer in 1995 in Canada was estimated to be $127.6 million. Hospitalization made up 53% of these costs. Under the outpatient/early discharge strategy, the acute care cost of initial breast cancer management could be reduced by $47.2 million, with an investment in home care of $14.5 million ($453 per patient), resulting in an overall net saving of $33 million. Under this strategy, hospitalization would contribute only 21% to the total care cost. CONCLUSIONS: If Canadian surgeons and healthcare administrators were to work together to put in place processes to support ambulatory breast cancer surgery and if resources were redirected to the provision of home-based post-operative care, there would be potential for a large net healthcare saving and preservation of high-quality patient care.     

To wait or to pay for medical treatment? Restraining ex-post moral hazard in health insurance

We explore the hierarchy of two instruments, waiting time and coinsurance for medical treatment, for optimally solving the tradeoff between the economic gains from risk sharing and the losses from moral hazard. We show that the optimal waiting time is zero, given that the coinsurance rate is optimally set.     

Savings in electronic medical record systems? Do it for the quality

National policymakers are considering whether to make major long-term investments in electronic medical record (EMR) systems. The matter of rising health care costs is never far from any health care debate, and the prospect for EMR systems to decrease costs is a potential selling point. The paper by Richard Hillestad and colleagues presents a well-documented analysis of the potential costs, savings, and other benefits of widespread adoption of interoperable EMR systems. It focuses on the potential savings such systems could yield. Here I examine the main components of their argument and question whether such savings could ever be realized.     

Settling for less? Tobacco industry

In November 1998, a coalition of state negotiators and five tobacco companies reached an agreement in which the cigarette makers would pay out the biggest financial settlement in history, $206 billion over the next 25 years to 46 states, to compensate for the medical treatment of patients suffering from tobacco-related health problems. Critics of the settlement say the tobacco companies are getting off the hook too easily, and that the deal's public health provisions are unacceptably riddled with loopholes. But the attorneys general who negotiated the settlement defended it as a good deal-but clearly not as a panacea. Ultimately, they feel, Congress should pass legislation to provide essential reforms, including full Food and Drug Administration authority over tobacco.     

Does disclosure of medical records to patients influence medical care?

Disclosure of medical records to patients has been assessed, but the influence of disclosure on medical care has not been well researched. To address this situation, this study was conducted to test three hypotheses: 1) doctors think that the disclosure can influence medical care, 2) whether doctors think disclosure can influence medical care depends on how they rank medical records (for example, as evidence for diagnosis and treatment, a process to reach a diagnosis, a tool to communicate with other medical staff, etc), and on whether they think medical record disclosure could change the content of the record. Questionnaires were sent to 881 doctors who work at two hospitals affiliated with N Medical School and K Medical University. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-eight doctors responded. The findings related to the hypotheses were as follows: 1) Those who answered that the disclosure could have an influence on medical care were 49.1% of the total. 2) There was no relation between how doctors ranked medical records and whether they thought disclosure could influence medical care. 3) Doctors who answered that there were things that they would not be able to write if medical records were disclosed accounted for 73.5% of the total. These doctors answered "yes" significantly higher to the question that the disclosure could influence medical care than others (Odds 3.6, P < 0.01). Doctors who thought they would not be able to enter the diagnosis, the name of the disease for insurance, self-evaluation, information that could be judged and subjective information answered that disclosure could influence on medical care (P < 0.05). It was assumed that disclosure of medical records to patients could change the content of the medical records and that could influence medical care. How to deal with information will become an important issue if records are disclosed.     

Do managed care plans' tiered networks lead to inequities in care for minority patients?

This study examined whether specialists designated as meeting efficiency thresholds in an insurance company's performance network were less likely than non-designated specialists to treat minority patients insured by that company. Claims data were used to identify patients treated by specialists. Claimants' race/ethnicity status was self-reported to the insurer at enrollment. In large part, minority patients appeared to be evenly distributed across the performance network, with the exception of Asian/Pacific Islanders, who appeared to be more likely to be treated by nondesignated physicians than by designated "good-performing" specialists.     

Do medical schools still train doctors?

In practice, medical finals are not final and a supplementary training is necessary before medicine may be practised independently. Social factors and an ongoing evolution of medical science prompt reconsideration of the structure, content and duration of the training of doctors and specialists. This was the subject of a meeting of this Journal. One possibility of differentiation in the basic training is an early subdivision into care physicians, clinical specialists and health physicians. In the training of social medical officers one of the factors to be taken into account is the influence of principals. For GP's, postgraduate training is increasingly important because of social and other developments. The training of non-surgical specialists can be made shorter since a significant proportion of the time in the present training is devoted to areas requiring special attention. The training of surgical specialists could be shortened by introducing a training programme that is independent of the procedure. Responsibility for the total care of the patient will be borne by the specialists jointly.     

Do contact precautions cause depression? A two-year study at a tertiary care medical centre

Contact precautions, used to reduce the transmission of infectious diseases, include the wearing of gowns and gloves for room entry. Previous small studies have shown an association between contact precautions and increased symptoms of depression and anxiety. A retrospective cohort of all patients admitted to a tertiary care centre over two years was studied to assess the relationship between contact precautions and depression or anxiety. During the two-year period, there were 70,275 admissions including 28,564 unique non-intensive-care-unit (ICU), non-psychiatric admissions. After adjusting for potential confounders, contact precautions were associated with depression [odds ratio (OR) 1.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-1.5] but not with anxiety (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7-1.1) in the non-ICU population. Depression was 40% more prevalent among general inpatients on contact precautions.     

What's in a wait? Contrasting management science and economic perspectives on waiting for emergency care

The current paper reviews and contrasts a management science view of waiting for healthcare, which centres on queues as devices for buffering demand, with an economic view, which stresses the role of the incentive structure, in the context of English Accident and Emergency Departments. We demonstrate that the management science view provides insight into waiting time performance within a single facility but is limited in its ability to shed light on variations in performance across facilities. We argue, with reference to supporting data, that such variations may be explainable by a proper understanding of the incentive structure in A&E Departments.