2006
LDI Pilot Project Awards
Collaborative
Care Pilot Intervention for Children with ADHD
Principal Investigator:
James P. Guevara, M.D., M.P.H., Assistant Professor of Pediatrics
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) is an important public health concern. Children
with ADHD suffer academic difficulties, peer rejection, and family
stress. Effective treatment exists for ADHD, yet fragmentation
in the mental health system limits coordination of care between
schools, mental health agencies, and primary care practices. New
models of health care delivery are urgently needed to address
the limitations of the current child mental health system. The
specific aims of this proposal are to determine the feasibility
of 1) study methods to recruit and longitudinally follow a cohort
of school-age children with ADHD at urban primary care sites and
2) implementation of an ADHD intervention delivered in an urban
primary care practice designed to enhance collaboration among
providers and educators. Two primary care practices affiliated
with the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) will be recruited
to participate. Fifty children with ADHD, identified through electronic
health records, will be recruited to participate for a six-month
study period. A study nurse will implement the intervention at
one site, while the other site will consist of usual care. Caregivers
of study children will complete instruments concerning behavioral
functioning and satisfaction with ADHD care. Providers will complete
instruments measuring collaborative care processes and acceptability
of the intervention. Knowledge gained from this pilot proposal
can be used to improve CHOP's primary care infrastructure and
will be incorporated as preliminary data in future grant applications.
Practice-Based
Learning Through Objective Resident Benchmarking:
A Pilot Proposal
Principal Investigator: Theodore
J. Iwashyna, MD, PhD, Fellow, Pulmonary and Critical Care
Section
Co Investigator: Lisa Bellini, MD, Physician, Pulmonary
Medicine
There are
growing concerns about a link between conventional graduate medical
education and
the ongoing quality gaps in American medicine. To remedy this,
the Accreditation Council for Graduate
Medical Education (ACGME) had mandated a move from process-based
to outcomes-based training; this
has created many challenges for medical educators. ACGMEs
outcomes fall into one of 6 domains
known as core competencies (patient care, professionalism, interpersonal
and communication skills,
medical knowledge, practice based learning and systems based practice).
The latter 2 competencies have proven difficult to teach and measure.
We propose that detailed, statistically reliable, benchmarked
measures of utilization and
outcomes of inpatient care could be incorporated into the standard
feedback that residents receive. This
can be done by taking advantage of the real-time electronic administrative
databases necessitated by
computerized physician order entry and test reporting. Objective
benchmarking of resident performance
will allow residents to be more effective and efficient physicians.
It will prepare them for a future of
performance-based reimbursement. By providing objective utilization
and outcome data during the
formative training period, it enables physicians-in-training to
make more conscious choices.
Benchmarking offers a novel opportunity to inject objective, statistically
valid, practice-level information
into an arena notoriously devoid of such information.
This pilot project seeks to develop proof of concept
for implementing objective benchmarking,
as a prerequisite for seeking broader funding for a thorough evaluation.
That is, we seek to preliminarily
develop a set of statistically robust and clinically meaningful
objective benchmarks of resident inpatient
resource utilization and outcomes.
Gender,
Race and the Treatment of Emergent Pain Proposal
Principal Investigator: Jerry
A. Jacobs, Ph.D., Merriam Term Professor; Professor of Sociology
Co Investigators: Stephanie Abbuhl, M. D., and Ann K. Boulis,
Ph. D.
We
propose an interdisciplinary study of how provider gender affects
the treatment of emergent pain for three specific conditions:
headache, lower back pain, and renal colic or kidney stones. We
hypothesize that female providers will treat the pain female patients
and racial minorities of both genders more aggressively than male
providers because female providers may communicate more effectively
with certain groups of patients. This project will take advantage
of previously collected data on patient encounters to track the
administration of pain medication for patients presenting with
the three selected conditions. We focus on the treatment of pain
because we believe that there is more legitimate variation in
how providers approach the treatment of pain than in how they
approach the treatment of other medical conditions. We also suspect
that the treatment of pain for these three conditions is more
likely to be affected by social factors than the treatment of
pain for other conditions. By focusing on the emergency room we
not only extend previous research on pain and primary care provider
gender conducted by Weisse and colleagues in (2001), we also take
advantage of the random assignment of patients and providers.
The randomization of patients and providers enables us to conduct
this study without controlling for patients' pre-existing pain
and thus greatly facilitates data collection. Data on disease
severity will be included in the analysis. Thus, the project is
uniquely situated to add to previous research on pressing policy
related issues with a cost-effective research design.
Antibiotic
Use and Misuse In Injection-Drug Users:
A Potential Risk Factor For Antibiotic Resistant Infections
Principal
Investigator: Joanna
L. Starrels, M.D.; Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar
Co-Investigators:
Joshua P. Metlay, M.D., Ph.D.. Associate Professor of Medicine
&
Frances K. Barg, Ph.D.
Objectives:
To investigate patterns of antibiotic use in injection-drug users
and to develop a questionnaire to study the indications, sources,
and frequency of antibiotic use and misuse in injection-drug users.
Background: Infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms
such as methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an
important cause of morbidity and mortality in injection-drug users.
It is unknown which factors increase the risk of injection-drug
users to become colonized with MRSA. One potential risk factor is
the frequent use and misuse of antibiotics.
Methods: This is a mixed methods study using focus group
methods. Questions will address participants' attitudes and behaviors
regarding infections and antibiotic use, with attention to how they
take antibiotics and the sources of those antibiotics. Focus groups
will be transcribed and coded using a Working Coding Scheme (WCS)
developed from our preliminary conceptual model and refined through
iterative analysis. The WCS will then be used as an analytic tool
to identify patterns in the data, answer conceptual research questions,
and create a questionnaire to quantify antibiotic use and misuse.
Results: A rich understanding of behavior and knowledge about
antibiotics in injection-drug users and a questionnaire that can
quantify antibiotic use and misuse.
Implications: The findings from this project will provide
pilot data and a reliable instrument for future research investigating
the relationship between antibiotic use in injection-drug users
and colonization with antibiotic-resistant bacteria including MRSA.
Ultimately, such information can be used to inform interventional
programs to improve appropriate access to and utilization of antibiotics
for this high-risk group.
Measuring
the Quality of Care at the VA
Principal
Investigator: Rachel
M. Werner, M.D., Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Medicine
The
VA underwent a major reengineering in 1995 to improve the quality
of care it provides. This reengineering first improved access to
preventative care, and second, initiated performance measurement
and feedback. While studies have documented improvements in quality
of care since these changes in 1995, it is unclear what the mechanism
of improved quality of care was: the improved access to outpatient
care, the performance measurement, or both? The purpose of this
study is to apply and validate the use of existing measures of outpatient
quality of care in the VA. Once validated, these methods can be
applied to a larger, externally funded project studying the mechanism
behind the VA's documented improvement in quality of care and compare
changes in quality among veterans with changes in quality among
Medicare beneficiaries. Specifically, this project will first apply
an existing measure of quality of outpatient care (rates of preventable
hospitalizations) to VA data. Second, it will identify veterans
who are dual-users (veterans who use both VA and non-VA health care)
in VA and Medicare administrative data. This is important for comparing
unbiased estimates of the impact of performance measurement on quality
at the VA and Medicare. Finally, it will explore methods to directly
compare rates of preventable hospitalization between the VA and
Medicare. The results from this pilot will demonstrate the feasibility
of using rates of preventable hospitalizations as measures of quality
in the VA. Thus, the results from this project are extremely important
on the road to proposing a larger, externally funded proposal to
compare changes in quality of care between the VA and Medicare.
2005
LDI Pilot Project Awards
Re-Invention
and Sustainability in Community-Professional Partnerships
Principal Investigator: James
C. Coyne, Ph.D., Professor of Psychiatry and Family Practice
and Community Medicine
Co-Investigator: John
R. Kimberly, Ph.D., Henry Bower Professor of Entrepreneurial
Studies; Professor of Management, Health Care Systems, and Sociology
Background:
The European Alliance Against Depression (EAAD) involves dissemination
of a 4 level community-professional partnership in 17 regions in
order to reduce depression and suicidality on a community basis.
Regional partners attract sponsors, identify stakeholders, adapt
the project to the larger sociocultural context and local conditions,
and must ensure sustainability. The EAAD offers a unique opportunity
to learn much that would be directly applicable in re-engineering
American efforts to reduce the burden of depression and in developing
systematic models of re-invention and sustainability.
Objective: To complete groundwork and pilot studies to further
the prospects of a large scale project. Groundwork involves selection
of a subset of EAAD partnerships for study; establishing capability
to meet logistical and methodological challenges of the larger study;
and negotiating relationships and establishing an infrastructure.
Pilot data will provide preliminary data, refinement of methods
and hypotheses, and demonstration of the investigator team's capability
and the feasibility of the larger project.
Methods: The larger project will be a mixed method, multiple
case study. Qualitative interviews will be used to interpret and
integrate data concerning milestone achievement and other outcomes
generated by the partners. The pilot study involves a formal explanation-building
approach to qualitative interviews with key participants, stakeholders,
and observers concerning English- and German-speaking regional partners
with varying levels of support and stage of implementation.
Results: The ground work and pilot project will provide timely
contributions to securing specific extramural funding for the more
ambitious work of two senior LDI Fellows who have not previously
collaborated.
Financial
Incentives and Choice of Anticancer Therapy: a Natural Experiment
Addressing CMS Policy
Principal Investigator: Patricia
M. Danzon, Ph.D., Celia Moh Professor of Health Care Systems
and Insurance and Risk Management
Co-Investigator: Scott J. Johnson, Health
Care Systems Doctoral Student
Understanding the role financial incentives play in a physician's
choice of technology is of central interest to policy makers. According
to CMS' Chief Medical Officer, who spoke at LDI in February 2005,
financial incentives for anticancer agents are one of three top
priorities for CMS policy review, yet no quantitative analysis has
been performed seeking to identify the extent to which financial
incentives matter in anti-cancer agent selection. This research
uses SEER-Medicare panel data on 150,000 breast, colorectal, or
lung cancer patients from 1991 to 2002 to address whether reimbursement
for chemotherapy drugs influences choice of drug. Expected financial
margin per anticancer drug administration varies significantly across
drugs and goes directly to the administering physician. It is also
a function of coverage policy, which varies across Medicare carrier
jurisdiction and product label. By exploiting variation across Medicare
carriers' coverage policies and reimbursement levels for off-label
chemotherapeutics, we will test how financial incentives affected
physician choice of therapy and patient outcomes. Patterns of use
will be estimated with a discrete choice model where the dependent
variable consists of the choice set of drugs available to a physician
at a point in time. Outcomes differences (i.e., mortality rates)
in patients who face different coverage policies will be estimated
using a survival model.
Estimating
the Cost of Capital for Pharmaceutical, Biotechnology, and Medical
Device Firms
Principal Investigator:
Scott E. Harrington, Ph.D., Professor of Health Care Systems
and Insurance and Risk Management
The financing, investment, and risk management decisions of pharmaceutical,
biotechnology, and medical device firms are fundamentally important
to the development and availability of a wide range of treatments
to enhance health outcomes and the quality of life. A full understanding
of these decisions is also important for the design and administration
of government review and approval of new compounds and devices.
The proposed pilot study will begin a research agenda that will
provide new insight into these decisions by investigating factors
that influence the cost of equity capital for publicly-traded pharmaceutical,
biotechnology, and medical device firms, a subject that has received
very little attention in the literature. Empirical work on this
subject and related issues requires detailed data on firms' product
portfolios, both for currently marketed products and products in
the development pipeline. Funding of the proposed pilot project
will enable acquisition, collection, and analysis of the data needed
for this specific project and for a variety of related projects
with strong potential for attracting external funding.
Repeated-Behavior
Protective Measures Model (RBPM): Application to Bicycle Helmet
Adherence
Principal Investigator: Barbara
E. Kahn, Ph.D., M.B.A., Dorothy Silberberg Professor of Marketing
Co-Investigator: Mary
Frances Luce, Ph.D., Professor of Marketing
Nationwide approximately twenty-seven million children ages 5-14
ride bicycles regularly. However, only 41% of those children use
bicycle helmets while riding, and of those who do use the helmets,
35% use them improperly. Most of the prevention strategies to date
have focused on education as to the risks and benefits associated
with bicycle helmets. As such many people are aware of the advantages
of bike helmets and own helmets, but still do not ensure that their
children wear them every time they ride. Educational campaigns have
focused on motivating initial compliance and have not focused on
the repeated adherence in use every time a child rides. In this
research we develop and test a theoretical model, the "Repeated-Behavior
Protective Measures Model" (RBPM), that predicts why adherence
declines as a function of previous bicycle helmet behavior. Specifically,
we hypothesize that declines occur because (1) if there is discomfort
or stress involved with wearing of the helmet and an accident does
not occur, the perceived efficacy of the helmet diminishes and (2)
if a helmet is not used, and an accident does not occur, perceived
vulnerability to the threat diminishes. Understanding the causes
of adherence declines will allow us to suggest specific strategies
and tactics to reverse these declines.
Investigating
the Relationship Between Measures of Hospital Occupancy and Length
of Stay
Principal Investigator: Scott
A. Lorch, M.D., Assistant Professor of Pediatrics
The impact of hospital occupancy on the outcomes of patients is
important for the organization of hospital delivery systems and
the quality of inpatient care. This question has been difficult
to study because of several unique properties of hospital occupancy
and length of stay. Important variables, such as (1) the decision
to admit and discharge a patient and (2) daily nurse staffing decisions
made in response to overcrowding, are omitted from most studies
because standard population-based administrative data do not include
enough data to construct these measures. Also, hospital occupancy
and length of stay could be determined simultaneously and bias results
obtained by conventional regression techniques. The neonatal population,
though, offers a potential unique approach to the study of this
issue. Using detailed data from Kaiser Permanente hospitals, this
project will obtain unbiased measures of the relationship between
occupancy and length of stay by (1) including information on daily
staffing and severity of illness at discharge not available in most
administrative dataset and (2) using various methods to account
for simultaneity including time-varying models, instrumental variables,
and proxy measures for length of stay. By determining valid measures
of hospital occupancy and understanding how hospital overcrowding
can affect length of stay, this project will serve as critical pilot
data for future projects investigating the ways that hospitals and
units adapt to hospital overcrowding and whether overcrowding results
in early discharge of neonatal patients.
Quality
of Nursing Care and Outcomes of Hospitalized Cancer Patients
Principal Investigator: Julie
A. Sochalski, Ph.D., RN, Associate Professor of Nursing
Co-Investigator: Jeffrey
H. Silber, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology
and Health Care Systems; Director, Center for Outcomes Research
Quality initiatives directed toward nursing have largely centered
on assuring adequate nurse staffing nursing levels as the mechanism
by which quality of care and outcomes are improved. However, this
hypothesis-that increasing staffing levels improves the quality
of nursing care and thereby outcomes-remains largely untested. This
pilot study takes advantage of an existing and unique data set to
determine (1) if higher levels of nurse staffing in hospitals are
associated with higher quality nursing care, (2) if higher quality
nursing care is associated with improved patient outcomes, and 3)
if or how both nurse staffing and quality nursing care contribute
to differential patient outcomes. The data set comprises 29,628
surgical cancer patients admitted to one of 162 acute care hospitals
in Pennsylvania's from 1998-99 and includes hospital discharge abstracts
that have been linked with death records, tumor registry records,
annual surveys of hospital characteristics, and survey responses
from nurses providing care in these hospitals. This pilot study
seeks to build the empirical and conceptual foundation for these
hypothesized relationships between nursing and patient outcomes.
This foundation will support an NIH proposal that will assess the
degree to which racial disparities in outcomes among cancer patients
are influenced by nurse staffing levels and the quality of nursing
care at the hospitals where they receive care, and the cost-quality
implications for minority cancer patients and hospitals of investing
in improvements in nursing care.
Toward
the Strategic Management of Healthcare Resources in the ED to Treat
Intimate Partner Violence
Principal Investigator: Douglas
J. Wiebe, Ph.D., Instructor of Epidemiology
Co-Investigators: Elizabeth M. Datner, M.D.,
Assistant Professor of Em ergency Medicine;
Michael R. Elliott, Ph.D., Assistant
Professor of Biostatistics;
Edna B. Foa, Ph.D., Professor of Psychiatry;
Therese S. Richmond,
Ph.D., M.S.N., Associate Professor of Trauma and Critical Care
Nursing;
David S. Riggs, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
of Psychology in Psychiatry
The Emergency Department (ED) is one of the few places where victims
of intimate partner violence (IPV) have contact with the healthcare
system, and can be provided services that may prevent abuse in the
future. This issue requires a critical evaluation. Each year approximately
250,000 victims receive ED treatment for IPV-related injuries; in
addition, 37% of female and 13% of male ED patients presenting for
other medical problems report abuse by an intimate partner in the
past year (Abbott et al. 1995, Mechem et al. 1999). Surprisingly,
few EDs adhere to an IPV screening protocol and many clinicians
do not screen patients (Abbott et al. 1995, Dodge et al. 2002, Morrison
1988). Clinicians cite lack of time and frustration that resources
are not available when they do identify victims as reasons for not
screening for IPV (Abbott et al. 1995, Morrison 1988). Our concern
is this may result in missed opportunities to prevent subsequent
abuse. Little is known, however, about how quickly and how often
patients are re-abused after ED discharge (Muelleman and Liewer
1998). In this pilot, we propose to enroll a cohort of 20 female
and 20 male ED patients with a history of IPV, and measure repeat
abuse that occurs after discharge by means of an Interactive Voice
Response (IVR) telephone system (Corkrey and Parkinson 2002). This
pilot will serve to develop a protocol to be used in the near future
in a large-scale study, where goal will be to measure the incidence
of IPV that is sustained by patients shortly after being discharge
from the ED, and in turn, motivate administrative changes to how
healthcare resources are managed in the ED to better care for patient
victims of IPV.
2004
LDI Pilot Project Awards
Potential
Impact of the Medicare Drug Benefit Legislation on Medicare Beneficiaries
with Employer-Sponsored Retiree Drug Coverage
Principal Investigator: Jalpa
A. Doshi, Ph.D., Health Services Research Scientist
Co-Investigator: Daniel
E. Polsky, Ph.D., M.P.P., Research Associate Professor of Medicine
The
passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization
Act of 2003 (MMA, P.L. 108-173) has created unintended incentives
for employers to drop or scale-back retiree drug benefits. This
project aims to explore the net effect of the new drug legislation
on Medicare beneficiaries who currently have employer sponsored
retiree-drug coverage. Using the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey
(MCBS) Cost and Use Files we will first examine the total prescription
spending patterns (including share paid out-of-pocket and share
paid by employer) among Medicare beneficiaries with employer-sponsored
drug coverage stratified by their socioeconomic and health characteristics.
Next, holding total drug spending constant we will model how the
share paid by beneficiary, by employer, and by Medicare would vary
under a set of plausible scenarios of how employers will change
retiree drug benefits when the Medicare Part D coverage begins.
Lastly, we will explore how a reduction in drug coverage generosity
could potentially impact medication use and hence quality of care
among retirees. Our long term goal is to examine the effect of change
in drug benefit policy on drug use and health outcomes of Medicare-eligible
retirees.
Using
Operative Time to Estimate Unobserved Severity
Principal Investigator: Jeffrey
H. Silber, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology
and Health Care Systems; Director, Center for Outcomes Research
When
comparing hospitals one often is faced with selection bias, which
may lead to differences in unobserved severity. This project aims
at using surgical operative time as a tool to explore the extent
of selection bias in Medicare claims studies and as a test of our
ability to reduce unobserved severity. We propose to take advantage
of a natural experiment that occurs when the same surgeon has operating
privileges at more than one hospital. We will compare the operative
time for the same surgeon across different hospitals, adjusting
for patient characteristics and procedure. Data will be from all
Pennsylvania Medicare patients undergoing general surgery and orthopedic
procedures in 1995 and 1996. The null hypothesis is that there should
be no difference in operative time within the same physician across
different hospitals. The alternative hypothesis is that there is
a significant difference. Rejecting the null hypothesis suggests
inadequate severity adjustment or unobserved severity. Furthermore,
should we detect differences within surgeons across hospitals, we
can then use that measure as a method to estimate the extent of
unobserved severity associated with operative time. Should there
be no difference, we could use this information to conclude that
there is little evidence for unobserved severity in the standard
model using Medicare data. The analysis will include a standard
and Bayesian approach, with and without inclusion of hospital fixed
and random effects. This work has the potential to greatly influence
state-of-the-art methodology associated with hospital comparisons,
and provides a basis for postoperative failure-to-rescue severity
adjustment.
Economic
Consequences of Technology Acquisition in the Veterans Health Administration
Principal Investigator: Peter
W. Groeneveld, M.D., M.Sc., Assistant Professor of Medicine
Co-Investigator: Mark
V. Pauly, Ph.D., Bendheim Professor and Chair, Department of
Health Care Systems
The costs of acquiring major new medical technologies and procedural
capabilities by Veterans Health Administration (VA) medical centers,
including both initial and downstream capital and labor costs, have
not been previously quantified. These costs and/or perceptions of
these costs are likely to greatly influence VA policymakers making
decisions about the acquisition of major new medical technologies.
We will use the VA's recently-developed Decision Support System
(DSS) cost database to assess the costs incurred by VA medical centers
after the adoption of selected new medical and surgical procedures
during 1999-2003. The DSS is a comprehensive, national VA database
that contains clinical and patient demographic and utilization data
at the patient-encounter level with direct and attributable indirect
local labor and capital costs derived from VA accounting databases.
"Difference-in-difference" multivariate regression models
controlling for age, sex, race, clinical comorbidity, and hospital
characteristics will be constructed to compare the costs of care
at centers that acquired new medical technologies compared to centers
that did not innovate, among patients who were potential candidates
for new procedures. This pilot study will validate the use of the
DSS for quantifying the cost of innovation in the VA, measure the
variation in the cost of innovation among VA medical centers, and
examine the relationship between acquisition cost and service availability,
particularly for historically vulnerable populations. Results of
this study will serve as the basis for a future, comprehensive proposal
examining the cost, cost-effectiveness and health care equity consequences
of VA medical technology acquisition.
Cancer-Related
Information Seeking and Scanning Behaviors among Vietnamese Immigrants
Principal Investigator: Robert
C. Hornik, Ph.D., Professor of Communication
Co-Investigator: Giang T. Nguyen, M.D., M.P.H.,
Clinical Instructor and Research Fellow, Department of Family Practice
and Community Medicine
Cancer
prevention/screening is integral to health, but disparities exist
between immigrants and the general population. Asian American/Pacific
Islander (AAPI) immigrants are at risk for missing public health
messages due to language, poor access to care, and their misperception
as a model minority. Little is known about how immigrant AAPI's
obtain health information. In order to create mass media public
health efforts that will reach this population, it is important
to understand the context in which AAPI immigrants view potential
sources of information. OBJECTIVE: To characterize attitudes/behaviors
regarding cancer-related health information from the perspective
of Vietnamese immigrants, and compare that to parallel information
gathered from a general population sample. DESIGN: Qualitative study;
semi-structured interviews in the native language of participants
(Vietnamese immigrants recruited at community sites and primary
care offices); purposeful sampling to ensure diversity of sex, region
of origin, year of immigration. Thirty 1-hour interviews will be
conducted concerning sources of information about health (colon/breast
cancer, specifically); what sources are trustworthy/relevant; and
how respondents link information sources to their behavior. Interviews
will be transcribed/translated into English and then coded using
NUD*ist software. Grounded theory will be used for analysis. At
completion, a set of themes and specific items will be generated
in order to create a model to understand better the relationship
between public information sources and cancer-related attitudes
and behaviors among Vietnamese immigrants. Future work will include
development of large scale quantitative studies of information searching
behaviors in this population as well as comparative studies with
the general population.
Child
Maltreatment and Mental Health Disorders Among Detained Adolescent
Girls: A Pilot Study
Principal Investigator: Donald
F. Schwarz, M.D., Mary D. Ames Associate Professor of Pediatrics;
Chief, Division of Adolescent Medicine
Research
findings have shown that adolescent girls detained in juvenile justice
facilities have significantly higher rates of both mental disorders
and histories of childhood maltreatment than their counterparts
in the community at large. The proposed study has two aims, both
of which are necessary steps toward implementing a more comprehensive
future study of mental health prevention and intervention strategies
for incarcerated adolescent girls. The first aim is to carry out
a pilot study of methods and procedures for the study of sensitive
personal information concerning self-reported histories of child
maltreatment. The second is to collect descriptive data on mental
disorders and child maltreatment necessary for calculating effect
sizes for a future study. A cross-sectional survey of 35 adolescent
girls detained at the Youth Study Center (YSC) in Philadelphia will
be interviewed. A trained interviewer will administer a face-to-face
psychiatric diagnostic questionnaire to consenting respondents.
Subsequently, respondents will complete an audio computer-assisted
self interview (ACASI) designed to elicit personally sensitive information
about child maltreatment. Statistical analyses will be descriptive.
Information developed as a result of the proposed research will
be incorporated into a future comprehensive research proposal aimed
at developing interventions for this population. The envisioned
long-term study will build on the findings we expect from the proposed
study, including an understanding of the dynamics of computer-assisted
interviewing for collecting data on child maltreatment and a preliminary
assessment of the association between types of childhood maltreatment
and mental health disorders.
LDI
Pilot Project 2003 Awards
The
Value of Choice in Insurance Purchasing Decisions
Principal Investigator: Jonathan
Baron, PhD; Co-Investigator: Helena Szrek
How much is choice worth to people when they are purchasing insurance?
Do employees value having a wider selection of plans to choose from
and are they willing to pay for choice? In standard economic theory,
the main benefit of choice is that individuals can make the trade-offs
that most suit their needs. Thus, consumers ought to be willing
to pay more when choice enables them to receive better outcomes.
This study investigates whether there are other ways in which choice
may have value or affect individual outcomes. In particular, we
ask: do individuals value the chosen outcome more when it is offered
as a choice? If individuals are choosing between insurance plans
A and B, A may have more value than when it is presented alone.
Furthermore, if a choice-frame leads to a higher valuation of a
product, this could lead to higher enrollment in insurance plans.
Preliminary evidence indicates that choice significantly affects
value. We recruited subjects via the internet to test our hypotheses.
Individuals were randomized across choice and no-choice conditions.
We asked individuals how much they were willing to pay and how likely
they were to enroll in different insurance plans. Comparing across
conditions for each of several hypothetical policies, choice increased
the value of the plans (t=2.52, p=.0126) supporting our hypothesis.
Enrollment was higher in the conditions where individuals were presented
more than one plan, whether or not they had choice.
Nurse
Staffing, Clinical Expertise and Patient Safety
Principal Investigator: Eileen
Lake, RN, PhD
To
better understand why patient outcomes vary across hospitals, researchers
have examined the effect of nurse staffing on patient outcomes,
such as complications and mortality. Differences in nurses' clinical
expertise have not been studied, however, for lack of suitable measures.
The principal investigator developed the Clinical Nursing Expertise
Survey (CNES) as part of a program of research that delineates the
mechanisms whereby nursing influences patient outcomes. The proposed
study examines the relationships among nurse staffing, clinical
nursing expertise and patient adverse events (patient falls and
pressure ulcers). A prospective cross-sectional observational design
will be used to study staff nurses and patients on 60 acute care
nursing units in three community hospitals. This study will establish
the feasibility of an innovative 25-hospital data collection procedure
involving web-based nurse surveys matched to detailed patient adverse
event reports at the level of the nursing unit. The CNES will also
undergo psychometric refinement with this large, diverse sample
of nurses. The products of this study are: an efficient data collection
protocol based on pilot testing, enhanced understanding of the effect
of nursing expertise on patient safety; a refined, generalizable
instrument measuring nursing expertise; and data for use in preliminary
studies for an R01 submission to the National Institute of Nursing
Research.
The
Impact of CABG Report Cards on Racial Disparities
Principal Investigator: Mark
Pauly, PhD; Co-Investigator: Rachel Werner
Racial and ethnic disparities in quality of health care are well
documented and reducing disparities has become an important research
priority. One area that has not been well researched is the impact
of "report cards" on health disparities. In Pennsylvania,
the quality of surgeons and hospitals has been published for over
a decade. On one hand, these report cards may have improved the
overall quality of care for CABG patients and could potentially
have a greater impact on the quality of care for groups that have
historically experienced poor outcomes, such as racial and ethnic
minorities. On the other hand, CABG report cards may have led to
selection effects whereby cardiac surgeons preferentially treat
healthier patients over sicker patients, and racial and ethnic minorities
are often perceived as sicker than white patients. Finally, CABG
report cards may be differentially used by persons of higher SES.
As racial and ethnic minorities have lower SES on average, this
could increase outcome disparities. Because of these competing effects,
the impact of CABG report cards on the health care of racial and
ethnic minorities is ambiguous. We propose to study the impact of
CABG report cards on treatment of racial and ethnic minorities by
high quality surgeons and hospitals in the state of Pennsylvania.
Using Pennsylvania discharge data, we will study the sorting of
patients by race and ethnicity to high versus low quality surgeons
and hospitals. The results of this study could impact future interventions
reducing racial and ethnic disparities in health care.
Adoption
and Diffusion of Medical Innovation: Development of a New Analytical
Approach
Principal Investigator: J.
Sanford Schwartz, MD
Background: The appropriate adoption (and disadoption) and
diffusion of medical innovation is central to the practice of high
quality, cost-effective medical care. The gap between knowledge
and practice - that many "good" innovations simply do
not diffuse far enough or fast enough - frequently is cited as a
major problem facing U.S. health care.
Objective: The objective of the proposed pilot study is to
develop the methodologies, collect pilot data and refine the hypotheses
required to develop conduct a comprehensive examinations of the
adoption, disadoption and diffusion of medical innovations across
clinical domains, specialties, categories of innovations and time.
The pilot study will focus on: identifying innovations in cardiovascular
disease; assessing their rate and degree of diffusion, the importance
(from multiple perspectives), of facilitating and inhibiting factors,
and the appropriateness of diffusion; and refining and assessing
the relative strengths and weaknesses of alternative methodological
approaches.
Methods: (1) Critical review of the literature; (2) Conduct
of a series of focus groups and in-depth interviews with key technology
decision makers (physicians, hospital, payors, patients); (3) Design,
conduct and analysis of a pilot survey of general internal medicine,
family medicine, general and interventional cardiology and cardiovascular
surgeon physicians.
Results: Beside the insights provided and resulting publications,
successful completion of the proposed pilot project will inform
and guide development of a grant proposal of a more comprehensive
multi-disciplinary examination of a broader set of medical innovations,
while stimulating creation of an active multi-disciplinary medical
innovation working group of LDI investigators.
Newborn
Screening by Tandem Mass Spectrometry for Medium-Chain
Acyl-CoA Dehydrogenase Deficiency: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Principal Investigator: Henry
Glick, PhD
Objective.To
determine whether newborn screening by tandem mass spectrometry
(MS/MS) for medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency (MCADD)
is cost-effective versus not screening and to define the contributions
of disease, test, and population parameters on the decision. Methods.
A decision-analytic Markov model was designed to perform cost-effectiveness
and cost-utility analyses measuring the discounted, incremental
cost per lifeyear saved and per quality-adjusted life-year saved
of newborn screening for MCADD compared with not screening. A hypothetical
cohort of neonates made transitions among a set of health states
that reflected clinical status, morbidity, and cost. Outcomes were
estimated for time horizons of 20 and 70 years. Probabilities and
costs were derived from a retrospective chart review of a 32- patient
cohort treated over the past 30 years at the Childrens Hospital
of Philadelphia, clinical experience with MCADD patient management,
patient-family interviews, cost surveys, state sources, and published
studies. In addition to older patients who came to medical attention
by symptomatic presentation, our patient group included 6 individuals
whose MCADD had been diagnosed by supplemental newborn screening.
Estimates of the expected net changes in costs and life expectancy
for MCADD screening were used to compute the incremental cost-effectiveness
ratios. Sensitivity analyses were performed on key input variables,
and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed through second-order
Monte Carlo simulations.
Results. In our base-case analysis over the first 20 years
of life, the cost of newborn screening for MCADD was approximately
$11 000 (2001 US dollars; 95% CI: <$0$33 800) per life-year
saved, or $5600 (95% CI: <$0 $17 100) per quality-adjusted
life-year saved compared with not screening. Over a 70-year horizon,
the respective ratios were approximately $300 (95% CI: <$0$13
000) and $100 (95% CI: <$0$6900). The results were robust
when tested over plausible ranges for diagnostic test sensitivity
and specificity, MCADD prevalence, asymptomatic rate, and screening
cost.
Conclusions. Simulation modeling indicates that newborn screening
for MCADD reduces morbidity and mortality at an incremental cost
below the range for accepted health care interventions. At the 70-year
horizon, the model predicts that almost all of the additional costs
of screening would be offset by avoided sequelae. Pediatrics 2003;112:10051015;
cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, newborn screening, inborn errors
of metabolism, MCADD.
Financial
Incentives for Smoking Cessation
Principal Investigator: Kevin
Volpp, MD, PhD
Smoking
cessation programs have been associated with increasing quit rates
but are underutilized. An estimated 70% of smokers want to quit
smoking, but quit rates hover at around 5% per year. In this pilot
study, I propose to use financial incentives to test a.) whether
modest financial subsidies are effective in increasing enrollment
in and completion of smoking cessation, b.) whether increasing enrollment
in smoking cessation using financial incentives leads to higher
quit rates; c.) the degree to which financial incentives to attend
smoking cessation are cost-effective and possibly even cost-saving;
d.) which patient characteristics (personal health history, personal
motivation, time preferences, personal perception of risk) predict
response to incentives and enrollment in and completion of smoking
cessation classes. This study will provide the basis for developing
a larger scale externally funded project that will test different
types of financial incentives to determine the best structure and
the cost-effectiveness of different types of incentives programs.
Funds are requested from LDI to supplement existing pilot project
funding from CHERP and the Tobacco Use Research Center for staff
support to complete the pilot data collection and analysis.
LDI
Pilot Project 2002 Awards
Social Capital, Income, Inequality and Health Disparity
by Chao,
Li-Wei
Health disparities between different socioeconomic groups have existed for centuries, and questions about their causes and remedies have come to the forefront of health policy debate. Disparities in healthcare delivery and in access interact in complex ways with behavioral, environmental, and societal-wide factors. The term "social capital" has been loosely coined to include the network of societal institutions and relationships that together have a positive influence on the function of communities and individuals.
This pilot project (1) tries to study the health impact of personalized social capital (measured by a person's access to social networks, family, and friends), economy-wide social capital (measured by the geographic-specific levels of civic engagement, trust, and helpfulness), and their interactions with each other as well as with socioeconomic status, (2) tries to study the impact of these social capital measures on contemporaneous health and on future mortality, (3) tries to settle the debate about the health impact of income inequality, (4) helps identify specific behavioral and social determinants of health which intermediate between socioeconomic status and health to result in the health gradient, and (5) tries to identify vulnerable population subgroups that are most likely to suffer negative health consequences from low levels of social capital.
International Comparison of Vaccine and Drug Procurement
by Danzon
P.
Vaccines are among the most cost-effective means of reducing morbidity and mortality in both developed and developing countries. However in the US there are major concerns about pricing and procurement mechanisms, the supply of existing vaccines and number of vaccine producers; in LDCs, concerns relate to prices and late access to existing vaccines and low R&D effort to develop vaccines for malaria, HIV-Aids and other LDC diseases.
This project will provide a detailed review of procurement policies for vaccines and essential drugs in the US, the UK, several LDC governments and non-government organizations (NGOs) such as UNICEF. We will review academic literature on procurement, including theoretical analyses and evidence from other industries, and proposed procurement processes for the Global Fund. The analysis of these processes will assess their likely effect on prices to suppliers and patients; promptness of access; product quality; incentives for future R&D; and competition in the vaccine/drug supply industry. The empirical analysis will use data on prices and quantities, number of suppliers etc. for a subset of procurement programs, to test hypotheses and draw conclusions about welfare effects.
The review of the theory and evidence on procurement processes, combined with the pilot data analysis, will provide the groundwork for a larger grant application to study the design of co-ordinated push (supply-side subsidies) and pull (demand-side subsidies), especially procurement, to encourage the development of new vaccines and sustainable supply. These findings should be relevant to both industrialized and developing countries.
Evaluation of APR-DRG as a Method of Risk Adjustment for Inpatient
Pediatric Care
by Glick,
H.
Pediatric studies that use mortality as a measure of quality of care have been limited by an inability to adjust for severity of illness. The All Patients Refined Diagnosis-Related Groups (APR-DRG) uses pediatric discharge data for the classification of DRG groups, severity of illness, and mortality risk. No evaluation of APR-DRG has been performed on pediatric inpatients. The goal of this study is to examine the ability of the APR-DRG system to predict the risk of mortality and resource use for pediatric inpatients. The specific aims of this study are to: 1) Assess the criterion validity of the APR-DRG system for predicting mortality in pediatric inpatients, and 2) Assess the ability of the APR-DRG system to predict resource use based on severity of illness in pediatric inpatients. We will test the discriminative ability of the APR-DRG risk of mortality classification using ROC curves, and the calibration of the system using the Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-squared statistic. We will test the relationship of the APR-DRG severity of illness classification to the hospital cost using correlation coefficients and linear regression. If the APR-DRG is a valid predictor of risk of mortality and resource use, then it will be used for risk adjustment in a larger study measuring the quality of care, cost, and cost-effectiveness provided by different types of hospitals to a large population of pediatric inpatients. A valid risk adjustment method for pediatric inpatients will strengthen the grant application for the larger study and increase the likelihood of its funding by AHRQ.
Physician Learning and Best Practice Adoption: An Application
to Cesarean Sections
by Nicholson,
S. and Epstein, A.
Small area variation studies have demonstrated that people receive a substantially different amount of medical care depending on where they live, controlling for differences in prices, income, and health. One explanation for why physicians in different markets appear to have such divergent views regarding the efficacy and appropriateness of medical care is that physicians learn from their peers, and may ultimately imitate their peers' behavior rather than using their own information. We test a model of physician learning using a data set that contains the universe of hospital admissions in Florida over a 9-year period and consistent physician identifiers that allow us to characterize a physician's practice and his peer group. Specifically, we examine the extent to which an obstetrician's c-section rate, adjusted for patient characteristics, is affected by his peer group's c-section rate.
Physicians appear to have distinct and persistent styles of care; there is considerably more variation in the mean c-section rate across physicians within a region than there is between regions. We find evidence that physicians respond to the practice style of their peer physicians, but this effect is fairly small. These results are consistent with physicians forming their medical styles in residency training and adhering to those styles rather than imitating a local standard, such as the average treatment rate among a physician's colleagues. If so, this would indicate that herding behavior is not the primary cause of the large inter-regional variation in the c-section rate.
Malpractice Premiums and the Supply of Obstetricians
by Polsky,
D.
Policy makers are especially concerned about the availability of obstetrical services because of the well-established link between comprehensive obstetric care and both maternal and infant health. Research suggests that women residing in communities with limited numbers of obstetrical service providers receive less prenatal care and implies that they may ultimately be at risk for inadequate services during delivery.
There is a sizeable literature investigating the relationship between obstetrical service providers and physician liability. Much of this research suggests that obstetricians, who are faced with exorbitant malpractice premiums, have an increased risk of limiting their practices to gynecology or withdrawing from clinical medicine completely. However, while the research on malpractice is informative, the literature is somewhat conflicting. The one study which focuses on physician behavior rather than physician intentions fails to find a relationship between the level of increase in liability insurance between 1980 and 1989 and the likelihood of discontinuing obstetric practice.
We propose to address the gap in the literature by conducting an analysis of the relationship between malpractice premiums and the supply of obstetrical service providers. Our analysis will rely on data from the AMA Masterfile, health care market data from the Area Resource File and physician liability data from the Medical Liability Monitor. We will create a subset for the 1991 and 2001 AMA file that included active physicians whose primary specialty fell into the broad category of obstetrics-gynecology. We estimate that there are approximately 35,000 physicians who would qualify for this subset. The analysis will have two phases. First, we will estimate multivariate regression models to examine the change between 1991 and 2001 in the number of FTE generalist and specialist physicians practicing in 316 Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the U.S. The purpose of the analysis will be to determine how the effect of the level and rate of growth in malpractice premiums influenced the changes in the number of FTE physicians. Then, we will assess how malpractice premiums relate to the odds that any specific obstetrician-gynecologist will eliminate obstetrical services from his or her practice.
|