Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:00:05.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic analysis of medical practice variation between 1991 and 2000: The impact of patient outcomes research teams (PORTs)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2008

Stephen T. Parente ,
Charles E. Phelps  and
Patrick J. O'Connor
Stephen T. Parente
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Charles E. Phelps
Affiliation:
University of Rochester
Patrick J. O'Connor
Affiliation:
HealthPartners Research Foundation
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of the multi-hundred million dollar investment by the federal government in the developing Patient Outcomes Research Teams (PORTs) in over a dozen major academic medical centers in the United States throughout the 1990s. The objective of the PORTs was to reduce unnecessary clinical variation in medical treatment.

Methods: Using an economic derivation of welfare loss attributable to medical practice variation and hospital admission claims data for 2 million elderly patients generalizable to the nation, we estimate the change in welfare between 1991 and 2000, the period within which the PORTs were designed and executed and their results disseminated.

Results: Our results show inpatient admission types targeted by the PORTs did have less welfare loss relative to their total expenditure by 2000, but that there was not a net decrease in the welfare loss for all hospital admissions affected by the PORT.

Conclusions: We conclude that PORTs may have had favorable effects on welfare, most likely by reducing variation in clinical care, but that causality cannot be proved, and the effects were not equal across all conditions targeted by PORTs. This research provides a methodological template that may be used to evaluate the impact of patient safety research on welfare loss and on variation in medical treatment in both hospital and ambulatory settings.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentHealth economicsHealth outcomesWelfare economics
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 282 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Bass, EB, Pitt, HA, Lillemoe, KD. Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus open cholecystectomy. Am J Surg. 1993;165:466–471.Google Scholar
2. Cain, KC, Diehr, P. Testing the null hypothesis in small area analysis. Health Serv Res. 1992;27:267–294.Google ScholarPubMed
3. Centers for Disease Control. Communication. JAMA. May 15, 2002.Google Scholar
4. Diehr, P, Grembowski, D. A small area simulation approach to determining excess variation in dental procedure rates. Am J Public Health. 1990;80:1343–1348.Google Scholar
5. Eisenberg, JM. Doctor's decisions and the cost of medical care. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press; 1986.Google Scholar
6. Escarce, JJ, Bloom, BS, Hillman, AL, Shea, JA, Schwartz, JS. Diffusion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy among general surgeons in the United States. Med Care. 1995;33:256–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Freund, D, Lave, J, Clancy, C et al. , Patient outcomes research teams: Contribution to outcomes and effectiveness research. Annu Rev Public Health. 1999;20:337–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Glover, JA. The incidence of tonsillectomy in school children. Proc R Soc Med. 1938;31:1219–1236.Google Scholar
9. Institute of Medicine. Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1985.Google Scholar
10. Institute of Medicine. To err is human. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.Google Scholar
11. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.Google Scholar
12. Paul-Shaheen, P, Clark, JD, Williams, D. Small area analysis: A review and analysis of the North American literature. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1987;12:741–809.Google Scholar
13. Pauly, MV, Redisch, M. The not-for-profit hospital as a physician's cooperative. Am Econ Rev. 1973;63:87–99.Google Scholar
14. Phelps, CE, Parente, ST. Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment. Med Care. 1990;28:703–723.Google Scholar
15. Phelps, CE, Mooney, C. Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment: Correction and update. Med Care. 1992;30:744–751.Google Scholar
16. Wennberg, JE. Dealing with medical practice variations: A proposal for action. Health Aff (Millwood). 1984;3:6–32.Google Scholar
17. Wennberg, JE, Gittelsohn, A. Small area variations in health care delivery. Science. 1973: 1102–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Wennberg, JE, Freeman, JL, Culp, WJ. Are hospital services rationed in New Haven or over-utilised in Boston?” Lancet. 1987;1:1185–1189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst.crd/hfaq16.htm, Accessed April 13, 2008.Google Scholar