Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Patricia R Salber.
Private purchasers would benefit from outcomes research in chronic care that could inform their purchasing activities, including benefit design decisions. This article presents 1 purchaser's perspective on 10 areas of research of interest to the purchasing community.
BACKGROUND: Increasing prevalence, rising costs, and persisting deficiencies in quality of care for chronic diseases pose economic and policy challenges to providers and purchasers. Disease management (DM) programs may address these challenges, but neither purchasers nor providers can assess their value. The potpourri of current quality indicators provides limited insight into the actual clinical benefit achieved. A conference sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and held in October 2002 explored new approaches to measuring and reporting the value of DM for diabetes mellitus. RESULTS: Quantifying the value of DM requires measuring clinical benefit and net impact on health care costs for the entire population with diabetes. If quality is measured with indicators that are clearly linked to outcomes, clinical benefit can be estimated. Natural history models combine the expected benefits of improvements in multiple indicators to yield a single, composite measure, the quality-adjusted life-year. Such metrics could fairly express, in terms of survival and complications prevention, relatively disparate DM programs' benefits. Measuring and comparing health care costs requires data validation and appropriate case-mix adjustment. Comparing value across programs may provide more accurate assessments of performance, enhance quality improvement efforts within systems, and contribute generalizable knowledge on the utility of DM approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Conference attendees recommended pilot projects to further explore use of natural history models for measuring and reporting the value of DM.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Colorectal cancer screening is advocated by expert groups based on strong evidence of effectiveness, yet only approximately 1 in 3 Americans are screened. For a screening program to be effective, it is necessary for providers to offer and patients to accept screening, insurers to pay for screening, and provider groups to have monitoring and reminder systems and the expertise and facilities to perform the tests well. Whether and when such screening programs become successful depends on the priorities of healthcare decision makers as much as on the efforts of individual physicians and patients. There are strong arguments for decision makers giving colorectal cancer screening programs high priority: it saves as many lives as other services now in common use; it is a good use of scarce resources, costing less than $20,000 per year of life saved; and members of insurance programs increasingly expect screening benefits and programs, and failure to offer them might lead to member dissatisfaction and malpractice claims. Screening is costly, however, taking into account the cost of screening, follow-up tests, and treatments, and the costs occur many years before the benefits. Programs that are promoted to members but not fully implemented could create disappointment and backlash. Also, this screening can cause medical complications. Nevertheless, successful programs have been developed, proving that they are feasible in today's cost-conscious environment. We believe that colorectal cancer screening programs are integral to any organization purporting to provide high-quality care. Organizations without such programs should give them high priority for implementation.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.