Faculty Bibliography

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Rising drug costs contribute to medication nonadherence and adverse health outcomes. Real-time prescription benefit (RTPB) systems present prescribers with patient-specific out-of-pocket cost estimates and recommend lower-cost, clinically appropriate alternatives at the point of prescribing. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To investigate whether RTPB recommendations lead to reduced patient out-of-pocket costs for medications. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:In this cluster randomized trial, medical practices in a large, urban academic health system were randomly assigned to RTPB recommendations from January 13 to July 31, 2021. Participants were adult patients receiving outpatient prescriptions during the study period. The analysis was limited to prescriptions for which RTPB could recommend an available alternative. Electronic health record data were used to analyze the intervention's effects on prescribing. Data analyses were performed from August 20, 2021, to June 8, 2022. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:When a prescription was initiated in the electronic health record, the RTPB system recommended available lower-cost, clinically appropriate alternatives for a different medication, length of prescription, and/or choice of pharmacy. The prescriber could select either the initiated order or one of the recommended options. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Patient out-of-pocket cost for a prescription. Secondary outcomes were whether a mail-order prescription and a 90-day supply were ordered. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 867 757 outpatient prescriptions at randomized practices, 36 419 (4.2%) met the inclusion criteria of having an available alternative. Out-of-pocket costs were $39.90 for a 30-day supply in the intervention group and $67.80 for a 30-day supply in the control group. The intervention led to an adjusted 11.2%; (95% CI, -15.7% to -6.4%) reduction in out-of-pocket costs. Mail-order pharmacy use was 9.6% and 7.6% in the intervention and control groups, respectively (adjusted 1.9 percentage point increase; 95% CI, 0.9 to 3.0). Rates of 90-day supply were not different. In high-cost drug classes, the intervention reduced out-of-pocket costs by 38.9%; 95% CI, -47.6% to -28.7%. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:This cluster randomized clinical trial showed that RTPB recommendations led to lower patient out-of-pocket costs, with the largest savings occurring for high-cost medications. However, RTPB recommendations were made for only a small percentage of prescriptions. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04940988; American Economic Association Registry: AEARCTR-0006909.

BACKGROUND:National registries reveal significant gaps in medical therapy for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but may not accurately (or fully) characterize the population eligible for therapy. OBJECTIVE:We developed an automated, electronic health record-based algorithm to identify HFrEF patients eligible for evidence-based therapy, and extracted treatment data to assess gaps in therapy in a large, diverse health system. METHODS:In this cross-sectional study of all NYU Langone Health outpatients with EF ≤ 40% on echocardiogram and an outpatient visit from 3/1/2019 to 2/29/2020, we assessed prescription of the following therapies: beta-blocker (BB), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). Our algorithm accounted for contraindications such as medication allergy, bradycardia, hypotension, renal dysfunction, and hyperkalemia. RESULTS:We electronically identified 2732 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Among those eligible for each medication class, 84.8% and 79.7% were appropriately prescribed BB and ACE-I/ARB/ARNI, respectively, while only 23.9% and 22.7% were appropriately prescribed MRA and ARNI, respectively. In adjusted models, younger age, cardiology visit and lower EF were associated with increased prescribing of medications. Private insurance and Medicaid were associated with increased prescribing of ARNI (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.02-2.00; and OR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.07-2.67). CONCLUSIONS:We observed substantial shortfalls in prescribing of MRA and ARNI therapy to ambulatory HFrEF patients. Subspecialty care setting, and Medicaid insurance were associated with higher rates of ARNI prescribing. Further studies are warranted to prospectively evaluate provider- and policy-level interventions to improve prescribing of these evidence-based therapies.

BACKGROUND: We previously developed and validated a predictive model to help clinicians identify hospitalized adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who may be ready for discharge given their low risk of adverse events. Whether this algorithm can prompt more timely discharge for stable patients in practice is unknown. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to estimate the effect of displaying risk scores on length of stay (LOS). METHODS: We integrated model output into the electronic health record (EHR) at four hospitals in one health system by displaying a green/orange/red score indicating low/moderate/high-risk in a patient list column and a larger COVID-19 summary report visible for each patient. Display of the score was pseudo-randomized 1:1 into intervention and control arms using a patient identifier passed to the model execution code. Intervention effect was assessed by comparing LOS between intervention and control groups. Adverse safety outcomes of death, hospice, and re-presentation were tested separately and as a composite indicator. We tracked adoption and sustained use through daily counts of score displays. RESULTS: Enrolling 1,010 patients from May 15, 2020 to December 7, 2020, the trial found no detectable difference in LOS. The intervention had no impact on safety indicators of death, hospice or re-presentation after discharge. The scores were displayed consistently throughout the study period but the study lacks a causally linked process measure of provider actions based on the score. Secondary analysis revealed complex dynamics in LOS temporally, by primary symptom, and hospital location. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS: An AI-based COVID-19 risk score displayed passively to clinicians during routine care of hospitalized adults with COVID-19 was safe but had no detectable impact on LOS. Health technology challenges such as insufficient adoption, nonuniform use, and provider trust compounded with temporal factors of the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to the null result. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04570488.

BACKGROUND:As health care spending reaches unsustainable levels, improving value has become an increasingly important policy priority. Relatively little research has explored factors driving value. As a first step towards filling this gap, we performed a scoping review of the literature to identify potential drivers of health care value. METHODS:Searches of PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Policy File, and SCOPUS were conducted between February and March 2020. Empirical studies that explored associations between any range of factors and value (loosely defined as quality or outcomes relative to cost) were eligible for inclusion. We created a template in Microsoft Excel for data extraction and evaluated the quality of included articles using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) quality appraisal tool. Data was synthesized using narrative methods. RESULTS:Twenty-two studies were included in analyses, of which 20 focused on low value service utilization. Independent variables represented a range of system-, hospital-, provider-, and patient-level characteristics. Although results were mixed, several consistent findings emerged. First, insurance incentive structures may affect value. For example, patients in Accountable Care Organizations had reduced rates of low value care utilization compared to patients in traditionally structured insurance plans. Second, higher intensity of care was associated with higher rates of low value care. Third, culture is likely to contribute to value. This was suggested by findings that recent medical school graduation and allopathic training were associated with reduced low value service utilization and that provider organizations had larger effects on value than did individual physicians. CONCLUSIONS:System, hospital, provider, and community characteristics influence low value care provision. To improve health care value, strategies aiming to reduce utilization of low value services and promote high value care across various levels will be essential.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:High-value care is providing high quality care at low cost; we sought to define hospital value and identify the characteristics of hospitals which provide high-value care. DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective observational study. SETTING/METHODS:Acute care hospitals in the USA. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:All Medicare beneficiaries with claims included in Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services Overall Star Ratings or in publicly available Medicare spending per beneficiary data. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Our primary outcome was value defined as the difference between Star Ratings quality score and Medicare spending; the secondary outcome was classification as a 4 or 5 star hospital with lowest quintile Medicare spending ('high value') or 1 or 2 star hospital with highest quintile spending ('low value'). RESULTS:Two thousand nine hundred and fourteen hospitals had both quality and spending data, and were included. The value score had a mean (SD) of 0.58 (1.79). A total of 286 hospitals were classified as high value; these represented 28.6% of 999 4 and 5 star hospitals and 46.8% of 611 low cost hospitals. A total of 258 hospitals were classified as low value; these represented 26.6% of 970 1 and 2 star hospitals and 49.3% of 523 high cost hospitals. In regression models ownership, non-teaching status, beds, urbanity, nurse to bed ratio, percentage of dual eligible Medicare patients and percentage of disproportionate share hospital payments were associated with the primary value score. CONCLUSIONS:There are high quality hospitals that are not high value, and a number of factors are strongly associated with being low or high value. These findings can inform efforts of policymakers and hospitals to increase the value of care.

PURPOSE:The aim of the study was to describe factors that may impact pediatric trainees' willingness to disclose medical errors using clinical vignettes. METHODS:A single-center cross-sectional anonymous survey of pediatric residents and fellows at a large urban medical center in 2019 was conducted. Trainees were provided with clinical vignettes depicting an error resulting in a serious safety event (SSE), minor safety event (MSE), and near miss safety event (NMSE) and were asked to classify the type of safety event and rate and explain their agreement or disagreement with disclosure. Survey items also evaluated trainees' personal experiences with errors and disclosure. Descriptive and correlational analyses were used to characterize responses. Qualitative content from open-ended survey questions was analyzed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS:Of 126 trainees, 42 (33%) completed the survey. All agreed with disclosing the hypothetical error presented in the vignette resulting in an SSE (100%), with rates falling for the MSE (95%) and NMSE (7%). There were no significant associations between disclosure agreement for the vignettes and trainee demographic features, knowledge of safety events, prior personal experiences with errors, and disclosure. Four themes that emerged from qualitative analysis of trainees' rationales for disclosure or nondisclosure of the vignette errors are harm, parental preferences, ethical principles, and anticipatory guidance. CONCLUSIONS:Trainees had high rates of disclosure for the vignette errors cases that depicted SSEs and MSEs but lower rates for NMSEs. Trainees considered the type and level of harm caused, parental preferences, upholding ethical principles, and the need for anticipatory guidance in their rationales for disclosure or nondisclosure of the vignette errors.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the impact of structured recommendations on follow-up completion for incidental lung nodules (ILNs). METHODS:Patients with ILNs before and after implementation of structured Fleischner recommendations and electronic tracking were sampled randomly. The cohorts were compared for imaging follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess appropriate follow-up and loss to follow-up, with independent variables including use of structured recommendations or tracking, age, gender, race, ethnicity, setting of the index test (inpatient, outpatient, emergency department), smoking history, and nodule features. RESULTS:In all, 1,301 patients met final inclusion criteria, including 255 patients before and 1,046 patients after structured recommendations or tracking. Baseline differences were found in the pre- and postintervention groups, with smaller ILNs and younger age after implementing structured recommendations. Comparing pre- versus postintervention outcomes, 40.0% (100 of 250) versus 29.5% (309 of 1,046) of patients had no follow-up despite Fleischner indications for imaging (P = .002), and among the remaining patients, 56.6% (82 of 145) versus 75.0% (553 of 737) followed up on time (P < .001). Delayed follow-up was more frequent before intervention. Differences postintervention were mostly accounted for by nodules ≤ 8 mm in the outpatient setting (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, younger age, White race, outpatient setting, and larger nodule size showed significant association with appropriate follow-up completion (P < .015), but structured recommendations did not. Similar results applied for loss to follow-up. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Consistent use of structured reporting is likely key to mitigate selection bias when benchmarking rates of appropriate follow-up of ILN. Emergency department patients and inpatients are at high risk of missed or delayed follow-up despite structured recommendations.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Hospital consolidations have been shown not to improve quality on average. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To assess a full-integration approach to hospital mergers based on quality metrics in a safety net hospital acquired by an urban academic health system. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This quality improvement study analyzed outcomes for all nonpsychiatric, nonrehabilitation, non-newborn patients discharged between September 1, 2010, and August 31, 2019, at a US safety net hospital that was acquired by an urban academic health system in January 2016. Interrupted time series and statistical process control analyses were used to assess the main outcomes and measures. Data sources included the hospital's electronic health record, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare, and nursing quality reports. Exposures/UNASSIGNED:A full-integration approach to the merger that included: (1) early administrative and clinical leadership integration with the academic health system; (2) rapid transition to the academic health system electronic health record; (3) local ownership of quality metrics; (4) system-level goals with real-time actionable analytics through combined dashboards; and (5) implementation of value-based and other analytic-driven interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission, patient experience, and hospital-acquired conditions. Results/UNASSIGNED:The 122 348 patients in the premerger (September 2010 through August 2016) and the 58 904 patients in the postmerger (September 2016 through August 2019) periods had a mean (SD) age of 55.5 (22.0) years; the total sample of 181 252 patients included 112 191 women (61.9%), the payor mix was majority governmental (144 375 patients [79.7%]), and most admissions were emergent (121 469 patients [67.0%]). There was a 0.71% (95% CI, 0.57%-0.86%) absolute (27% relative) reduction in the crude mortality rate and 0.95% (95% CI, 0.83%-1.12%) absolute (33% relative) in the adjusted rate by the end of the 3-year intervention period. There was no significant improvement in readmission rates after accounting for baseline trends. There were fewer central line infections per 1000 catheter days, fewer catheter-associated urinary tract infections per 1000 discharges, and a higher likelihood of patients recommending the hospital or ranking it 9 or 10. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In this quality improvement study, a hospital merger with a full-integration approach to consolidation was found to be associated with improvement in quality outcomes.