A Randomized Trial of Displaying Paid Price Information on Imaging Study and Procedure Ordering Rates
- 470 Downloads
Prior studies have demonstrated how price transparency lowers the test-ordering rates of trainees in hospitals, and physician-targeted price transparency efforts have been viewed as a promising cost-controlling strategy.
To examine the effect of displaying paid-price information on test-ordering rates for common imaging studies and procedures within an accountable care organization (ACO).
Block randomized controlled trial for 1 year.
A total of 1205 fully licensed clinicians (728 primary care, 477 specialists).
Starting January 2014, clinicians in the Control arm received no price display; those in the intervention arms received Single or Paired Internal/External Median Prices in the test-ordering screen of their electronic health record. Internal prices were the amounts paid by insurers for the ACO’s services; external paid prices were the amounts paid by insurers for the same services when delivered by unaffiliated providers.
Ordering rates (orders per 100 face-to-face encounters with adult patients): overall, designated to be completed internally within the ACO, considered “inappropriate” (e.g., MRI for simple headache), and thought to be “appropriate” (e.g., screening colonoscopy).
We found no significant difference in overall ordering rates across the Control, Single Median Price, or Paired Internal/External Median Prices study arms. For every 100 encounters, clinicians in the Control arm ordered 15.0 (SD 31.1) tests, those in the Single Median Price arm ordered 15.0 (SD 16.2) tests, and those in the Paired Prices arms ordered 15.7 (SD 20.5) tests (one-way ANOVA p-value 0.88). There was no difference in ordering rates for tests designated to be completed internally or considered to be inappropriate or appropriate.
Displaying paid-price information did not alter how frequently primary care and specialist clinicians ordered imaging studies and procedures within an ACO. Those with a particular interest in removing waste from the health care system may want to consider a variety of contextual factors that can affect physician-targeted price transparency.
KEY WORDSrandomized trials electronic health record health services research
Accountable care organization
Electronic health record
Price Education Initiative
Magnetic resonance imaging
- 2.Boyd C, Darer J, Boult C, Fried L. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA. 2005;294(6). http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201377. Accessed 21 Oct 2016.
- 3.Rathod RH, Farias M, Friedman KG, Graham D, Lock JE. A novel approach to gathering and acting on relevant clinical information: SCAMPs. 2012;5(4):343–353. doi:10.1111/j.1747-0803.2010.00438.x.A.
- 4.Crosson F. Change the microenvironment. Delivery system reform essential to control costs. Mod Healthc. 2009;27(39):20–21.Google Scholar
- 11.Hampers L, Cha S, Gutglass D. The effect of price information on test-ordering behavior and patient outcomes in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatrics. 1999. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/Supplement_1/877.short. Accessed 21 Oct 2016.
- 13.Gama R, Nightingale P, Broughton PM, et al. Modifying the request behaviour of clinicians. J Clin Pathol. 1992;45(3):248–249. http://jcp.bmj.com/content/45/3/248.abstract. Accessed 21 Oct 2016.
- 14.Sachdeva R, Jefferson L, Coss-Bu J, et al. Effects of availability of patient-related charges on practice patterns and cost containment in the pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 1996;24(3):501–506. http://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/Abstract/1996/03000/Effects_of_availability_of_patient_related_charges.22.aspx. Accessed 21 Oct 2016.
- 15.Schroeder S, Kenders K, Cooper J, Piemme T. Use of laboratory tests and pharmaceuticals: variation among physicians and effect of cost audit on subsequent use. JAMA. 1973;225(8):969–973. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=350098. Accessed 21 Oct 2016.
- 17.Berwick D, Coltin K. Feedback reduces test use in a health maintenance organization. JAMA. 1986;255(11):1450–1454. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=403313. Accessed 21 Oct 2016.
- 21.Sinaiko AD, Rosenthal MB. Increased price transparency in health care—challenges and potential effects—NEJM. N Engl J Med. 2011:891–894. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1100041.
- 23.Song Z, Safran D, Landon B, Landrum M. The “Alternative Quality Contract” in Massachusetts, based on a global budget, lowered medical spending and improved quality. Health Aff. 2012. http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/31/8/1885.long. Accessed 21 Oct 2016.
- 24.Sequist T, Schneider E. Quality monitoring of physicians: linking patients’ experiences of care to clinical quality and outcomes. JGIM. 2008:1784–1790. doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0760-4.
- 25.Sequist T. Physician performance and racial disparities in diabetes mellitus care. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(11):1145–1151. http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=414277. Accessed 21 Oct 2016.
- 26.Sequist T, Adams A. Effect of quality improvement on racial disparities in diabetes care. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:675–681. http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=410023. Accessed 21 Oct 2016.
- 28.Isaac T, Rosenthal MB, Colla CH, et al. Specificity of Overuse Measurement Using Structured Data from Electronic Health Records: A Chart Review Analysis. (In Progress).Google Scholar
- 30.Consumer Reports. Choosing Wisely campaign brochures. http://consumerhealthchoices.org/campaigns/choosing-wisely/#materials. Accessed 21 Oct 2016.
- 31.(NQMC) NQMC. Colorectal cancer screening: percentage of patients 50 to 75 years of age who had appropriate screening for colorectal cancer. https://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/content.aspx?id=48811.
- 32.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Chronic Condition Indicator (CCI) for ICD-9-CM. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/chronic/chronic.jsp. Accessed 21 Oct 2016.