What Rate of Utilization is Appropriate in Musculoskeletal Care?
- First Online:
Musculoskeletal procedures often show wide variation in rates across geographic areas, which begs the question, “Which rate is right?” Clearly, there is no simple answer to this question. We summarize a conceptual framework for thinking about how to approach this question for different types of interventions. One guiding principle is the “right rate” is usually the one that results from the choices of a fully informed and empowered patient population. For truly effective care without substantial tradeoffs, the right rate may approach 100%. The rate of operative treatment of hip fracture, for example, approaches the underlying incidence of disease; however, the rate of some forms of effective care, like osteoporosis evaluation and treatment after a fragility fracture, is often quite low and undoubtedly reflects underuse. The recommended approach to underuse is to improve the reliability and accountability of the delivery system. Many other musculoskeletal interventions fall into the category of “preference-sensitive care.” These interventions involve important tradeoffs between risks and benefits. Variations in these procedure rates may represent insufficient focus on patient values and preferences, relying instead on the enthusiasm of the physician for treatment alternatives. The recommended approach in this setting is the use of decision aids and other approaches to informed choice.
Level of Evidence: Level V, expert opinion. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
- 3.Dartmouth Medical School, Weinstein JN. Birkmeyer JD, ed. Dartmouth Atlas of Musculoskeletal Health Care. Chicago, IL: AHA Press; 2000.Google Scholar
- 11.Insitute of Medicine, ed. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003.Google Scholar
- 12.Katz J. Preferences, disparities, and the authenticity of patient choices. J Rheumatology. 2003;30(S68):12–14.Google Scholar
- 16.Lurie J, Tosteson ANA, Zhou W, Weinstein J. Patterns of Vertebroplasty Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries. International Society for Study of the Lumbar Spine. Hong Kong, PRC; 2007.Google Scholar
- 18.Lüthje P, Nurmi-Lüthje I, Kaukonen JP, Kuurne S, Naboulsi H, Kataja M. Undertreatment of osteoporosis following hip fracture in the elderly. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2008 Aug 13. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
- 19.Metje CJ, Leslie WD, Manness L-J, Yogandran M, Yuen CK, Kvern B. Postfracture care for older women: gaps between optimal care and actual care. Can Fam Physician. 2008;54:1270–1276.Google Scholar
- 25.Weinstein JN, Bronner KK, Morgan TS, Wennberg JE. Trends and geographic variations in major surgery for degenerative diseases of the hip, knee, and spine. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;Suppl Web Exclusives:VAR81-9.Google Scholar
- 28.Wennberg JE, Fisher ES, Skinner JS. Geography and the debate over Medicare reform. Health Aff (Millwood). 2002;Suppl Web Exclusives:W96-114.Google Scholar