Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2017
A Randomized Trial of Displaying Paid Price Information on Imaging Study and Procedure Ordering Rates.
Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Impact of Choosing Wisely Interventions on Low-Value Medical Services: A Systematic Review.The Milbank quarterly · 2021Pooled it
- Interventions to reduce low-value imaging - a systematic review of interventions and outcomes.BMC health services research · 2021Pooled it
- Effectiveness of provider price display in computerized physician order entry (CPOE) on healthcare quality: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Pooled it
- The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- Effect of a Price Transparency Intervention in the Electronic Health Record on Clinician Ordering of Inpatient Laboratory Tests: The PRICE Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2017Trial
- Effects of Real-time Prescription Benefit Recommendations on Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2022Article
- Revisiting Indications for Brain Imaging During the Clinical Staging Evaluation of Lung Cancer.JTO clinical and research reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Effect of a price display intervention on laboratory test ordering behavior of general practitioners.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Engagement in Eliminating Overuse: The Argument for Safety and Beyond.Journal of patient safety · 2020Article
- Application of Unit-Level Cost Transparency, Education, Enhanced Audit, and Feedback of Anonymized Peer Ranking to Promote Judicious Use of 25% Albumin in Critical Care Units.Hospital pharmacy · 2020Article
- Impact of Cost Display on Ordering Patterns for Hospital Laboratory and Imaging Services.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Article
- Capsule Commentary on Chien et al., A Randomized Trial of Displaying Paid Price Information on Imaging Study and Procedure Ordering Rates.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrior 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.
objectiveTo examine the effect of displaying paid-price information on test-ordering rates for common imaging studies and procedures within an accountable care organization (ACO).
designBlock randomized controlled trial for 1 year. SUBJECTS: A total of 1205 fully licensed clinicians (728 primary care, 477 specialists).
interventionStarting 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. MAIN MEASURES: 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). KEY
resultsWe 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.
conclusionsDisplaying 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.