Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39141386›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Potential US Health Care Savings Based on Clinician Views of Feasible Site-of-Care Shifts.

Nikhil R Sahni, Crosbie Marine, David M Cutler, Laura N Medford-Davis, Melvin Mezue, Omar Kattan, Ed Levine, Karen E Joynt Maddox

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Nikhil R SahniDepartment of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Crosbie MarineCenter for US Healthcare Improvement, McKinsey and Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
David M CutlerDepartment of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Laura N Medford-DavisCenter for US Healthcare Improvement, McKinsey and Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
Melvin MezueCenter for US Healthcare Improvement, McKinsey and Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
Omar KattanCenter for US Healthcare Improvement, McKinsey and Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ed LevineCenter for US Healthcare Improvement, McKinsey and Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
Karen E Joynt MaddoxCardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.

Funding

AHRQ HHS U19 HS024072
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Shifting care to alternative sites when clinically appropriate may be associated with reduced US health care spending, improved access, and, in some cases, improved care outcomes. Objective: To fill 2 main gaps in the current literature on site-of-care shifts: (1) understanding the clinician perspective on appropriateness of alternative care sites, given the central role they play in referrals and patient trust and (2) considering all potential sites where care could shift and calculating net savings potential. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, physicians (MDs and DOs), nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurse anesthetists, radiology and imaging technicians, and psychologists were surveyed from September 17 to November 22, 2021, about potential shifts of care from the hospital setting to alternative sites. Participants were selected by the survey firm Intellisurvey to provide broad representation across all specialties of interest. A minimum of 34 clinicians responded to each question. Data were analyzed from April 2022 through October 2023. Exposure: More than 5000 individual diagnostic and procedural codes were reviewed and sorted into 312 distinct care activities by an expert panel of physicians. Survey respondents were then provided with the 2019 claims-based distribution across sites of care for each care activity and were asked, "based on your clinical judgment, what portion of [care activity] could safely occur in each of the following sites of care, without compromising clinical outcomes?" Main Outcomes and Measures: Based on clinician-reported distributions, the total potential shift of volume from hospital-based settings to alternative sites and the associated net savings were estimated. Results: Survey respondents included 1069 practicing clinicians (386 female [36.1%]; mean [SD] years since residency of physicians, 21.0 [9.7] years; mean [SD] age of nonphysicians, 45.3 [9.4] years) across specialties, all of whom practiced more than 20 clinical hours per week. There were 794 physicians (74.3%), and the remaining 275 respondents were midlevel professionals, such as physician assistants. Among 312 care activities surveyed, respondents indicated that 10.3 percentage points (95% CI, 10.0-10.5 percentage points) of commercial and 10.9 percentage points (95% CI, 10.7-11.1 percentage points) of Medicare volume currently taking place in hospital-based settings could shift to alternative sites with today's technology without compromising clinical outcomes. Across the entire US health care system, these shifts could be associated with a reduction in overall health care consumption spending ($3 562 339 000 000 000) by approximately $113.8 billion ($113 767 446 087 174 [3.2%]) to $147.7 billion ($147 661 672 284 263 [4.1%]) annually. Conclusions and relevance: In this study, a substantial net savings opportunity was estimated. However, realizing this potential will require ongoing alignment among organizations, clinicians, and policymakers to overcome barriers to these shifts.

Indexed as

Cost SavingsAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID39141386
PMCPMC11325203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.