No abstract

Objectives: The objective was to determine emergency physician (EP) perceptions regarding 1) the extent to which they order medically unnecessary advanced diagnostic imaging, 2) factors that contribute to this behavior, and 3) proposed solutions for curbing this practice.Methods: As part of a larger study to engage physicians in the delivery of high-value health care, two multispecialty focus groups were conducted to explore the topic of decision-making around resource utilization, after which qualitative analysis was used to generate survey questions. The survey was extensively pilot-tested and refined for emergency medicine (EM) to focus on advanced diagnostic imaging (i.e., computed tomography [CT] or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]). The survey was then administered to a national, purposive sample of EPs and EM trainees. Simple descriptive statistics to summarize physician responses are presented.Results: In this study, 478 EPs were approached, of whom 435 (91%) completed the survey; 68% of respondents were board-certified, and roughly half worked in academic emergency departments (EDs). Over 85% of respondents believe too many diagnostic tests are ordered in their own EDs, and 97% said at least some (mean = 22%) of the advanced imaging studies they personally order are medically unnecessary. The main perceived contributors were fear of missing a low-probability diagnosis and fear of litigation. Solutions most commonly felt to be "extremely" or "very" helpful for reducing unnecessary imaging included malpractice reform (79%), increased patient involvement through education (70%) and shared decision-making (56%), feedback to physicians on test-ordering metrics (55%), and improved education of physicians on diagnostic testing (50%). Conclusions:Overordering of advanced imaging may be a systemic problem, as many EPs believe a substantial proportion of such studies, including some they personally order, are medically unnecessary. Respondents cited multiple complex factors with several potential high-yield solutions that must be addressed simultaneously to curb overimaging.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2015;22:390-398

Workplace wellness programs are increasingly popular. Employers expect them to improve employee health and well-being, lower medical costs, increase productivity, and reduce absenteeism. To test whether such expectations are warranted, we evaluated the cost impact of the lifestyle and disease management components of PepsiCo's wellness program, Healthy Living. We found that seven years of continuous participation in one or both components was associated with an average reduction of $30 in health care cost per member per month. When we looked at each component individually, we found that the disease management component was associated with lower costs and that the lifestyle management component was not. We estimate disease management to reduce health care costs by $136 per member per month, driven by a 29 percent reduction in hospital admissions. Workplace wellness programs may reduce health risks, delay or avoid the onset of chronic diseases, and lower health care costs for employees with manifest chronic disease. But employers and policy makers should not take for granted that the lifestyle management component of such programs can reduce health care costs or even lead to net savings.