The “supply hypothesis” and medical practice variation in primary care: testing economic and clinical models of inter-practitioner variation

Davis, Peter; Gribben, Barry; Scott, Alastair; Lay‐Yee, Roy

doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00299-3

Cited by 79 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, a recent study by Davis et al (2000) analyses medical practice variations in New Zealand and does not find any evidence of SID. Similarly, Di Matteo and Grootendorst (2002) estimate that the per capita number of prescribing physicians is a negative, although not a significant, determinant of Canadian drug expenditure.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Small area variations and welfare loss in the use of outpatient antibiotics

Filippini

Masiero

Moschetti

2008

HEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This paper seeks to explain local variations in the use of antibiotics in the community and to assess the welfare loss due to heterogeneous attitudes towards the risk of bacterial resistance.Method: Quarterly data on antibiotic sales from 240 small areas in Switzerland over the course of one year are used. An econometric ad-hoc model with spatial lags is proposed in which the demand for antibiotics varies according to the socioeconomic characteristics of the population, the incidence of infections, antibiotic price and local health care supply. Using residual variations we then evaluate the welfare loss due to varying antibiotic prescription styles.Results: Significant differences are observed in the per capita antibiotic consumption across local areas. Individual income, the demographic structure of the population, physician density and the price of drugs are all relevant determinants. We estimate that unexplained variations may account for 12% of the total antibiotic spending in the community, thus leading to a €6.8 ml loss per year.Conclusions: The understanding of determinants of variations in outpatient antibiotic consumption may help to design more effective policies to counter the threat of bacterial resistance. Our estimate of the welfare loss due to heterogeneous attitudes towards antibiotic treatment is comparable to the expected cost of implementing measures to improve the dissemination of information on bacterial resistance among patients and doctors.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Small area variations and welfare loss in the use of outpatient antibiotics

Filippini

Masiero

Moschetti

2008

HEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar studies of unplanned admissions, 70 diagnostic tests, 71 referral, prescription rates 72 and other process measures 45 will be useful in identifying other aspects of health care where uncertainty manifests through variation. We chose hospital procedures because there are a nationwide routine data set and a financial incentive for hospitals to document procedures.…”

Section: Unanswered Questions and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using clinical practice variations as a method for commissioners and clinicians to identify and prioritise opportunities for disinvestment in health care: a cross-sectional study, systematic reviews and qualitative study

Hollingworth

Rooshenas

Busby

et al. 2015

Health Services and Delivery Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundNHS expenditure has stagnated since the economic crisis of 2007, resulting in financial pressures. One response is for policy-makers to regulate use of existing health-care technologies and disinvest from inefficiently used health technologies. A key challenge to disinvestment is to identify existing health technologies with uncertain cost-effectiveness.ObjectivesWe aimed to explore if geographical variation in procedure rates is a marker of clinical uncertainty and might be used by local commissioners to identify procedures that are potential candidates for disinvestment. We also explore obstacles and solutions to local commissioners achieving disinvestment, and patient and clinician perspectives on regulating access to procedures.MethodsWe used Hospital Episode Statistics to measure geographical variation in procedure rates from 2007/8 to 2011/12. Expected procedure numbers for each primary care trust (PCT) were calculated adjusting for proxies of need. Random effects Poisson regression quantified the residual inter-PCT procedure rate variability. We benchmarked local procedure rates in two PCTs against national rates. We conducted rapid systematic reviews of two high-use procedures selected by the PCTs [carpal tunnel release (CTR) and laser capsulotomy], searching bibliographical databases to identify systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted non-participant overt observations of commissioning meetings and semistructured interviews with stakeholders about disinvestment in general and with clinicians and patients about one disinvestment case study. Transcripts were analysed thematically using constant comparison methods derived from grounded theory.ResultsThere was large inter-PCT variability in procedure rates for many common NHS procedures. Variation in procedure rates was highest where the diffusion or discontinuance was rapidly evolving and where substitute procedures were available, suggesting that variation is a proxy for clinical uncertainty about appropriate use. In both PCTs we identified procedures where high local use might represent an opportunity for disinvestment. However, there were barriers to achieving disinvestment in both procedure case studies. RCTs comparing CTR with conservative care indicated that surgery was clinically effective and cost-effective on average but provided limited evidence on patient subgroups to inform commissioning criteria and achieve savings. We found no RCTs of laser capsulotomy. The apparently high rate of capsulotomy was probably due to the coding inaccuracy; some savings might be achieved by greater use of outpatient procedures. Commissioning meetings were dominated by new funding requests. Benchmarking did not appear to be routinely carried out because of capacity issues and concerns about data reliability. Perceived barriers to disinvestment included lack of collaboration, central support and tools for disinvestment. Clinicians felt threshold criteria had little impact on their practice and that prior approval systems would not be cost-effective. Most patients were unaware of rationing.ConclusionsPolicy-makers could use geographical variation as a starting point to identify procedures where health technology reassessment or RCTs might be needed to inform policy. Commissioners can use benchmarking to identify procedures with high local use, possibly indicating overtreatment. However, coding inconsistency and limited evidence are major barriers to achieving disinvestment through benchmarking. Increased central support for commissioners to tackle disinvestment is needed, including tools, accurate data and relevant evidence. Early engagement with patients and clinicians is essential for successful local disinvestment.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

“…While onsite procedural hospital capacity remains an important determinant of coronary invasive service use (8,9), available evidence has demonstrated marked variations in the use of noninvasive and medical services in Canada and the United States (7,10,11). Given the importance of physician decision making as a determinant of cardiovascular specialty service use (12), one may reasonably hypothesize that variations in physician supply play a more important determining factor in accounting for interregional cardiovascular referral and management disparities than differences in cardiovascular disease burden (7,13,14). Moreover, a mismatch between physician supply and cardiovascular disease burden may also have downstream repercussions on health outcome disparities, should a disproportionate intensity of cardiovascular services be allocated to lower-rather than higher-risk communities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%