2
An Imperative for Change

Abstract: This chapter documents the imperative for immediate action to change how the nation marshals clinical evidence and applies it to endorse the most effective clinical interventions. The chapter describes five interconnecting, persistent health policy challenges that are inextricably associated with the need to know what works in health care: (1) unsustainable rates of increase in costs, (2) unwarranted geographic variation in the use of services, (3) unreliable quality, (4) consumer-directed health care, and (5) the need to make informed decisions about the health services that should be covered by health insurance. The chapter provides a brief description and assessment of the efforts that are being made to address the need for information on clinical effectiveness as well as the primary challenges facing the current system. This sets the stage for the committee’s recommendations for addressing the challenge in the subsequent chapters.

To a great extent, the resolution of some of the nation’s most pressing health policy concerns hinges on the capacity to identify highly effective clinical services. Unsustainable rates of growth in health spending result from the delivery of effective as well as ineffective care. The high costs associated with the provision of both appropriate and inappropriate care lead to higher insurance premiums. Unwarranted variation in clinical practice reflects deviations from accepted standards of care, as well as uncertainty and disagreement regarding what those standards should be. This contributes to the health care quality chasm in which patients cannot always be assured that they will receive the best, most effective care. The common thread in each of these policy areas is the need to differentiate between effective and ineffective care.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 33
2 An Imperative for Change Abstract: This chapter documents the imperatie for immediate action to change how the nation marshals clinical eidence and applies it to endorse the most effectie clinical interentions. The chapter describes fie inter- connecting, persistent health policy challenges that are inextricably associ- ated with the need to know what works in health care: () unsustainable rates of increase in costs, () unwarranted geographic ariation in the use of serices, () unreliable quality, () consumer-directed health care, and () the need to make informed decisions about the health serices that should be coered by health insurance. The chapter proides a brief de- scription and assessment of the efforts that are being made to address the need for information on clinical effectieness as well as the primary chal- lenges facing the current system. This sets the stage for the committee’s rec- ommendations for addressing the challenge in the subsequent chapters. To a great extent, the resolution of some of the nation’s most pressing health policy concerns hinges on the capacity to identify highly effective clinical services. Unsustainable rates of growth in health spending result from the delivery of effective as well as ineffective care. The high costs as- sociated with the provision of both appropriate and inappropriate care lead to higher insurance premiums. Unwarranted variation in clinical practice reflects deviations from accepted standards of care, as well as uncertainty and disagreement regarding what those standards should be. This contrib- utes to the health care quality chasm in which patients cannot always be assured that they will receive the best, most effective care. The common thread in each of these policy areas is the need to differentiate between ef- fective and ineffective care. 

OCR for page 33
 KNOWING WHAT WORKS IN HEALTH CARE In recent years, the capacity of the United States to evaluate clinical effectiveness has improved substantially. A number of public and private organizations synthesize and assess the evidence on clinical effectiveness, and many others focus on applying in real world settings the knowledge that those organizations generate. However, significant gaps in the ability to develop, synthesize, and apply the evidence on clinical effectiveness remain; and the nation faces major challenges as an array of new—and often very expensive—technologies and treatments rapidly enter the health care mar- ketplace. As a result, the nation needs to continue to improve its capacity to assess clinical effectiveness and ensure that health care decision making is grounded in the evidence about what works. BACKGROUND Over the past 50 years medical knowledge has grown dramatically as breakthroughs have occurred in numerous areas of medical science, including genomics, stem cell biology, biomedical engineering, molecular biology, and immunology (Sung et al., 2003). Investments in biomedical research, both public and private, have increased steadily over time, result- ing in a rapid pace of innovation in health care (Neumann and Sandberg, 1998; Zinner, 2001). Many more preventive, diagnostic, and treatment alternatives are available to patients than were available in past years; and even more are in development, including products that have resulted from research in pharmacogenomics, biotechnology, and nanotechnology (Joint Economic Committee, 2007; Walsh, 2005). Investments in research directed at understanding the human genome and the functions of genes will provide more opportunities to deliver personalized medicine, which will tailor diag- noses and therapies to an individual’s own genotype (Meadows, 2005). At the same time, the 77 million members of the nation’s baby boom generation are nearing retirement age, and soon the health system will be confronted with patients from this large and increasingly complex cohort of individuals with multiple comorbidities, including physical and cogni- tive impairments (AHRQ, 2001). This will place increased demands on the health system and will add to cost pressures. For patients and providers, as well as for society as a whole, ascertain- ing the effectiveness of the available preventive, diagnostic, and treatment options is becoming increasingly urgent. The expense of emerging technolo- gies and the projected increases in consumer demand virtually ensure that cost control will be a central focus for policy makers, health plans, and others in the coming years (Clancy, 2003). Moreover, variation in treatment patterns means that, in many cases, patients will continue to receive care that deviates from standards of high quality. In the context of rapidly ris-

OCR for page 33
 AN IMPERATIVE FOR CHANGE ing costs, society’s ability to distinguish between health interventions that work and those that do not work, and for whom they work, is becoming more and more important. Medical Advances In recent years, many new diagnostics, devices, drugs, biologics, and procedures have been added to the medical armamentarium. In addition, innovations first established in other fields have been applied to medicine through technology transfer, including lasers, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (Gelijns and Rosenberg, 1994). Over the course of the coming decade, the pace of innovation in medi- cal care is likely to accelerate even more. Although the time from discovery to clinical availability remains long, many medical innovations are moving closer to the release stage. In recent years, the number of patents that have been issued for biomedical devices and biopharmaceuticals has increased significantly. From 1991 to 2003, the number of new patents issued for medical devices doubled from 4,500 to more than 9,000. From 1992 to 2001, the total number of biotechnology patents granted per year tripled, from less than 2,600 to nearly 7,800 (IOM, 2007a). Information Overload Along with the increase in the numbers of medical treatments and interventions that are available, the volume of literature describing investi- gations of these interventions has also expanded. From 1978 to 2001, 8.1 million journal articles were published in MEDLINE.1 From 1978 to 1985, the average annual number of articles indexed by MEDLINE was 272,344. By the 1994 to 2001 time period, the average annual volume of indexed articles had increased by 46 percent to 442,756. Much of the growth in the literature was in articles on randomized trials and other types of clinical research that could be used to guide evidence-based practice (Druss and Marcus, 2005). The evidence base for clinical effectiveness has thus become so vast that it is essentially unmanageable for individual providers (IOM, 2001). Yet, at the same time, the primary literature provides limited guidance on a broad range of urgent clinical questions, such as comparative effectiveness and long-term patient outcomes (Tunis et al., 2003). The massive quantity of evidence places significant demands on anyone 1 MEDLINE is a database of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

OCR for page 33
6 KNOWING WHAT WORKS IN HEALTH CARE seeking to stay abreast of current standards of care. For physicians, infor- mation on the available care options can be overwhelming, even when just a single class of interventions, such as pharmaceuticals, is considered. For ex- ample, for antihypertensive medications, a search of the PubMed database of the National Center for Biotechnology Information of the National Li- brary of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (http://pubmed. gov), by use of the terms “antihypertensive agents AND therapeutic use” identified 312 English-language review articles that the PubMed database had indexed between October 1, 2006, and September 12, 2007. As a result of this increase in the quantity of relevant information, synthesized information such as systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, and resources (e.g., The Cochrane Library), have become essential tools for the users of the evidence (Druss and Marcus, 2005). However, the number of these products has also grown substantially. For example, as of September 2007, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ’s) Na- tional Guideline Clearinghouse (2007b) listed 54 clinical practice guidelines under the heading “antihypertensives.” In this situation, end users need a mechanism to determine which summaries are the most relevant, valid, and reliable. For physicians—and patients—who are motivated enough to read through and assess all of the relevant individual clinical studies on their own, keeping current is an arduous, if not impossible, task. Given the vari- able quality of the research and its limited generalizability, these providers and patients are faced not only with reconciling vastly different research findings but also with scrutinizing each study’s methodology in detail to en- sure that the study has been well designed, that the analyses have been well performed, and that the results apply to their particular clinical circum- stance (Abramson, 2004). This expectation is unrealistic, especially given that today’s medical residents frequently lack the knowledge in biostatistics necessary to interpret the findings of published clinical research (Windish et al., 2007). These findings illustrate the need for a system that can make sense of all of the data that currently exist, as well as the new knowledge that is now being generated. PERSISTENT HEALTH POLICY CHALLENGES Clinical effectiveness is a central issue in health care. Improving the capacity to conduct clinical effectiveness assessments has the potential to improve health care in a range of vital areas, from cost to quality and ac- cess. These opportunities make it imperative that the United States makes improvements in its capacity to make impartial, accurate effectiveness as- sessments. This capability may also provide the financial leeway needed to allow the adoption of innovative breakthrough technologies.

OCR for page 33
7 AN IMPERATIVE FOR CHANGE Unsustainable Rates of Increase in Costs A significant proportion of health care costs is directed to care that has not been shown to be effective and that may actually be harmful. For example, Wennberg and colleagues (2006) concluded that decreased utilization of acute care hospitals and physician visits by Medicare benefi- ciaries could actually lead to better clinical outcomes and also prolong the solvency of the program. The authors found that 30 percent of Medicare spending on chronically ill individuals was unnecessary. Other studies have also estimated that the potential savings from reducing excessive spending on services of little or no value in the Medicare program may be as high as 30 percent of all expenditures (Wennberg et al., 2002a). Historically, health care cost-containment efforts in the United States have had little to no success (Altman and Levitt, 2002). The levels of spend- ing on health care rose from 5.7 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 1965 to 16 percent of the GDP in 2004 (Lubitz, 2005). By 2015, spending is projected to reach 20 percent of the GDP, or an estimated $4 trillion, up from $1.9 trillion in 2004 (Borger et al., 2006; Cutler, 2005). The U.S. Government Accountability Office (2007) concludes that rising health care costs pose a fiscal challenge not just to the federal budget but also to states, American businesses, and society as a whole. The federal Medicare program spent $374 billion in 2006 and ac- counted for 13 percent of all federal spending (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2007). Spending on Medicare is projected to reach $564 billion in 2012 and in the subsequent years will continue to consume an increasingly large por- tion of federal revenues. Along with projected increases in spending on So- cial Security, Medicaid, and interest on the federal debt, these expenditures will begin to crowd out spending in many other areas of the budget. As a result, fiscal pressures will necessitate a series of difficult budget decisions in coming years (Walker, 2007). Figure 2-1 provides Congressional Budget Office estimates of Medicare and Medicaid spending as a percentage of the GDP through 2050. In this context, improving the U.S. capacity to evaluate the effectiveness of medical treatment options appears to be vital. Unwarranted Geographic Variation in the Use of Health Services Evidence suggests that there is a substantial potential to improve the quality of health care by addressing the inappropriate variation in the use of health services (IOM, 2001). Analysis of the widespread geographic differences in health spending and the use of services does not support the hypothesis that greater spending results in increased life expectancy or bet- ter health outcomes overall in the regions with higher levels of spending (Fisher et al., 2003a; Fuchs, 2004; Wennberg et al., 2002b).

OCR for page 33
 KNOWING WHAT WORKS IN HEALTH CARE 25 Actual Baseline Differential of: Projection 2.5 Percentage Points 20 1 Percentage Point Zero 15 10 5 0 66 72 78 84 90 96 02 08 14 20 26 32 38 44 50 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 FIGURE 2-1 Total federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid under assumptions about the health care cost growth differential. SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office (2007). fig 2-1 fixed image probably a jpeg saved in Word Health care differs substantially across the country, from one small region to another and from one city to the next (Feenberg and Skinner, 2000; Fisher et al., 2003a). These variations occur across a wide range of health interventions, including the use of delivery by cesarean section (Baicker et al., 2006); cardiac procedures after acute myocardial infarction (Guadagnoli et al., 1995); treatment of degenerative diseases of the hip, knee, and spine (Weinstein et al., 2004); and the treatment of individuals who are chronically ill (Wennberg et al., 2004). There are also significant disparities in the quality and the quantity of the health services received by minority groups in the United States (IOM, 2003). Among Medicare beneficiaries, regional differences in spending reflect a greater frequency of physician visits, the more frequent use of specialist consultations, more frequent tests and minor procedures, and the greater use of the hospital and intensive care unit in certain regions (Fisher et al., 2003b). In addition, larger expenditures are associated with dramatic dif- ferences in end-of-life care seen in various parts of the country (Skinner and Wennberg, 2003). Overall, the difference in lifetime Medicare spending between a typical 65-year-old in Miami, Florida, and one in Minneapolis, Minnesota, has been estimated to be more than $50,000 (Wennberg et al., 2002b). Figure 2-2 illustrates these spending differentials in 2003.

OCR for page 33
9 AN IMPERATIVE FOR CHANGE FIGURE 2-2 Medicare spending per capita in the United States, by hospital referral region, 2003. NOTE: The numbers in parentheses indicate the number of regions in each group. Reprinted, with permission, from The Dartmouth Atlas Project, 2003. Copyright 2007 by The Trustees of Dartmouth College. SOURCE: The Dartmouth Atlas Project (2003). Greater expenditures do not necessarily result in better health out- comes, however (Fuchs, 2004). Fisher and colleagues (2003b) found no evidence that the patterns of practice observed in higher-spending regions led to improved survival, a slower decline in functional status, or a greater satisfaction with care. A higher rate of utilization of medical tests and pro- cedures can, in some cases, have negative consequences for patients, as in the case of false-positive screening test results (Mitka, 2004). Consequently, differentiating between effective and ineffective health utilization is an im- portant policy objective. Variation in physician practice patterns has been a persistent concern because it points to the overuse and underuse of specific health services (Schwartz, 1984; Wennberg, 2004). These designations suggest that there are benchmarks that define optimal use; however, these are often not well defined. Investigators have asserted that, for some preference sensitive services, informed patient preference should be used to establish the bench-

OCR for page 33
0 KNOWING WHAT WORKS IN HEALTH CARE marks for appropriate use (Wennberg, 1988; Wennberg and Wennberg, 2003), yet this presupposes that patients (and providers) have access to reliable, relevant, and trustworthy information about treatment outcomes. This is often not the case. As a result, many policy makers have called for the establishment of a national organization that would be able to meet the need for clinical effectiveness information (America’s Health Insurance Plans, 2007; BCBSA, 2007a; Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, 2007; Shortell et al., 2007; Wilensky, 2006). The Quality Chasm The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report Crossing the Quality Chasm (2001) identified six aims for patient care: safety, effectiveness, patient centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity. To promote effective care, the report indicated that scientific knowledge should be employed to ensure that all patients who might benefit from a certain intervention receive the services, whereas those who are not likely to benefit should not (i.e., avoid- ing underuse and overuse). The report recognized that the evidence base needed to support effective care is limited for many health and health care topics, but it concluded that health care providers and organizations should do more to determine the most appropriate therapies on the basis of the strength of the evidence and then adhere to those preferred therapies. Strategies that encourage quality improvement, such as pay-for- performance incentives, are also based on the ability to recognize excellent performance, promote best practices, and reduce errors (Berwick et al., 2003). The IOM report Rewarding Proider Performance (2007b) high- lights performance measures as key building blocks in this effort. How- ever, these measures must be based on benchmarks of appropriate clinical performance, and these are often not available. Thus, a lack of reliable information about clinical effectiveness limits the ability to guide care and to evaluate it. Consumer-Directed Health Care Many policy makers believe in empowering consumers and patients to be prudent managers of their own health and health care (Buntin et al., 2006; Congressional Budget Office, 2006). Proponents of consumer-directed health plans argue that consumers who are equipped with good information on the cost and quality of health services will have the power to reduce the cost and improve the quality of care. Yet, information on the effectiveness, risks, and benefits of alternative treatments is rarely adequate (U.S. Govern- ment Accountability Office, 2006).

OCR for page 33
 AN IMPERATIVE FOR CHANGE Coverage Decisions Private and public health plans are struggling with an almost daily challenge of learning how their covered populations might benefit—or be harmed—by newly available health services. In making coverage decisions, it is rare for plans to have access to all of the information that they need, and it is often unclear what should guide their decision making in cases in which the scientific knowledge is inconclusive or lacking. Determining what level of evidence and what degree of certainty is sufficient to move forward with a decision to cover or not cover a new treatment involves a judgment about the risks of acting too soon (promoting the use of a treatment that is later determined to be ineffective or harmful) and acting too late (delaying the use of a treatment that is truly beneficial) (Atkins et al., 2005b). The value of costly, emerging technologies is widely debated. Cutler and McClellan (2001) argue that although technological changes have ac- counted for the bulk of the increases in medical expenditures over time, these medical advances have proved to be worth far more than their costs. In contrast, Redberg (2007) argues that many treatments undergo rapid adoption despite relatively limited evidence, resulting in high levels of spending for unproven procedures. The current controversy over the use of drug-eluting stents for the treatment of vascular disease is a case in point. In deciding what to include as part of their covered package of ben- efits, health plans and purchasers must decide about the value of specific interventions for particular groups of patients. Health services and tech- nologies are deemed medically necessary, and therefore appropriate for inclusion in the benefit package, or experimental and investigational, and therefore not eligible for coverage. However, the term “medical necessity” is ill defined, unexamined, and idiosyncratically applied (Bergthold, 1995). Historically, insurers relied on the expert opinions of physicians in deciding what services and technologies to include as part of their benefit packages. Over time, however, plans have placed a stronger emphasis on high-quality scientific studies (Garber, 2001; Tunis and Pearson, 2006). CURRENT LANDSCAPE Providers, patients, health plans, and others need information about clinical effectiveness to ensure that the decisions that they make are solidly grounded in the evidence about what works. Toward that end, Congress has substantially increased funding for the NIH in recent years. Between 1998 and 2003 the NIH budget doubled, and by fiscal year 2007 it had reached $28.6 billion (Loscalzo, 2006). Private spending on research has also increased significantly (Iglehart, 2001). For example, investments in re- search and development on new medicines by the biotechnology and phar-

OCR for page 33
 KNOWING WHAT WORKS IN HEALTH CARE maceutical research member companies of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) (2006) reached $39.4 billion in 2005, up from $2 billion in 1980. In recent years there have also been increasing investments in the syn- thesis of the available clinical evidence in the United States, for example, with the establishment of AHRQ’s Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs), as well as private-sector activities (Atkins et al., 2005a; Garber, 2001). Appropriations for health services research made to all federal agencies— AHRQ, the NIH, the Veteran’s Health Administration, the U.S. Department of Defense, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—has now reached approximately $1.5 billion annually. However, research on clinical effectiveness receives only a small part of that investment (IOM, 2007a). In general, vastly more funding is available for primary medical research than for the synthesis of the available evidence. Key Players A number of public- and private-sector organizations are involved in the collection, analysis, and dissemination of clinical effectiveness informa- tion. In addition to the NIH and the private-sector groups that fund primary research, many other organizations are involved in assessing that informa- tion and synthesizing it in ways that inform decision making. Some of the many organizations that conduct these activities are described below. U.S. Food and Drug Administration In deciding whether particular drugs or devices should be allowed to enter the market, the FDA plays a central role in assessing clinical efficacy data. The FDA consists of eight offices. One of these, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), evaluates the safety and efficacy of all new drugs before they are sold on the market and monitors the safety of drugs after they have been approved. Other offices within the FDA include the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and the Center for De- vices and Radiological Health. In deciding on drug approvals, the CDER relies on advisory commit- tees to obtain outside opinions and advice. Advisory committees review the evidence and provide input on new drugs; major new indications for previously approved drugs; and requirements for new drugs, such as boxed warnings on drug labels. The CDER takes advisory committee recommen- dations under consideration, but they are not binding (CDER, 2007). The CDER follows many of the same procedures when it evaluates its portfolio

OCR for page 33
 AN IMPERATIVE FOR CHANGE of new products, which include vaccines and blood- and tissue-derived products. The process for obtaining FDA approval for devices is entirely differ- ent from the process for obtaining approval for drugs, and the standards for proving safety and efficacy are also different. All medical devices must be manufactured under a quality assurance program, be suitable for the intended use, be adequately packaged and properly labeled, and have es- tablishment registration and device listing forms on file with the FDA. The manufacturers of only some classes of devices, however, must provide clini- cal data showing safety and efficacy. AHRQ’s Effectie Health Care Program Under Section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, Congress directed AHRQ to conduct and support research focused on patient outcomes; comparative clinical effectiveness; and the appropriateness of specific pharmaceuticals, devices, and health services. This AHRQ project, known as the Effective Health Care Program, incorporates three approaches as part of its work on comparative effective- ness: (1) knowledge synthesis through the EPCs (see below); (2) the genera- tion of new knowledge through a network of research-based health care organizations with access to electronic health information databases and the capacity to conduct rapid-turnaround research; and (3) the translation of the research work into patient-oriented materials, conducted through the John M. Eisenberg Clinical Decisions and Communications Science Center (AHRQ, 2007b). Congress has appropriated $15 million annually for this effort. Syntheses of the Aailable Eidence Public and private organizations, such as AHRQ’s EPCs, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) Technology Evaluation Center (TEC), the Cochrane Collaboration, the ECRI Institute, and Hayes, Inc., conduct syntheses of the available evidence (Table 2-1). These organizations provide systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and technology assessments that synthesize the available literature and describe what is known about the effectiveness of specific clinical interventions. Individuals and organizations use the syntheses of the available evi- dence that these organizations produce in a number of ways. Public and private health plans use the information to inform their coverage decisions, professional and patient care organizations use the information to create practice guidelines, organizations that track provider performance rely on it to establish benchmarks of appropriate care, and the information is also

OCR for page 33
6 KNOWING WHAT WORKS IN HEALTH CARE TABLE 2-3 Examples of Organizations That Establish Clinical Guidelines and Recommendations Organization Description ACC/AHA The ACC has partnered with the AHA to develop guidelines for evidence-based cardiovascular care since 1980. Writing groups are specifically charged with performing a formal literature review, weighing the strength of evidence for or against a particular treatment or procedure, and including estimates of expected health outcomes when data exist. ACP In 1981, the ACP launched the Clinical Efficacy Assessment Project to evaluate advances in medicine and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best evidence available. Current guidelines are based on evidence reports commissioned by AHRQ and produced by EPCs. ADA The ADA has established the Evidence Analysis Library, which consists of relevant nutritional research and evidence-based guidelines. AHRQ and USPSTF The U.S. Public Health Service convened USPSTF in 1984, and since 1998 it has been sponsored by AHRQ. The USPSTF consists of a panel of private-sector experts, and its recommendations are regarded as the “gold standard” for clinical preventive services. American Diabetes The American Diabetes Association funds research, publishes Association scientific findings, and conducts programs nationwide. Clinical practice guidelines and recommendations are developed from literature reviews by clinicians and are reviewed by the Executive Committee. ASCO ASCO convenes expert panels to develop clinical practice guidelines for methods of cancer treatment and care. The manual for generating these guidelines is updated regularly to reflect significant changes. NHLBI The NHLBI organizes voluntary expert panels to develop clinical practice guidelines related to heart, blood vessel, lung, and blood diseases in children and adults. NOTE: ACC = American College of Cardiology; ACP = American College of Physicians; ADA = American Dietetic Association; AHA = American Heart Association; ASCO = American Society of Clinical Oncology; NHLBI = National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. SOURCES: ACC (2007); ACP (2007); ADA (2007); AHRQ (2007a); American Diabetes As- sociation (2007); ASCO (2007); Eagle and Guyton (2004); NHLBI (2007). impartial assessments of the scientific evidence to reach conclusions about the effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services, including screening, counseling, and preventive medications. Its recommendations are intended for use in the primary care setting. Under contract to AHRQ, an EPC conducts systematic reviews of the

OCR for page 33
7 AN IMPERATIVE FOR CHANGE evidence on specific topics in clinical prevention that serve as the scientific basis for USPSTF recommendations. The USPSTF reviews the EPC report, estimates the magnitude of benefits and harms for each preventive service, reaches consensus about the net benefit for each preventive service, and issues a recommendation. Performance Measurement Organizations A number of organizations track and evaluate provider performance by measuring their actual clinical practices against the recommended practices (Table 2-4). To conduct this work, performance measurement groups first establish standards of care against which the performance of providers can be assessed. These are based on the available evidence and the guidelines issued by professional groups. In many cases, however, ad- equate guidelines are not available or are not evidence based, and this has been a significant barrier to the development of performance measures. Significant Challenges Although the U.S. system for the development, synthesis, and applica- tion of clinical evidence has expanded and improved over the past several decades, it continues to face significant challenges. Among these are the persistent gaps in the information available to decision makers, as well as the confusing manner in which the information is presented (e.g., different organizations use different coding schemes to represent similar concepts). Moreover, the quality of the information is often suspect because of a lack of transparency regarding the methods used to generate the information as well as conflict of interest concerns. In addition, inefficiencies in the current system that result from duplications of effort mean that fewer resources are available to fill the remaining information gaps. These concerns are detailed below. Unmet Information Needs Physicians now have access to a vast amount of relevant clinical infor- mation, but often this information is difficult to navigate and it may not address their specific concerns (Tunis, 2005). New tools, such as the Up-to- Date database and the American College of Physicians’ Physicians’ Infor- mation and Education Resource are bringing more information directly to physicians’ offices, but uncertainties about the quality and the applicability of the evidence remain. The available information may not be suitable to the clinician’s needs for a number of reasons. For example, although the provider may want to

OCR for page 33
 KNOWING WHAT WORKS IN HEALTH CARE TABLE 2-4 Examples of Organizations That Measure Performance Organization Description AQA Alliance In 2004, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, and America’s Health Insurance Plans joined with AHRQ to create the AQA Alliance (originally the Ambulatory Care Quality Alliance). The AQA Alliance has developed a collaborative process in which physicians, consumers, purchasers, health insurance plans, and others develop strategies for measuring performance at the physician or group level; collecting data; and reporting the information to consumers, physicians, and other stakeholders. The Joint Commission A nonprofit organization established in 1951, the Joint Commission (formerly JCAHO) evaluates 15,000 health organizations in the United States and provides accreditation to those meeting its quality standards. The Joint Commission sets standards to ensure the quality and the safety of the care provided. Performance measures supplement the standards-based survey process by providing specific performance targets, allowing ongoing performance monitoring, and working toward continuous improvement. NCQA A nonprofit organization founded in 1990, the NCQA accredits health organizations to provide consumers and employers with an indicator of quality. The NCQA develops quality standards and performance measures, building consensus among large employers, policy makers, physicians, patients, and health plans to decide what aspects of quality to measure, how to measure it, and how to promote improvement. The NCQA tracks quality through the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set and publishes annual reports on its findings. NQF A nonprofit membership organization founded in 1999, the NQF was established as a public-private partnership to promote a common approach to measuring and reporting health care quality. The NQF includes participation from consumers, public and private purchasers, employers, professionals, provider organizations, health plans, accrediting bodies, and others. Its goals are to promote collaborative efforts, develop a national quality measurement and reporting strategy, standardize health care performance measures, promote consumer understanding of quality information, and promote an enhanced system capacity for evaluation. NOTE: JCAHO = Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; NCQA = National Committee for Quality Assurance; NQF = National Quality Forum. SOURCES: AQA Alliance (2006); The Joint Commission (2007); NCQA (2007); NQF (2007). know how a particular intervention is likely to affect patients with mul- tiple comorbidities, such patients are frequently excluded from research studies and are often not covered by clinical guidelines (Boyd et al., 2005). In addition, relatively little is known about interventions for rare diseases

OCR for page 33
9 AN IMPERATIVE FOR CHANGE (European Organisation for Rare Diseases, 2005). Moreover, even though the evidence that is presented in systematic reviews may be comprehensive, it does not necessarily come in a form that is meaningful to doctors. For ex- ample, review documents typically summarize treatment effects in terms of relative risk, which does not take into account the prevalence of the disease. They also may not account for the presence of comorbidities. Physicians may prefer to make treatment decisions according to the absolute risks and benefits of treatment (presented as the number of events per 100 patients treated or the number of patients who need to be treated to prevent a single event) (Jackson and Feder, 1998). Consumers also have unmet information needs. Direct-to-consumer advertising encourages greater spending on prescription drugs, which may potentially avert the underuse of medication but which may also promote medication overuse (Donohue et al., 2007). Consumers need to know when claims are valid and apply to them and when the claims are exaggerated or irrelevant to their needs. Physicians must be prepared to respond to consumer requests for information on heavily marketed prescription drugs and other clinical services, and they are also the target of aggressive sales efforts by pharmaceutical representatives (Angell, 2004). Inconsistent Coding The organizations that provide systematic reviews and clinical guide- lines use different grading systems to characterize the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. These codes fall primarily into four categories: letters only (e.g., A, B, and C), Roman numerals only (e.g., I, II, and III), mixed letters and numerals (e.g., Ia, Ib, and IIa), and terms (e.g., strong and weak or consistent and inconsistent) (Schünemann et al., 2003). The discrepancies among grading systems cause difficulties for end users, who must decipher and remember what each of the various designa- tions means. AHRQ identified more than 100 scales, checklists, and other instruments used to rate the quality of individual studies and the strength of bodies of evidence (AHRQ, 2002). Transparency Although by definition systematic reviews are supposed to use scientific methods to synthesize the available evidence, the organizations that pro- duce these syntheses do not always make the processes and deliberations that they used public and transparent. Few organizations depend on an ex- ternally reviewed protocol to conduct their reviews. Consequently, the steps taken to address some of the difficult—often very subjective—elements of the synthesis process, such as the basis for including or excluding particular

OCR for page 33
0 KNOWING WHAT WORKS IN HEALTH CARE articles from reviews, are not apparent. Moher and colleagues (2007) as- sessed 300 systematic reviews and found that only 56 percent reported their full literature search strategy. The same concerns apply to all evidence reviews, whether they are conducted by the various professional and advocacy groups or by gov- ernment organizations. Whereas some groups closely adhere to evidence- based principles in supporting their clinical recommendations, many do not (Shaneyfelt et al., 1999). As a result, transparency is a key concern. One large study found that 87 percent of the clinical practice guidelines did not say whether a systematic search for published studies had been conducted (Grilli et al., 2000). Under those circumstances, users will have difficulty assuring themselves that the evidence is truly comprehensive or whether a subjective selection process has transpired. The lack of availability of transparent methods sections in evidence reviews reduces the ability of these users to make conscientious comparisons of guidelines addressing the same topic. Financial Interests A number of questions regarding the objectivity of organizations that develop practice guidelines have been raised. Professional societies, for ex- ample, may be subject to pressures from parts of their constituencies and individuals who have a substantial economic or professional stake in the intervention being considered, and these pressures have the potential to bias the guideline development process (Schwartz, 1984). Moreover, guideline development groups may receive funding from organizations affected by the findings, leading to concerns about the objectivity of their conclusions (Saul, 2006). Panels supported by public-sector organizations, such as the FDA and the NIH, have also been criticized for including panelists with financial ties to the manufacturers whose products are affected by the decisions. For example, among the nine NIH panelists who produced guidelines recom- mending lower cholesterol targets in 2004, six had each received research grants, speaking honoraria, or consulting fees from at least three—and in some cases all five—of the statin manufacturers, which stood to profit from the decision. Only one panel member had no financial ties of some type to statin manufacturers (Kassirer, 2004). Recently, these concerns have led to the development of more restrictive conflict of interest measures at the FDA and the NIH (NIH, 2004; Vedantam, 2007). Policy makers also become involved in decision making that is affected by private financial interests. One example is erythropoietin, an injectable drug used for the treatment of anemia in dialysis patients. In 2005, eryth- ropoietin cost the Medicare program $1.75 billion—more than any other

OCR for page 33
 AN IMPERATIVE FOR CHANGE medication. The treatment of anemia focuses in part upon maintaining the level of hematocrit, a measure of red blood cell mass, within a target range. In 1989, the FDA established a recommended target hematocrit level of 30 to 33 percent. Under lobbying pressure from manufacturers, Congress encouraged CMS to broaden its payment policy, and in 2006 CMS allowed the target range to extend to 39 percent and above. This increase had a substantial impact on treatment utilization and cost. However, several studies showed that dialysis patients assigned to higher hematocrit target levels did not have better rates of survival, rates of hospitalization, or car- diac outcomes and in fact could be prone to adverse cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, vascular access thrombosis, increased use of antihypertensive medications, and cerebrovascular events (Cotter et al., 2006). In a report released in 2007, the FDA indicated that it had found no evidence indicating that the anemia medicines improved quality of life or extended survival in cancer or dialysis patients. In fact, several studies sug- gested that the drugs can shorten patients’ lives when they are used at high doses (Berenson and Pollack, 2007). A CMS coverage decision in 2007 stated that the evidence was sufficient to conclude that treatment with an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent is not reasonable and necessary for benefi- ciaries with certain clinical conditions, such as anemia associated with the treatment of leukemia (CMS, 2007a). Unnecessary Duplications of Effort In general, current efforts to assess clinical effectiveness are poorly coordinated, and there are significant duplications of effort (Hibble et al., 1998; Silagy et al., 2001; Timmermans and Mauck, 2005). Multiple stake- holders expend considerable resources essentially repeating work that has been done elsewhere or adding to that work. Frequently, the professional societies and payers that use evidence assessments as a basis for their deci- sion making conduct their own supplementary evidence assessments if an existing synthesis is poorly done, not transparent, or out of date. Many organizations may believe that they must review bodies of evidence—and often the same bodies of evidence—as part of their pro- fessional obligation. The list of organizations that add their voice is long and diverse: professional societies, individual physicians, health plans and purchasers, patients and consumer advocacy groups, producers of con- sumer decision aids, trade associations, manufacturers, public and private systematic reviewers, health services researchers, universities, think tanks, consultancy groups, Medicare contractors, federal regulators, NIH panels, state and federal policy makers, state and federal courts, and even the me- dia. Not surprisingly, this often results in a cacophony of voices that in the

OCR for page 33
 KNOWING WHAT WORKS IN HEALTH CARE aggregate is indecipherable and incongruent. When organizations replicate each other’s work, they often expend resources that might have been better used to fill in other gaps in the knowledge base. REFERENCES Abramson, J. 2004. Oerdosed America: The broken promise of American medicine. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. ACC (American College of Cardiology). 2007. ACC and performance measures http://www. acc.org/qualityandscience/clinical/measures/intro.htm (accessed March 2, 2007). ACP (American College of Physicians). 2007. CEAP process http://www.acponline.org/clinical/ guidelines/ceap.htm (accessed March 12, 2007). ADA (American Dietetic Association). 2007. Eidence based practice http://www.eatright. org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/home_1075_ENU_HTML.htm (accessed March 12, 2007). AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). 2001. Improing the health and health care of older Americans. Rockville, MD: AHRQ. ———. 2002. Fact sheet: Rating the strength of scientific research findings. Rockville, MD: AHRQ. ———. 2007a. About USPSTF http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm (accessed March 2, 2007). ———. 2007b. Effectie Health Care Program—About us http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq. gov/aboutUs/index.cfm (accessed September 12, 2007). ———. 2007c. Eidence-based Practice Centers http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epc/ (accessed March 2, 2007). Altman, D. E., and L. Levitt. 2002. The sad history of health care cost containment as told in one chart. Health Affairs w2.83. America’s Health Insurance Plans. 2007. Setting a higher bar: We beliee there is more the nation can do to improe quality and safety in health care. Washington, DC: America’s Health Insurance Plans. American Diabetes Association. 2007. Clinical practice recommendations http://www.diabetes. org/for-health-professionals-and-scientists/cpr.jsp (accessed March 12, 2007). Angell, M. 2004. The truth about the drug companies: How they deceie us and what to do about it. New York: Random House. AQA Alliance. 2006. AQA Background: Improing clinical quality and consumer decision- making http://www.aqaalliance.org/files/Backgrounddocument.doc (accessed March 12, 2007). ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology). 2007. Quality care & guidelines http:// www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem.56bbfed7341ace64e7cba5b4320041a0/ ?vgnextoid=38e748fa20e3e010VgnVCM100000ed730ad1RCRD&vgnextfmt=default (accessed March 12, 2007). Atkins, D., K. Fink, and J. Slutsky. 2005a. Better information for better health care: The Evidence-based Practice Center program and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Annals of Internal Medicine 142(12):1035-1041. Atkins, D., J. Siegel, and J. Slutsky. 2005b. Making policy when the evidence is in dispute. Health Affairs 24(1):102-113. Baicker, K., K. S. Buckles, and A. Chandra. 2006. Geographic variation in the appropriate use of cesarean delivery. Health Affairs 25(5):w355-w367. BCBSA (Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association). 2007a. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Asso- ciation proposes payer-funded institute to ealuate what medical treatments work best http://www.bcbs.com/news/bcbsa/blue-cross-and-blue-shield-association-proposes-payer- funded-institute.html (accessed May 2007).

OCR for page 33
 AN IMPERATIVE FOR CHANGE ———. 2007b. Technology Ealuation Center http://www.bcbs.com/betterknowledge/tec/ (accessed March 2, 2007). Berenson, A., and A. Pollack. 2007. Doctors reap millions for anemia drugs. The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/business/09anemia.html?ex=1186804800& en=c43b43ab957a82e5&ei=5070 (accessed May 9, 2007). Bergthold, L. A. 1995. Medical necessity: Do we need it? Health Affairs 14(4):180-190. Berwick, D. M., N.-A. DeParle, D. M. Eddy, P. M. Ellwood, A. C. Enthoven, G. C. Halvorson, K. W. Kizer, E. A. McGlynn, U. E. Reinhardt, R. D. Reischauer, W. L. Roper, J. W. Rowe, L. D. Schaeffer, J. E. Wennberg, and G. R. Wilensky. 2003. Paying for performance: Medicare should lead. Health Affairs 22(6):8-10. Borger, C., S. Smith, C. Truffer, S. Keehan, A. Sisko, J. Poisal, and M. K. Clemens. 2006. Health spending projections through 2015: Changes on the horizon. Health Affairs 25(2):w61-w73. Boyd, C. M., J. Darer, C. Boult, L. P. Fried, L. Boult, and A. W. Wu. 2005. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: Implica- tions for pay for performance. JAMA 294(6):716-724. Buntin, M. B., C. Damberg, A. Haviland, K. Kapur, N. Lurie, R. McDevitt, and M. S. Marquis. 2006. Consumer-directed health care: Early evidence about effects on cost and quality. Health Affairs 25(6):w516-w530. CDER (Center for Drug Evaluation and Research). 2007. The CDER handbook http://www. fda.gov/cder/handbook/index.htm (accessed August 1, 2007). Clancy, C. M. 2003. Testimony on technology, innoation, and the costs of health care before the Joint Economic Committee. Rockville, MD: AHRQ. CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). 2006. Factors CMS considers in referring topics to the Medicare Eidence Deelopment & Coerage Adisory Committee http:// www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/ncpc_view_document.asp?id=10 (accessed August 12, 2007). ———. 2007a. Decision memo for Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents (ESAs) for non-renal disease indications (CAG-00N) https://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/viewdecisionmemo. asp?id=203 (accessed August 17, 2007). ———. 2007b. Medicare Eidence Deelopment & Coerage Adisory Committee http:// www.cms.hhs.gov/FACA/02_MedCAC.asp#TopOfPage (accessed March 2, 2007). Cochrane Collaboration. 2007. About us http://www.cochrane.org/docs/descrip.htm (accessed July 12, 2007). Congressional Budget Office. 2006. Consumer-directed health plans: Potential effects on health care spending and outcomes http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7700/12-21- HealthPlans.pdf (accessed July 11, 2007). ———. 2007. Research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments: Options for an expanded federal role. Testimony by Director Peter R. Orszag before House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8209/ Comparative_Testimony.pdf (accessed June 12, 2007). Cotter, D., M. Thamer, K. Narasimhan, Y. Zhang, and K. Bullock. 2006. Translating epoetin research into practice: The role of government and the use of scientific evidence. Health Affairs 25(5):1249-1259. Cutler, D. M. 2005. The potential for cost savings in Medicare’s future. Health Affairs w5.r77. Cutler, D. M., and M. McClellan. 2001. Is technological change in medicine worth it? Health Affairs 20(5):11-29. The Dartmouth Atlas Project. 2003 (unpublished). Medicare spending per capita in the United States, by hospital referral region. Dartmouth College, New Hampshire. DERP (Drug Effectiveness Review Project). 2007. Description http://www.ohsu.edu/ drugeffectiveness/description/index.htm (accessed March 2, 2007).

OCR for page 33
 KNOWING WHAT WORKS IN HEALTH CARE Donohue, J. M., M. Cevasco, and M. B. Rosenthal. 2007. A decade of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. New England Journal of Medicine 357(7):673-681. Druss, B. G., and S. C. Marcus. 2005. Growth and decentralization of the medical literature: Implications for evidence-based medicine. Journal of the Medical Library Association 93(4):499-501. Eagle, K. A., and R. A. Guyton. 2004. ACC/AHA 00 Guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Bethesda, MD: American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. ECRI Institute. 2007. About ECRI Institute http://www.ecri.org/About/Pages/default.aspx (accessed March 2, 2007). European Organisation for Rare Diseases. 2005. Rare diseases: Understanding this public health priority. Paris: European Organisation for Rare Diseases. Feenberg, D., and J. Skinner. 2000. Federal transfers across states: Winners and losers. Na- tional Tax Journal 53(3 Part 2):713-732. Fisher, E. S., D. E. Wennberg, T. A. Stukel, D. J. Gottlieb, F. L. Lucas, and E. L. Pinder. 2003a. The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 1: The content, qual- ity, and accessibility of care. Annals of Internal Medicine 138(4):273-287. ———. 2003b. The implications of regional variations in Medicare Spending. Part 2: Health outcomes and satisfaction with care. Annals of Internal Medicine 138(4):288-298. Fuchs, V. R. 2004. Perspective: More variation in use of case, more flat-of-the-curve medicine. Health Affairs 104. Garber, A. M. 2001. Evidence-based coverage policy. Health Affairs 20(5):62-82. Gelijns, A., and N. Rosenberg. 1994. The dynamics of technological change in medicine. Health Affairs 13(3):28-46. Grilli, R., N. Magrini, A. Penna, G. Mura, and A. Liberati. 2000. Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: The need for critical appraisal. Lancet 355:103-106. Guadagnoli, E., P. J. Hauptman, J. Z. Ayanian, C. L. Pashos, B. J. McNeil, and P. D. Cleary. 1995. Variation in the use of cardiac procedures after acute myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine 333(9):573-578. Hayes, Inc. 2007. About us http://www.hayesinc.com/aboutus/ (accessed March 2, 2007). The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2007. Medicare: A primer. Washington, DC: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Hibble, A., D. Kanka, D. Pencheon, and F. Pooles. 1998. Guidelines in general practice: The new Tower of Babel? BMJ 317(7162):862-863. Iglehart, J. K. 2001. America’s love affair with medical innovation. Health Affairs 20(5):6-7. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2001. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. ———. 2003. Unequal treatment: Confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Edited by Smedley, B. D., A. Y. Stith, and A. R. Nelson. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. ———. 2007a. Learning what works best: The nation’s need for eidence on comparatie ef- fectieness in health care http://www.iom.edu/ebm-effectiveness (accessed April 2007). ———. 2007b. Rewarding proider performance: Aligning incenties in Medicare, pathways to quality health care series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Jackson, R., and G. Feder. 1998. Guidelines for clinical guidelines. BMJ 317(7156):427-428. The Joint Commission. 2007. Facts about the Joint Commission http://www.jointcommission. org/AboutUs/joint_commission_facts.htm (accessed March 12, 2007). Joint Economic Committee. 2007. Nanotechnology: The future is coming sooner than you think. Washington, DC: United States Congress.

OCR for page 33
 AN IMPERATIVE FOR CHANGE Kassirer, J. P. 2004. Why should we swallow what these studies say? The Washington Post, B03, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29456-2004Jul31.html (accessed July 2007). Loscalzo, J. 2006. The NIH budget and the future of biomedical research. New England Journal of Medicine 354(16):1665-1667. Lubitz, J. 2005. Health, technology, and medical care spending. Health Affairs w5.r81. Meadows, M. 2005. Genomics and personalized medicine. FDA Consumer Magazine November/December. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. 2007. Chapter 2: Producing comparative effective- ness information. In Report to the Congress: Promoting greater efficiency in Medicare http://www.medpac.gov/documents/Jun07_EntireReport.pdf (accessed June 2007). Mitka, M. 2004. Is PSA testing still useful? JAMA 292(19):2326-2327. Moher, D., J. Tetzlaff, A. C. Tricco, M. Sampson, and D. G. Altman. 2007. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine 4(3):447-455. NCQA (National Committee for Quality Assurance). 2007. About NCQA http://web.ncqa. org/tabid/65/Default.aspx (accessed March 12, 2007). Neumann, P. J., and E. A. Sandberg. 1998. Trends in health care R&D and technology in- novation. Health Affairs 17(6):111-119. NGC (National Guideline Clearinghouse). 2007a. Guideline index http://www.guideline. gov/browse/guideline_index.aspx (accessed September 14, 2007). ———. 2007b. Search for antihypertensies http://www.guideline.gov/search/searchresults. aspx?Type=3&txtSearch=antihypertensives&num=20 (accessed July 11, 2007). NHLBI (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute). 2007. Information for health profes- sionals . . . clinical practice guidelines http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/index.htm (accessed November 15, 2007). NIH (National Institutes of Health). 2004. Report of the National Institutes of Health Blue Ribbon Panel on Conflict of Interest Policies June , 00. Washington, DC: NIH. NIH Consensus Development Program. 2007. About us http://consensus.nih.gov/ABOUTCDP. htm (accessed April 8, 2007). NQF (National Quality Forum). 2007. About us http://www.qualityforum.org/about/ (ac- cessed March 12, 2007). PhRMA. 2006. R&D investments by America’s pharmaceutical research companies near re- cord $40 billion in 2005. Press Release http://www.phrma.org/news_room/press_releases/ r%26d_investments_by_america%92s_pharmaceutical_research_companies_nears_ record_%2440_billion_in_2005/ (accessed September 12, 2007). Redberg, R. F. 2007. Evidence, appropriateness, and technology assessment in cardiology: A case study of computed tomography. Health Affairs 26(1):86-95. Saul, S. 2006. Unease on industry’s role in hypertension debate. The New York Times. May 20. Schünemann, H. J., D. Best, G. Vist, A. D. Oxman, and the GRADE Working Group. 2003. Letters, numbers, symbols and words: How to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations. Canadian Medical Association Journal 169(7):677-680. Schwartz, J. S. 1984. The role of professional medical societies in reducing practice variations. Health Affairs 3(2):90-101. Shaneyfelt, T. M., M. F. Mayo-Smith, and J. Rothwangl. 1999. Are guidelines following guide- lines?: The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA 281(20):1900-1905. Shortell, S. M., T. G. Rundall, and J. Hsu. 2007. Improving patient care by linking evidence- based medicine and evidence-based management. JAMA 298(6):673-676. Silagy, C. A., L. F. Stead, and T. Lancaster. 2001. Use of systematic reviews in clinical practice guidelines: Case study of smoking cessation. BMJ 323(7317):833-836.

OCR for page 33
6 KNOWING WHAT WORKS IN HEALTH CARE Skinner, J., and J. E. Wennberg. 2003. Perspective: Exceptionalism or extravagance? What’s different about health care in south Florida? Health Affairs w3.372. Sung, N. S., W. F. Crowley, Jr., M. Genel, P. Salber, L. Sandy, L. M. Sherwood, S. B. Johnson, V. Catanese, H. Tilson, K. Getz, E. L. Larson, D. Scheinberg, E. A. Reece, H. Slavkin, A. Dobs, J. Grebb, R. A. Martinez, A. Korn, and D. Rimoin. 2003. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA 289(10):1278-1287. Timmermans, S., and A. Mauck. 2005. The promises and pitfalls of evidence-based medicine. Health Affairs 24(1):18-28. Tunis, S. R. 2005. A clinical research strategy to support shared decision making. Health Af- fairs 24(1):180-184. Tunis, S. R., and S. D. Pearson. 2006. Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare’s “Coverage with evidence development.” Health Affairs 25(5):1218-1230. Tunis, S. R., D. B. Stryer, and C. M. Clancy. 2003. Practical clinical trials: Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 290(12): 1624-1632. U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2006. Consumer-directed health plans: Small but growing enrollment fueled by rising cost of health care coerage. GAO-06-. Wash- ington, DC: Government Printing Office. ———. 2007. State and local goernments: Persistent fiscal challenges will likely emerge within the next decade. GAO-07-00SP. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Vedantam, S. 2007. FDA moves to try to reduce conflicts of interest on boards. The Wash- ington Post, A12, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/ AR2007032102068.html (accessed September 12, 2007). Walker, D. 2007. Long term budget outlook: Saving our future requires tough choices today. In U.S. Senate Budget Committee. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. Walsh, G. 2005. Biopharmaceuticals: Recent approvals and likely directions. Trends in Bio- technology 23(11):553-558. Weinstein, J. N., K. K. Bronner, T. S. Morgan, and J. E. Wennberg. 2004. Trends and geo- graphic variations in major surgery for degenerative diseases of the hip, knee, and spine. Health Affairs var.81. Wennberg, J. E. 1988. Improving the medical decision-making process. Health Affairs 7(1): 99-106. ———. 2004. Perspective: Practice variations and health care reform: Connecting the dots. Health Affairs var.140. Wennberg, D. E., and J. E. Wennberg. 2003. Perspective: Addressing variations: Is there hope for the future? Health Affairs w3.614. Wennberg, J. E., E. S. Fisher, and J. S. Skinner. 2002a. Geography and the debate over Medi- care reform. Health Affairs Jul-Dec (Suppl Web Exclusives):w96-w114. ———. 2002b. Geography and the debate over Medicare reform. Health Affairs w2.96. Wennberg, J. E., E. S. Fisher, T. A. Stukel, and S. M. Sharp. 2004. Use of Medicare claims data to monitor provider-specific performance among patients with severe chronic illness. Health Affairs var.5. Wennberg, J. E., E. S. Fisher, and S. M. Sharp. 2006. The care of patients with seere chronic illness. Lebanon, NH: The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. Wilensky, G. R. 2006. Developing a center for comparative effectiveness information. Health Affairs 25(6):w572-w585. Windish, D. M., S. J. Huot, and M. L. Green. 2007. Medicine residents’ understanding of the biostatistics and results in the medical literature. JAMA 298(9):1010-1022. Zinner, D. E. 2001. Medical R&D at the turn of the millennium. Health Affairs 20(5): 202-209.