School of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
JAMA Cardiol. 2018 Jul 1;3(7):609-618. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2018.1360.
Physicians often report practicing defensive medicine to reduce malpractice risk, including performing expensive but marginally beneficial tests and procedures. Although there is little evidence that malpractice reform affects overall health care spending, it may influence physician behavior for specific conditions involving clinical uncertainty.
To examine whether reducing malpractice risk is associated with clinical decisions involving coronary artery disease testing and treatment.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Difference-in-differences design, comparing physician-specific changes in coronary artery disease testing and treatment in 9 new-cap states that adopted damage caps between 2003 and 2005 with 20 states without caps. We used the 5% national Medicare fee-for-service random sample between 1999 and 2013. Physicians (n = 75 801; 36 647 in new-cap states) who ordered or performed 2 or more coronary angiographies. Data were analyzed from June 2015 to January 2018.
Changes in ischemic evaluation rates for possible coronary artery disease, type of initial evaluation (stress testing or coronary angiography), progression from stress test to angiography, and progression from ischemic evaluation to revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting).
We studied 36 647 physicians in new-cap states and 39 154 physicians in no-cap states. New-cap states had younger populations, more minorities, lower per-capita incomes, fewer physicians per capita, and lower managed care penetration. Following cap adoption, new-cap physicians reduced invasive testing (angiography) as a first diagnostic test compared with control physicians (relative change, -24%; 95% CI, -40% to -7%; P = .005) with an offsetting increase in noninvasive stress testing (7.8%; 95% CI, -3.6% to 19.3%; P = .17), and referred fewer patients for angiography following stress testing (-21%; 95% CI, -40% to -2%; P = .03). New-cap physicians also reduced revascularization rates after ischemic evaluation (-23%; 95% CI, -40% to -4%; P = .02; driven by fewer percutaneous coronary interventions). Changes in overall ischemic evaluation rates were similar for new-cap and control physicians (-0.05%; 95% CI, -8.0% to 7.9%; P = .98).
Physicians substantially altered their approach to coronary artery disease testing and follow-up after initial ischemic evaluations following adoption of damage caps. They performed a similar number of ischemic evaluations but conducted fewer initial left heart catheterizations, referred fewer stress-tested patients for left heart catheterizations, and referred fewer patients for revascularization. These findings suggest that physicians tolerate greater clinical uncertainty in coronary artery disease testing and treatment if they face lower malpractice risk.
医生经常报告说他们在实践防御性医疗,以降低医疗事故风险,包括进行昂贵但略有收益的检查和程序。虽然几乎没有证据表明医疗事故改革会影响整体医疗保健支出,但它可能会影响涉及临床不确定性的特定病症的医生行为。
研究降低医疗事故风险是否与涉及冠状动脉疾病检测和治疗的临床决策有关。
设计、地点和参与者:差异中的差异设计,比较了 2003 年至 2005 年间采用损害上限的 9 个新上限州和 20 个无上限州的冠状动脉疾病检测和治疗方面的医生特异性变化。我们使用了 1999 年至 2013 年之间的全国 5%的医疗保险按服务收费随机样本。接受过或进行过两次或更多次冠状动脉造影的医生(n=75801;新上限州 36647 名)。数据分析于 2015 年 6 月至 2018 年 1 月进行。
可能的冠状动脉疾病的缺血评估率的变化、初始评估的类型(应激测试或冠状动脉造影)、从应激测试到造影的进展,以及从缺血评估到血运重建(经皮冠状动脉介入治疗或冠状动脉旁路移植术)的进展。
我们研究了新上限州的 36647 名医生和无上限州的 39154 名医生。新上限州的人口更年轻,少数族裔更多,人均收入更低,医生人数更少,管理式医疗的渗透率也更低。在采用上限后,新上限州的医生减少了作为首次诊断测试的有创检测(血管造影),而对照组医生则增加了(相对变化,-24%;95%置信区间,-40%至-7%;P=0.005),而非侵入性应激测试(7.8%;95%置信区间,-3.6%至 19.3%;P=0.17),并且从应激测试后转诊进行血管造影的患者减少了(-21%;95%置信区间,-40%至-2%;P=0.03)。新上限州的医生在缺血评估后也减少了血运重建率(-23%;95%置信区间,-40%至-4%;P=0.02;这主要是由于经皮冠状动脉介入治疗减少)。新上限州和对照组医生的整体缺血评估率变化相似(-0.05%;95%置信区间,-8.0%至 7.9%;P=0.98)。
在采用损害上限后,医生在冠状动脉疾病检测和初始缺血评估后的后续治疗方面大大改变了他们的方法。他们进行了类似数量的缺血评估,但进行了较少的初始左心导管检查,将较少的应激测试患者转诊进行左心导管检查,并且将较少的患者转诊进行血运重建。这些发现表明,如果医生面临较低的医疗事故风险,他们可以容忍冠状动脉疾病检测和治疗中更大的临床不确定性。