Martin Emmert

Lifetime Cost of Ischemic Stroke in Germany: Results and National Projections From a Population-Based Stroke Registry The Erlangen Stroke Project

Background and Purpose— The number of stroke patients and the healthcare costs of strokes are expected to rise. The objective of this study was to determine the direct costs of first ischemic stroke and to estimate the expected increase in costs in Germany. Methods— An incidence-based, bottom-up, direct-cost-of-ischemic-stroke study from the third-party payer’s perspective was performed, incorporating 10-year survival data and 5-year resource use data from the Erlangen Stroke Registry. Discounted lifetime year 2004 costs per case were obtained and applied to the expected age and sex evolution of the German resident population in the period 2006 to 2025. Results— The overall cost per first-year survivor of first-ever ischemic stroke was estimated to be 18 517 euros (EUR). Rehabilitation accounted for 37% of this cost, whereas in subsequent years outpatient care was the major cost driver. Discounted lifetime cost per case was 43 129 EUR overall and was higher in men (45 549 EUR) than in women (41 304 EUR). National projections for the period 2006 to 2025 showed 1.5 million and 1.9 million new cases of ischemic stroke in men and women, respectively, at a present value of 51.5 and 57.1 billion EUR, respectively. Conclusions— The number of stroke patients and the healthcare costs of strokes in Germany will rise continuously until the year 2025. Therefore, stroke prevention and reduction of stroke-related disability should be made priorities in health planning policies.

Physician Choice Making and Characteristics Associated With Using Physician-Rating Websites: Cross-Sectional Study

Background Over the past decade, physician-rating websites have been gaining attention in scientific literature and in the media. However, little knowledge is available about the awareness and the impact of using such sites on health care professionals. It also remains unclear what key predictors are associated with the knowledge and the use of physician-rating websites. Objective To estimate the current level of awareness and use of physician-rating websites in Germany and to determine their impact on physician choice making and the key predictors which are associated with the knowledge and the use of physician-rating websites. Methods This study was designed as a cross-sectional survey. An online panel was consulted in January 2013. A questionnaire was developed containing 28 questions; a pretest was carried out to assess the comprehension of the questionnaire. Several sociodemographic (eg, age, gender, health insurance status, Internet use) and 2 health-related independent variables (ie, health status and health care utilization) were included. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and t tests. Binary multivariate logistic regression models were performed for elaborating the characteristics of physician-rating website users. Results from the logistic regression are presented for both the observed and weighted sample. Results In total, 1505 respondents (mean age 43.73 years, SD 14.39; 857/1505, 57.25% female) completed our survey. Of all respondents, 32.09% (483/1505) heard of physician-rating websites and 25.32% (381/1505) already had used a website when searching for a physician. Furthermore, 11.03% (166/1505) had already posted a rating on a physician-rating website. Approximately 65.35% (249/381) consulted a particular physician based on the ratings shown on the websites; in contrast, 52.23% (199/381) had not consulted a particular physician because of the publicly reported ratings. Significantly higher likelihoods for being aware of the websites could be demonstrated for female participants (P<.001), those who were widowed (P=.01), covered by statutory health insurance (P=.02), and with higher health care utilization (P<.001). Health care utilization was significantly associated with all dependent variables in our multivariate logistic regression models (P<.001). Furthermore, significantly higher scores could be shown for health insurance status in the unweighted and Internet use in the weighted models. Conclusions Neither health policy makers nor physicians should underestimate the influence of physician-rating websites. They already play an important role in providing information to help patients decide on an appropriate physician. Assuming there will be a rising level of public awareness, the influence of their use will increase well into the future. Future studies should assess the impact of physician-rating websites under experimental conditions and investigate whether physician-rating websites have the potential to reflect the quality of care offered by health care providers.

Economic evaluation of pay-for-performance in health care: a systematic review.

BackgroundPay-for-performance (P4P) intents to stimulate both more effective and more efficient health care delivery. To date, evidence on whether P4P itself is an efficient method has not been systematically analyzed.ObjectiveTo identify and analyze the existing literature regarding economic evaluation of P4P.Data sourcesEnglish, German, Spanish, and Turkish language literature were searched in the following databases: Business Source Complete, the Cochrane Library, Econlit, ISI web of knowledge, Medline (via PubMed), and PsycInfo (January 2000–April 2010).Study selectionArticles published in peer-reviewed journals and describing economic evaluations of P4P initiatives. Full economic evaluations, considering costs and consequences of the P4P intervention simultaneously, were the prime focus. Additionally, comparative partial evaluations were included if costs were described and the study allows for an assessment of consequences. Both experimental and observational studies were considered.ResultsIn total, nine studies could be identified. Three studies could be regarded as full economic evaluations, and six studies were classified as partial economic evaluations. Based on the full economic evaluations, P4P efficiency could not be demonstrated. Partial economic evaluations showed mixed results, but several flaws limit their significance. Ranges of costs and consequences were typically narrow, and programs differed considerably in design. Methodological quality assessment showed scores between 32% and 65%.ConclusionThe results show that evidence on the efficiency of P4P is scarce and inconclusive. P4P efficiency could not be demonstrated. The small number and variability of included studies limit the strength of our conclusions. More research addressing P4P efficiency is needed.

An analysis of online evaluations on a physician rating website: evidence from a German public reporting instrument.

Background Physician rating websites (PRW) have been gaining in popularity among patients who are seeking a physician. However, little evidence is available on the number, distribution, or trend of evaluations on PRWs. Furthermore, there is no published evidence available that analyzes the characteristics of the patients who provide ratings on PRWs. Objective The objective of the study was to analyze all physician evaluations that were posted on the German PRW, jameda, in 2012. Methods Data from the German PRW, jameda, from 2012 were analyzed and contained 127,192 ratings of 53,585 physicians from 107,148 patients. Information included medical specialty and gender of the physician, age, gender, and health insurance status of the patient, as well as the results of the physician ratings. Statistical analysis was carried out using the median test and Kendall Tau-b test. Results Thirty-seven percent of all German physicians were rated on jameda in 2012. Nearly half of those physicians were rated once, and less than 2% were rated more than ten times (mean number of ratings 2.37, SD 3.17). About one third of all rated physicians were female. Rating patients were mostly female (60%), between 30-50 years (51%) and covered by Statutory Health Insurance (83%). A mean of 1.19 evaluations per patient could be calculated (SD 0.778). Most of the rated medical specialties were orthopedists, dermatologists, and gynecologists. Two thirds of all ratings could be assigned to the best category, “very good”. Female physicians had significantly better ratings than did their male colleagues (P<.001). Additionally, significant rating differences existed between medical specialties (P<.001). It could further be shown that older patients gave better ratings than did their younger counterparts (P<.001). The same was true for patients covered by private health insurance; they gave more favorable evaluations than did patients covered by statutory health insurance (P<.001). No significant rating differences could be detected between female and male patients (P=.505). The likelihood of a good rating was shown to increase with a rising number of both physician and patient ratings. Conclusions Our findings are mostly in line with those published for PRWs from the United States. It could be shown that most of the ratings were positive, and differences existed regarding sociodemographic characteristics of both physicians and patients. An increase in the usage of PRWs might contribute to reducing the lack of publicly available information on physician quality. However, it remains unclear whether PRWs have the potential to reflect the quality of care offered by individual health care providers. Further research should assess in more detail the motivation of patients who rate their physicians online.

What do patients say about their physicians? An analysis of 3000 narrative comments posted on a German physician rating website

BACKGROUND Physician rating websites (PRWs) could be shown to have an impact on physician choice making. However, little research has been carried out to assess the content and nature of narrative comments. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to explore the concerns of patients who commented on physician care and to address and enhance patient satisfaction. METHODS Content analysis of 3000 randomly selected narrative comments from the German PRW, jameda, from 2012. We therefore developed a theoretical categorization framework addressing physician, staff, and practice related patient concerns. FINDINGS In total, 50 sub-categories addressing the physician (N=20), the office staff (N=13), and the practice (N=17) were derived from the content of all comments. The most frequently mentioned concerns were assessing the professional competence of the physician (63%, N=1874) and friendliness of the physician (38%, N=1148). Thereby, 80% of all comments (mean length 45.3 words ± 42.8) were classified as positive, 4% as neutral and 16% as negative. CONCLUSION Users of the German PRW, jameda, are mostly satisfied with their physicians. However, physicians should focus on the time spent with the patients, waiting time, as well as on taking the patients more seriously.

Public Reporting in Germany: the Content of Physician Rating Websites

BACKGROUND Physician rating websites (PRWs) are gaining in popularity among patients seeking quality information about physicians. However, little knowledge is available about the quantity and type of information provided on the websites. OBJECTIVE To determine and structure the quantity and type of information about physicians in the outpatient sector provided on German-language physician rating websites. METHODS In a first step, we identified PRWs through a systematic internet search using German keywords from a patient´s perspective in the two search engines Google and Yahoo. Afterwards, information about physicians available on the websites was collected and categorised according to Donabedian´s structure/process/outcome model. Furthermore, we investigated whether the information was related to the physician himself/ herself or to the practice as a whole. RESULTS In total, eight PRWs were detected. Our analysis turned up 139 different information items on eight websites; 67 are related to the structural quality, 4 to process quality, 5 to outcomes, and 63 to patient satisfaction/experience. In total, 37% of all items focus specifically on the physician and 63% on the physicians practice. In terms of the total amount of information provided on the PRWs, results range from 61 down to 13.5 items. CONCLUSIONS A broad range of information is available on German PRWs. While structural information can give a detailed overview of the financial, technical and human resources of a practice, other outcome measures have to be interpreted with caution. Specifically, patient satisfaction results are not risk-adjusted, and thus, are not appropriate to represent a providers quality of care. Consequently, neither patients nor physicians should yet use the information provided to make their final decision for or against an individual physician.

Cost of Illness in Colorectal Cancer: An International Review

ObjectivesGiven the current—and increasing—pressure to limit expenditure on health care provision in many countries, a better understanding of the cost burden of colorectal cancer is needed. Cost-of-illness studies and reviews thereof can be a useful tool for analysing and critically evaluating the cost-related development of colorectal cancer, and they highlight important cost drivers.MethodsA systematic review was conducted from 2002 to 2012 to identify cost-of-illness studies related to colorectal cancer, searching the Medline, PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Library and the York CRD databases.ResultsAmong the 10 studies (from France, the US, Ireland and Taiwan) included in the review, 6 studies reported prevalence-based estimates and 4 studies focussed on incidence-based data. In the studies included in the review, long-term costs for colorectal cancer of up to

Do Health Care Providers Use Online Patient Ratings to Improve the Quality of Care? Results From an Online-Based Cross-Sectional Study

50,175 per patient (2008 values) were estimated. Most of the studies in the review showed that the initial and terminal phases of colorectal cancer care are the most expensive, with continuing treatment being the least costly phase. One study also highlighted that stage I CRC disease was the least costly and stage III the most costly of all 4 stages, due to the high cost impact of biological agents.ConclusionsThis review has highlighted a trend for rising costs associated with CRC, which is linked to the increasing use of targeted biological therapies. COI studies in colorectal cancer can identify specific components and areas of care that are especially costly, thereby focussing attention on more cost-effective approaches, which is especially relevant to the increased use of biological agents in the field of personalised medicine. COI studies are an important tool for further health economic evaluations of personalised medicine.

An international review of the main cost-effectiveness drivers of virtual colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: Is the tide changing due to adherence?

Background Physician-rating websites have become a popular tool to create more transparency about the quality of health care providers. So far, it remains unknown whether online-based rating websites have the potential to contribute to a better standard of care. Objective Our goal was to examine which health care providers use online rating websites and for what purposes, and whether health care providers use online patient ratings to improve patient care. Methods We conducted an online-based cross-sectional study by surveying 2360 physicians and other health care providers (September 2015). In addition to descriptive statistics, we performed multilevel logistic regression models to ascertain the effects of providers’ demographics as well as report card-related variables on the likelihood that providers implement measures to improve patient care. Results Overall, more than half of the responding providers surveyed (54.66%, 1290/2360) used online ratings to derive measures to improve patient care (implemented measures: mean 3.06, SD 2.29). Ophthalmologists (68%, 40/59) and gynecologists (65.4%, 123/188) were most likely to implement any measures. The most widely implemented quality measures were related to communication with patients (28.77%, 679/2360), the appointment scheduling process (23.60%, 557/2360), and office workflow (21.23%, 501/2360). Scaled-survey results had a greater impact on deriving measures than narrative comments. Multilevel logistic regression models revealed medical specialty, the frequency of report card use, and the appraisal of the trustworthiness of scaled-survey ratings to be significantly associated predictors for implementing measures to improve patient care because of online ratings. Conclusions Our results suggest that online ratings displayed on physician-rating websites have an impact on patient care. Despite the limitations of our study and unintended consequences of physician-rating websites, they still may have the potential to improve patient care.

A cross-sectional study assessing the association between online ratings and structural and quality of care measures: results from two German physician rating websites

OBJECTIVES The majority of recent cost-effectiveness reviews concluded that computerised tomographic colonography (CTC) is not a cost-effective colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategy yet. The objective of this review is to examine cost-effectiveness of CTC versus optical colonoscopy (COL) for CRC screening and identify the main drivers influencing cost-effectiveness due to the emergence of new research. METHODS A systematic review was conducted for cost-effectiveness studies comparing CTC and COL as a screening tool and providing outcomes in life-years saved, published between January 2006 and November 2012. RESULTS Nine studies were included in the review. There was considerable heterogeneity in modelling complexity and methodology. Different model assumptions and inputs had large effects on resulting cost-effectiveness of CTC and COL. CTC was found to be dominant or cost-effective in three studies, assuming the most favourable scenario. COL was found to be not cost effective in one study. CONCLUSIONS CTC has the potential to be a cost-effective CRC screening strategy when compared to COL. The most important assumptions that influenced the cost-effectiveness of CTC and COL were related to CTC threshold-based reporting of polyps, CTC cost, CTC sensitivity for large polyps, natural history of adenoma transition to cancer, AAA parameters and importantly, adherence. There is a strong need for a differential consideration of patient adherence and compliance to CTC and COL. Recent research shows that laxative-free CTC screening has the potential to become a good alternative screening method for CRC as it can improve patient uptake of screening.