Clinical Ambiguity and Conflicts of Interest in Interventional Cardiology Decision Making

Tinglong Dai, Xiaofang Wang, C. Hwang
{"title":"Clinical Ambiguity and Conflicts of Interest in Interventional Cardiology Decision Making","authors":"Tinglong Dai, Xiaofang Wang, C. Hwang","doi":"10.1287/MSOM.2021.0969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Problem definition: Among the most vexing issues in the U.S. healthcare ecosystem is inappropriate use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures, also known as overstenting. A key driver of overstenting is physician subjectivity in eyeballing a coronary angiogram. Advanced tests such as fractional flow reserve (FFR) provide more precise and objective measures of PCI appropriateness, yet the decision to perform these tests is endogenous and not immune to clinical ambiguity associated with eyeballing. Additionally, conflicts of interest, arising from revenue-generating incentives, play a role in overstenting. Academic/practical relevance: Conventional wisdom suggests more precise diagnostic testing will help reduce overtreatment. However, the literature rarely recognizes that the testing decision is itself endogenous. Our research highlights the role of endogeneity surrounding interventional cardiology decision making. Methodology: This study uses stochastic modeling and simulation. Results: Under a low conflict-of-interest level, the physician performs the advanced test for intermediate lesions. Under a high conflict-of-interest level, however, the physician would perform the advanced test only for high-grade lesions, because of a financial disincentive: Performing the advanced test may lower PCI revenue if the test results argue against the procedure. Surprisingly, despite this disincentive, a more revenue-driven physician can be more inclined to perform the advanced test. Managerial implications: Our model leads to implications for various efforts aimed at tackling overstenting: (1) Attention should be paid not only to the sheer quantity of FFR procedures but to which patients receive FFR procedures; (2) reducing the risk of the advanced test has a behavior-inducing effect, yet a modest risk reduction may lower patient welfare; and (3) offering a bonus to the physician for performing FFR procedures equal to a third of its reimbursement rate will cause only a 5% increase in average physician payment while inducing a 26% decline in overstenting. In addition, we show implementing a bundled payment scheme may discourage the use of FFR procedures and lead to more salient overstenting.","PeriodicalId":18108,"journal":{"name":"Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag.","volume":"179 1","pages":"864-882"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/MSOM.2021.0969","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Problem definition: Among the most vexing issues in the U.S. healthcare ecosystem is inappropriate use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures, also known as overstenting. A key driver of overstenting is physician subjectivity in eyeballing a coronary angiogram. Advanced tests such as fractional flow reserve (FFR) provide more precise and objective measures of PCI appropriateness, yet the decision to perform these tests is endogenous and not immune to clinical ambiguity associated with eyeballing. Additionally, conflicts of interest, arising from revenue-generating incentives, play a role in overstenting. Academic/practical relevance: Conventional wisdom suggests more precise diagnostic testing will help reduce overtreatment. However, the literature rarely recognizes that the testing decision is itself endogenous. Our research highlights the role of endogeneity surrounding interventional cardiology decision making. Methodology: This study uses stochastic modeling and simulation. Results: Under a low conflict-of-interest level, the physician performs the advanced test for intermediate lesions. Under a high conflict-of-interest level, however, the physician would perform the advanced test only for high-grade lesions, because of a financial disincentive: Performing the advanced test may lower PCI revenue if the test results argue against the procedure. Surprisingly, despite this disincentive, a more revenue-driven physician can be more inclined to perform the advanced test. Managerial implications: Our model leads to implications for various efforts aimed at tackling overstenting: (1) Attention should be paid not only to the sheer quantity of FFR procedures but to which patients receive FFR procedures; (2) reducing the risk of the advanced test has a behavior-inducing effect, yet a modest risk reduction may lower patient welfare; and (3) offering a bonus to the physician for performing FFR procedures equal to a third of its reimbursement rate will cause only a 5% increase in average physician payment while inducing a 26% decline in overstenting. In addition, we show implementing a bundled payment scheme may discourage the use of FFR procedures and lead to more salient overstenting.
介入心脏病学决策中的临床歧义和利益冲突
问题定义:美国医疗生态系统中最令人烦恼的问题之一是经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)手术的不当使用,也被称为过度支架置入。过度支架术的一个关键驱动因素是医生对冠状动脉造影的主观判断。先进的测试,如分数血流储备(FFR),提供了更精确和客观的PCI适宜性测量,然而进行这些测试的决定是内源性的,并不能避免与眼球相关的临床歧义。此外,由于产生收入的奖励而产生的利益冲突也在过度支出中发挥了作用。学术/实践意义:传统观点认为,更精确的诊断测试将有助于减少过度治疗。然而,文献很少认识到测试决策本身是内生的。我们的研究强调了介入心脏病学决策中的内生性的作用。方法:本研究采用随机建模和模拟。结果:在低利益冲突水平下,医生对中级病变进行高级检查。然而,在高度利益冲突的情况下,由于经济上的抑制,医生只会对高度病变进行高级检查:如果检查结果与手术结果不符,进行高级检查可能会降低PCI收入。令人惊讶的是,尽管存在这种不利因素,但更看重收入的医生可能更倾向于进行这种高级测试。管理意义:我们的模型对解决过度支架置入的各种努力具有启示意义:(1)不仅要注意FFR手术的绝对数量,还要注意接受FFR手术的患者;(2)降低高级检查风险具有行为诱导效应,但适度降低风险可能会降低患者福利;(3)为实施FFR手术的医生提供相当于其报销率三分之一的奖金,只会使医生的平均薪酬增加5%,而导致过度支架植入下降26%。此外,我们还表明,实施捆绑支付方案可能会阻碍FFR程序的使用,并导致更明显的过度支出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信