Robert L. Ohsfeldt

Background: Despite ongoing policy debate, little is known about the growth in orthopedic surgery practices with onsite magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) capacity, or practice characteristics associated with the acquisition of in-office MRI equipment.Methods: In July 2012, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) member practices received a web-based survey requesting general information about their practice, such as number practice providers authorized to order MRIs, the type of onsite MRI capacity present (if any), and the date of acquisition for the MRI equipment. Survey responses were augmented with county-level measures of practice area characteristics as of the year of first onsite MRI acquisition (or 2012 for practices without an onsite MRI).Results: The survey obtained usable responses from 740 orthopedic practices, which were geographically representative of AAOS member practices. Forty percent (298) reported onsite MRI capacity. Onsite MRI acquisition occurred at a steady pace over 2000–2012, with no dramatic increase occurring in any particular year over that period. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that practice size (number of providers) was the most important factor affecting the likelihood of onsite MRI acquisition. There was no association between onsite MRI acquisition and any of the county-level practice area characteristics included in the analysis.Conclusions: Orthopedic practices acquiring onsite MRI equipment on average are much larger than practices without onsite MRI capacity. Larger practices may be more likely to attain the economies of scale necessary to absorb the fixed costs associated with onsite MRI acquisition.

Children may benefit greatly in terms of safety and care coordination from the information sharing promised by health information exchange (HIE). While information exchange capability is a required feature of the certified electronic health record, we known little regarding how this technology is used in general and for pediatric patients specifically.

It is well known that older adults figure prominently in the use of emergency departments (ED) across the United States. Previous research has differentiated ED visits by levels of clinical severity and found health status and other individual characteristics distinguished severe from non-severe visits. In this research, we classified older adults into population groups that persistently present with severe, non-severe, or indeterminate patterns of ED episodes. We then contrasted the three groups using a comprehensive set of covariates.

The Meaningful Use criteria promises to make health information exchange (HIE) much more widespread. However, the usage of the information systems made available by existing HIE efforts tends to be very low. This study sought to examine the factors associated with usage of an operational HIE system during ambulatory care visits to safety-net clinics. Overall the HIE system was accessed for 21% of encounters. However, system access took on two distinct forms. In general, usage was more likely for patients with recent emergency department visits and chronic conditions. This study indicates the organizational commitment to engage in HIE does not necessarily mean that the information systems will be always used. In addition, system usage will take on various forms for different reasons. These results reveal considerations for the development, operation and evaluation of HIE efforts.

Background: Longitudinal patterns of chiropractic use in the United States, particularly among Medicare beneficiaries, are not well documented. Using a nationally representative sample of older Medicare beneficiaries we describe the use of chiropractic over fifteen years, and classify chiropractic users by annual visit volume. We assess the characteristics that are associated with chiropractic use versus nonuse, as well as between different levels of use. Methods: We analyzed data from two linked sources: the baseline (1993-1994) interview responses of 5,510 self-respondents in the Survey on Assets and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD), and their Medicare claims from 1993 to 2007. Binomial logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with chiropractic use versus nonuse, and conditional upon use, to identify factors associated with high volume relative to lower volume use. Results: There were 806 users of chiropractic in the AHEAD sample yielding a full period prevalence for 1993-2007 of 14.6%. Average annual prevalence between 1993 and 2007 was 4.8% with a range from 4.1% to 5.4%. Approximately 42% of the users consumed chiropractic services only in a single calendar year while 38% used chiropractic in three or more calendar years. Chiropractic users were more likely to be women, white, overweight, have pain, have multiple comorbid conditions, better self-rated health, access to transportation, higher physician utilization levels, live in the Midwest, and live in an area with fewer physicians per capita. Among chiropractic users, 16% had at least one year in which they exceeded Medicare's "soft cap" of 12 visits per calendar year. These over-the-cap users were more likely to have arthritis and mobility limitations, but were less likely to have a high school education. Additionally, these over-the-cap individuals accounted for 58% of total chiropractic claim volume. High volume users saw chiropractors the most among all types of providers, even more than family practice and internal medicine combined. Conclusion: There is substantial heterogeneity in the patterns of use of chiropractic services among older adults. In spite of the variability of use patterns, however, there are not many characteristics that distinguish high volume users from lower volume users. While high volume users accounted for a significant portion of claims, the enforcement of a hard cap on annual visits by Medicare would not significantly decrease overall claim volume. Further research to understand the factors causing high volume chiropractic utilization among older Americans is warranted to discern between patterns of "need" and patterns of "health maintenance".

Episodes of Emergency Department (ED) service use among older adults previously have not been constructed, or evaluated as multi-dimensional phenomena. In this study, we constructed episodes of ED service use among a cohort of older adults over a 15-year observation period, measured the episodes by severity and intensity, and compared these measures in predicting subsequent hospitalization.

This study assessed lipid-monitoring and statin therapy patterns in routine clinical practice for Medicare-eligible patients diagnosed with atherosclerosis. A retrospective study using a random sample of 1 million patients (>17 years of age) from a US outpatient electronic medical record database was conducted with patients > or =65 years of age having a diagnostic code for atherosclerosis between January 2004 and March 2006. Use of statin therapy at the time of and for 12 months after atherosclerosis diagnosis, in addition to patient demographics, comorbid conditions, baseline and post-diagnosis LDL-C, were recorded. In the million-patient sample, 3303 patients were > or =65 years of age and had a diagnostic code of atherosclerosis. Overall, 63% of these patients were not prescribed statin therapy at the time of or within 12 months after diagnosis. Lipid monitoring within 6 months before diagnosis occurred in 37% of patients. Of those with a recorded baseline LDL-C (n = 1213), 50% had LDL-C > or =100 mg/dL and 87% had LDL-C > or =70 mg/dL. Among patients with baseline LDL-C > or =100 mg/dL, 55% were not prescribed statin therapy at or after their diagnosis compared with 49% of patients with baseline LDL-C <100 mg/dL (p = 0.0001). There were significantly more patients who were prescribed statin therapy with LDL-C <100 mg/dL after diagnosis (67%) than at diagnosis (55%) (p = 0.0008). Patients were required to have an ICD-9 diagnosis of atherosclerosis, which may have underestimated those with atherosclerosis that was not coded specifically as atherosclerosis. Because the study included patients treated in physician practice with an electronic medical record system (EMR), they may be different from patients who are treated by physicians not equipped with an EMR. Pharmacy data were the prescription ordered and not the drug claim indicating that the prescription was dispensed. This may overestimate the statin therapy utilization estimates. A substantial gap in the management of diagnosed atherosclerosis was found among Medicare-eligible patients treated in the usual-care setting. There is a need to raise awareness of the importance of lipid monitoring and treatment of hypercholesterolemia in this at-risk population.

The study compared low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction obtained after switching patients on a statin therapy to rosuvastatin or simvastatin in real-world clinical practice. Using information from an electronic medical records database, for patients >or=18 years of age who received newly prescribed statin therapy during August 2003 to March 2006, who were switched to either rosuvastatin or simvastatin, and who had LDL-C values at baseline, switch and postswitch data were included (N = 277). Percent LDL-C reduction between patients switched to rosuvastatin (n = 155) and those switched to simvastatin (n = 122) were compared. Linear regression model was adjusted for percent LDL-C change from preswitch to switch, LDL-C at time of switch, age, sex, smoking, statin aggressiveness, and therapy duration postswitch. Percent LDL-C reduction for patients switched from atorvastatin to rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin to simvastatin was also compared. Patients switched to rosuvastatin or simvastatin were similar in age, sex, and baseline LDL-C (mean, 146 mg/dL). Patients switched to rosuvastatin from any other statin had a significantly greater percent LDL-C reduction (18.4%) postswitch than patients switched to simvastatin (5.8%; P = .0003). After adjusting for baseline covariates, rosuvastatin patients had a significantly greater percent LDL-C reduction postswitch than simvastatin patients (16.0% vs 8.8%, respectively; P = .0002). In the subgroup of patients switched from atorvastatin, patients switched to rosuvastatin (n = 67) had a significantly greater adjusted percent LDL-C reduction (13.6%) postswitch than patients switched to simvastatin (5.5%; n = 75; P = .001). Rosuvastatin achieves greater percent LDL-C reduction than simvastatin as a switch therapy in a real-world clinical practice setting. This highlights the need to select the statin to switch to based on additional needed percent LDL-C reduction to meet individual patient targets. Availability of simvastatin (generic statin) and rosuvastatin (branded statin) as treatment options would facilitate efficient and effective management of patients with dyslipidemia.