MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185251361 · doi:10.4300/jgme-d-15-00404.1

The Imperative of Teaching Cost Consciousness in Graduate Medical Education

2015· letter· en· W2185251361 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Petterson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graduate Medical Education · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsPetrel Robertson Consulting (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmFallacyHealth careIncentiveMedical prescriptionMedicineReimbursementNothingQuality (philosophy)Value (mathematics)PsychologyNursingEconomicsSocial psychologyComputer scienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Residents are taught, or should be taught, the fallacy of believing that “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”1 Using the wrong technique, the wrong drug, or the wrong therapy can do more harm than good. An important lesson is that sometimes doing little or nothing is appropriate care. The rapid rise in health care costs in the United States—from an inflation-adjusted $2,855 per person in 1990 to $9,255 in 2013—reflects, in part, that physicians are working with more than a hammer in caring for patients.2 But it may also indicate an indiscriminate use of the resources available. Other advanced industrial countries, with access to the same tools but often constrained by costs, spend far less than the United States, a country that also underperforms its peers on most measures of quality and access.3Past efforts to curb unnecessary, costly care decisions by physicians, particularly under the guise of managed care, were often interpreted by physicians and patients alike as a tradeoff between quality and cost. Absent incentives to the contrary, physicians tend to choose aggressive treatments and quickly adopt new diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, without full consideration of the value to patients. Indeed, this tendency is often bound up with the physicians' self-perception as patient advocates.4 Evidence points to considerable waste in health care spending: from unnecessary testing to the prescription of expensive drugs with generic alternatives to heroic but often futile and costly end-of-life care.5 A generation of research from the Dartmouth Atlas has shown geographic variation in Medicare spending across the United States, which is not associated with quality of care.6 More pointedly, aggressive treatment may actually lower quality of care while raising costs, as is the case with some end-of-life care.7,8Recent studies have suggested that future spending behaviors may be shaped by one's training environment and the style and culture of practice to which a learner is exposed. Asch et al9 found significantly higher rates of major maternal complications for women treated by obstetricians trained in residency programs with the worst ranking in complication rates. Another study10 showed that American Board of Internal Medicine candidates trained in low-intensity practice hospital referral regions (HRRs) were more likely to correctly respond to examination questions regarding appropriately conservative treatment than their counterparts in high-intensity practice HRRs. Even after controlling for patient characteristics and spending levels in the physicians' practice HRR, a third study found that primary care physicians trained in HRRs with lower Medicare spending per beneficiary had patients with lower total (parts A and B) spending than physicians trained in HRRs with higher Medicare spending.11In this issue of the Journal of Graduate Medical Education, Dine et al12 further the case for “imprinting” effects of graduate medical education (GME) on the downstream cost and behavior of trainees. They examined the relative importance of residency programs in explaining variation in practice intensity, as measured by physician propensity to order tests and treatments. They surveyed 690 interns and residents from 7 internal medicine programs in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, and 325 (47%) responded. Practice intensity was measured using 23 vignettes capturing a preference for more aggressive care in diagnostic testing, consultation requests, and treatment. The survey also included assessment of attitudinal and psychological traits such as risk aversion that may influence practice intensity. Linear regression models predicting practice intensity scores were estimated and the explained variation was divided into 4 groups of variables: residency programs, demographic characteristics, personality traits, and subjective norms. The main finding was that residency programs accounted for almost half (47%) of the explained variation in practice intensity. This study supports the conclusion that “practice intensity is principally created by the socialization that occurs within training.”12Of the many factors accounting for high health care spending, the authors correctly note that GME training is 1 of the few that is modifiable. Individual residency programs have the capacity to model and teach cost consciousness and appropriately conservative care. Programs can promote good stewardship of scarce health care dollars as well as the importance of serving as patient advocates. National oversight organizations, such as certifying medical boards and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, can reinforce these efforts by giving them greater importance in curriculum requirements and examination content. Federal and state governments can hold residency programs more accountable in exchange for the $14 billion currently spent for GME.13Most importantly, a greater emphasis on appropriately conservative and cost-conscious treatment in residency training will better prepare physicians for the practice of the future. Recent reforms in the delivery of health care have emphasized the triple aim of “improving the experience of care, improving the health of populations, and reducing per capita costs of health care.”14 To achieve these aims, Medicare and other payers are moving away from fee-for-service models—where aggressive treatment is handsomely rewarded—to alternative payment models in which physicians are rewarded for the quality of their care and can share in savings attributable to cost-conscious practice styles.The valuable contribution of Dine et al12 has limitations, as noted by its authors. The residencies are geographically concentrated in 1 metropolitan area. Responses to vignettes by residents and interns do not necessarily reflect how they would make decisions in their eventual practice, where other factors can influence practice intensity. Future studies should research more directly the residency training itself and variation across residencies to better understand how physicians are socialized.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.139
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.139
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.543
GPT teacher head0.590
Teacher spread0.047 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Graduate Medical EducationSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207