Background:

Care remains suboptimal for many patients with hypertension.

Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) strategies in lowering blood pressure.

Data Sources:

MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, and article bibliographies were searched for this study.

Study Selection:

Trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series evaluating QI interventions targeting hypertension control and reporting blood pressure outcomes were studied.

Data Extraction:

Two reviewers abstracted data and classified QI strategies into categories: provider education, provider reminders, facilitated relay of clinical information, patient education, self-management, patient reminders, audit and feedback, team change, or financial incentives were extracted.

Data Synthesis:

Forty-four articles reporting 57 comparisons underwent quantitative analysis. Patients in the intervention groups experienced median reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) that were 4.5 mm Hg (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.5 to 11.0) and 2.1 mm Hg (IQR: -0.2 to 5.0) greater than observed for control patients. Median increases in the percentage of individuals achieving target goals for SBP and DBP were 16.2% (IQR: 10.3 to 32.2) and 6.0% (IQR: 1.5 to 17.5). Interventions that included team change as a QI strategy were associated with the largest reductions in blood pressure outcomes. All team change studies included assignment of some responsibilities to a health professional other than the patient's physician.

Limitations:

Not all QI strategies have been assessed equally, which limits the power to compare differences in effects between strategies.

Conclusion:

QI strategies are associated with improved hypertension control. A focus on hypertension by someone in addition to the patient's physician was associated with substantial improvement. Future research should examine the contributions of individual QI strategies and their relative costs.

Background: Teriparatide is a promising new agent for the treatment of osteoporosis.

Methods: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of teriparatide-based strategies compared with alendronate sodium for the first-line treatment of high-risk osteoporotic women. We developed a microsimulation with a societal perspective. Key data sources include the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, the Fracture Intervention Trial, and the Fracture Prevention Trial. We evaluated postmenopausal white women with low bone density and prevalent vertebral fracture. The interventions were usual care (UC) (calcium or vitamin D supplementation) compared with 3 strategies: 5 years of alendronate therapy, 2 years of teriparatide therapy, and 2 years of teriparatide therapy followed by 5 years of alendronate therapy (sequential teriparatide/alendronate). The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results: For the base-case analysis, the cost of alendronate treatment was $11 600 per QALY compared with UC. The cost of sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy was $156 500 per QALY compared with alendronate. Teriparatide treatment alone was more expensive and produced a smaller increase in QALYs than alendronate. For sensitivity analysis, teriparatide alone was less cost-effective than alendronate even if its efficacy lasted 15 years after treatment cessation. Sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy was less cost-effective than alendronate even if fractures were eliminated during the alendronate phase, although its cost-effectiveness was less than $50 000 per QALY if the price of teriparatide decreased 60%, if used in elderly women with T scores of -4.0 or less, or if 6 months of teriparatide therapy had comparable efficacy to 2 years of treatment.

Conclusions: Alendronate compares favorably to interventions accepted as cost-effective. Therapy with teriparatide alone is more expensive and produces a smaller increase in QALYs than therapy with alendronate. Sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy appear expensive but could become more cost-effective with reductions in teriparatide price, with restriction to use in exceptionally high-risk women, or if short courses of treatment have comparable efficacy to that observed in clinical trials.

Many developed countries have a market for private health insurance that supplements publicly funded, universal coverage. Government regulation of the supplemental market, including the extent to which insurers are permitted to adjust premiums based on individual characteristics such as age, sex, and health status, varies across countries (OECD, 2004). Proponents of rate regulation argue that the resulting crosssubsidization

from low to high risks is necessary to maintain the affordability of coverage

for high risks. Economic theory, however, raises the concern that the inability to adjust

premiums to reflect individual risk could create adverse selection by driving low risks from the market (Michael Rothschild and Joseph Stiglitz, 1976). Little empirical evidence exists to determine the optimal role of rate regulation in private, supplemental insurance markets. Existing studies of the consequences of rating restrictions focus on markets for primary health insurance and find that these laws have had surprisingly little effect on overall rates of coverage (Simon, 2004).

In this paper, we study the effects of rate regulation in supplemental health insurance

markets by examining the market for individually purchased coverage that supplements

Medicare among the elderly in the United States. While the publicly financed Medicare

program provides nearly universal coverage of a standard set of benefits for those 65 and over, beneficiaries are exposed to significant financial risk due to the cost sharing associated with covered services and a lack of coverage for some important services. The vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries obtain supplemental coverage through a complex system of publicly and privately funded sources. State Medicaid programs provide publicly financed supplemental coverage for low-income and disabled beneficiaries, and employers provide highly subsidized retiree supplemental health insurance for other beneficiaries, but the remainder rely on highly regulated, private insurance markets.

Medicare's Part C managed care plans are a voluntary, private replacement for traditional Medicare, while Medigap coverage is a private policy, bought by about 30 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, that provides only supplemental benefits (Franklin J. Eppig and George S. Chulis, 1997). Our study examines the effects of regulations limiting the information on individual characteristics insurers can use in setting premiums for Medigap coverage.

As Vietnam opens its economy to privatization, its system of healthcare will face a series of crucial tests. Vietnam's system of private healthcare -- once comprised only of individual physicians holding clinic hours in their homes -- has come to also include larger customer-oriented clinics based on an American business model. As the two models compete in the expanding private market, it becomes increasingly important to understand patients' perceptions of the alternative models of care.

This study reports on interviews with 194 patients in two different types of private-sector clinics in Vietnam: a western-style clinic and a traditional style, after-hours clinic. In bivariate and multivariate analyses, we found that patients at the western style clinic reported both higher expectations of the facility and higher satisfaction with many

aspects of care than patients at the after-hours clinic. These different perceptions appear to be based on the interpersonal manner of the physician seen and the clinic's delivery methods rather than perceptions of the physician's technical skill and method of treatment. These fndings were unaffected by the ethnicity of physician seen.

These fndings suggest that patients in Vietnam recognize and prefer more customer-oriented care and amenities, regardless of physician ethnicity and perceive no signiccant differences in technical skill between the private delivery models.

Background:

Coronary atherosclerosis develops slowly over decades but is frequently characterized clinically by sudden unstable episodes. Patients who present with unstable coronary disease, such as acute myocardial infarction, may systematically differ from patients who present with relatively stable coronary disease, such as exertional angina.

Objective:

To examine whether medication use or patient characteristics influence the mode of initial clinical presentation of coronary disease.

Design:

Case-control study.

Setting:

Large integrated health care delivery system in northern California.

Patients:

Adults whose first clinical presentation of coronary disease was either acute myocardial infarction (n = 916) or stable exertional angina (n = 468).

Measurements:

Use of cardiac medications before the event from pharmacy databases and demographic, lifestyle, and clinical characteristics from self-report and clinical and administrative databases.

Results:

Compared with patients with incident stable exertional angina, patients with incident acute myocardial infarction were more likely to be men, smokers, physically inactive, and hypertensive but were less likely to have a parental history of coronary disease. Patients presenting with myocardial infarction were much less likely to have received statins (19.3% vs. 40.4%; P 0.001) and ß-blockers (19.0% vs. 47.7%; P 0.001) than patients presenting with exertional angina. After adjustment for potential confounders, recent use of statins (adjusted odds ratio, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.62]) and ß-blockers (adjusted odds ratio, 0.26 [CI, 0.19 to 0.35]) was associated with lower likelihoods of presenting with an acute myocardial infarction than with stable angina.

Limitations:

This observational study did not have information on all possible confounding factors, including use of aspirin therapy.

Conclusion:

Statin and ß-blocker use was associated with lower odds of presenting with an acute myocardial infarction than with stable angina. Additional studies are needed to confirm that these therapies protect against unstable, higher-risk clinical presentations of coronary disease.