The effect on test ordering of informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic tests

William M. Tierney, Michael E. Miller, Clement J. Mcdonald

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

305 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We studied the effect of informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic tests on their ordering of such tests in an academic primary care medical practice. All tests were ordered at microcomputer workstations by 121 physicians. For half (the intervention group), the charge for the test being ordered and the total charge for tests for that patient on that day were displayed on the computer screen. The remaining physicians (control group) also used the computers but received no message about charges. The primary outcomes measured were the number of tests ordered and the charges for tests per patient visit. In the 14 weeks before the study, the number of tests ordered and the average charge for tests per patient visit were similar for the intervention and control groups. During the 26-week intervention period, the physicians in the intervention group ordered 14 percent fewer tests per patient visit than did those in the control group (P<0.005), and the charges for tests were 13 percent ($6.68 per visit) lower (P<0.05). The differences were greater for scheduled visits (17 percent fewer tests and 15 percent lower charges for the intervention group; P<0.01) than for unscheduled (urgent) visits (11 percent fewer tests and 10 percent lower charges; P>0.3). During the 19 weeks after the intervention ended, the number of tests ordered by the physicians in the intervention group was only 7.7 percent lower than the number ordered by the physicians in the control group, and the charges for tests were only 3.5 percent lower (P>0.3). Three measures of possible adverse outcomes - number of hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and outpatient visits during the study period and the following six months - were similar for the patients seen by the physicians in both groups. We conclude that displaying the charges for diagnostic tests significantly reduced the number and cost of tests ordered, especially for patients with scheduled visits. The effects of this intervention did not persist after it was discontinued.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1499-1504
Number of pages6
JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
Volume322
Issue number21
StatePublished - May 24 1990

Fingerprint

Routine Diagnostic Tests
Outpatients
Physicians
Control Groups
Microcomputers
Hospital Emergency Service
Primary Health Care
Hospitalization
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

The effect on test ordering of informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic tests. / Tierney, William M.; Miller, Michael E.; Mcdonald, Clement J.

In: New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 322, No. 21, 24.05.1990, p. 1499-1504.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tierney, William M. ; Miller, Michael E. ; Mcdonald, Clement J. / The effect on test ordering of informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic tests. In: New England Journal of Medicine. 1990 ; Vol. 322, No. 21. pp. 1499-1504.
@article{eaf3b0766ea04fc1973695a095334ddb,
title = "The effect on test ordering of informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic tests",
abstract = "We studied the effect of informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic tests on their ordering of such tests in an academic primary care medical practice. All tests were ordered at microcomputer workstations by 121 physicians. For half (the intervention group), the charge for the test being ordered and the total charge for tests for that patient on that day were displayed on the computer screen. The remaining physicians (control group) also used the computers but received no message about charges. The primary outcomes measured were the number of tests ordered and the charges for tests per patient visit. In the 14 weeks before the study, the number of tests ordered and the average charge for tests per patient visit were similar for the intervention and control groups. During the 26-week intervention period, the physicians in the intervention group ordered 14 percent fewer tests per patient visit than did those in the control group (P<0.005), and the charges for tests were 13 percent ($6.68 per visit) lower (P<0.05). The differences were greater for scheduled visits (17 percent fewer tests and 15 percent lower charges for the intervention group; P<0.01) than for unscheduled (urgent) visits (11 percent fewer tests and 10 percent lower charges; P>0.3). During the 19 weeks after the intervention ended, the number of tests ordered by the physicians in the intervention group was only 7.7 percent lower than the number ordered by the physicians in the control group, and the charges for tests were only 3.5 percent lower (P>0.3). Three measures of possible adverse outcomes - number of hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and outpatient visits during the study period and the following six months - were similar for the patients seen by the physicians in both groups. We conclude that displaying the charges for diagnostic tests significantly reduced the number and cost of tests ordered, especially for patients with scheduled visits. The effects of this intervention did not persist after it was discontinued.",
author = "Tierney, {William M.} and Miller, {Michael E.} and Mcdonald, {Clement J.}",
year = "1990",
month = "5",
day = "24",
language = "English",
volume = "322",
pages = "1499--1504",
journal = "New England Journal of Medicine",
issn = "0028-4793",
publisher = "Massachussetts Medical Society",
number = "21",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect on test ordering of informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic tests

AU - Tierney, William M.

AU - Miller, Michael E.

AU - Mcdonald, Clement J.

PY - 1990/5/24

Y1 - 1990/5/24

N2 - We studied the effect of informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic tests on their ordering of such tests in an academic primary care medical practice. All tests were ordered at microcomputer workstations by 121 physicians. For half (the intervention group), the charge for the test being ordered and the total charge for tests for that patient on that day were displayed on the computer screen. The remaining physicians (control group) also used the computers but received no message about charges. The primary outcomes measured were the number of tests ordered and the charges for tests per patient visit. In the 14 weeks before the study, the number of tests ordered and the average charge for tests per patient visit were similar for the intervention and control groups. During the 26-week intervention period, the physicians in the intervention group ordered 14 percent fewer tests per patient visit than did those in the control group (P<0.005), and the charges for tests were 13 percent ($6.68 per visit) lower (P<0.05). The differences were greater for scheduled visits (17 percent fewer tests and 15 percent lower charges for the intervention group; P<0.01) than for unscheduled (urgent) visits (11 percent fewer tests and 10 percent lower charges; P>0.3). During the 19 weeks after the intervention ended, the number of tests ordered by the physicians in the intervention group was only 7.7 percent lower than the number ordered by the physicians in the control group, and the charges for tests were only 3.5 percent lower (P>0.3). Three measures of possible adverse outcomes - number of hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and outpatient visits during the study period and the following six months - were similar for the patients seen by the physicians in both groups. We conclude that displaying the charges for diagnostic tests significantly reduced the number and cost of tests ordered, especially for patients with scheduled visits. The effects of this intervention did not persist after it was discontinued.

AB - We studied the effect of informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic tests on their ordering of such tests in an academic primary care medical practice. All tests were ordered at microcomputer workstations by 121 physicians. For half (the intervention group), the charge for the test being ordered and the total charge for tests for that patient on that day were displayed on the computer screen. The remaining physicians (control group) also used the computers but received no message about charges. The primary outcomes measured were the number of tests ordered and the charges for tests per patient visit. In the 14 weeks before the study, the number of tests ordered and the average charge for tests per patient visit were similar for the intervention and control groups. During the 26-week intervention period, the physicians in the intervention group ordered 14 percent fewer tests per patient visit than did those in the control group (P<0.005), and the charges for tests were 13 percent ($6.68 per visit) lower (P<0.05). The differences were greater for scheduled visits (17 percent fewer tests and 15 percent lower charges for the intervention group; P<0.01) than for unscheduled (urgent) visits (11 percent fewer tests and 10 percent lower charges; P>0.3). During the 19 weeks after the intervention ended, the number of tests ordered by the physicians in the intervention group was only 7.7 percent lower than the number ordered by the physicians in the control group, and the charges for tests were only 3.5 percent lower (P>0.3). Three measures of possible adverse outcomes - number of hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and outpatient visits during the study period and the following six months - were similar for the patients seen by the physicians in both groups. We conclude that displaying the charges for diagnostic tests significantly reduced the number and cost of tests ordered, especially for patients with scheduled visits. The effects of this intervention did not persist after it was discontinued.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025328721&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025328721&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 322

SP - 1499

EP - 1504

JO - New England Journal of Medicine

JF - New England Journal of Medicine

SN - 0028-4793

IS - 21

ER -