IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v24y2022i2p864-882.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical Ambiguity and Conflicts of Interest in Interventional Cardiology Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Tinglong Dai

    (Carey Business School, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21202)

  • Xiaofang Wang

    (Hopkins Business of Health Initiative, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21202)

  • Chao-Wei Hwang

    (School of Business, Renmin University of China, 100872 Beijing, China)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Tinglong Dai & Xiaofang Wang & Chao-Wei Hwang, 2022. "Clinical Ambiguity and Conflicts of Interest in Interventional Cardiology Decision Making," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 864-882, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:24:y:2022:i:2:p:864-882
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2021.0969
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.2021.0969
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2021.0969?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:24:y:2022:i:2:p:864-882. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.