Mean (SD) postoperative

white cell count was significantly lower with isoflurane than propofol (day 1: 12 (4) x 103.mm-1 vs 16 (4) x 103.mm-1; p = 0.01 and day 3: 10 (6) x 103.mm-1; vs 14 (4); p = 0.01). Tumour necrosis factor-alpha (day 1) and interleukin-1 (days 1 and 3) concentrations were significantly lower with isoflurane. Compared with propofol, isoflurane is associated with an attenuated postoperative inflammatory response and less postoperative hepatocellular injury in patients having this procedure.”
“IMPORTANCE In a multipayer system, new payment AZD1208 order incentives implemented by one insurer for an accountable care organization (ACO) may also affect spending and quality of care for another insurer’s enrollees served by the ACO. Such spillover effects reflect the extent of organizational efforts to reform care delivery and can contribute to the net impact of ACOs.\n\nOBJECTIVE We examined whether the Blue Cross Blue Shield

(BCBS) of Massachusetts’ Alternative Quality Contract (AQC), an early commercial ACO initiative associated with reduced spending and improved quality for BCBS enrollees, was also associated with changes in spending and selleck chemicals llc quality for Medicare beneficiaries, who were not covered by the AQC.\n\nDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Quasi-experimental comparisons from 2007-2010 of elderly fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in Massachusetts (1 761 325 person-years) served by 11 provider organizations entering the AQC in 2009 or 2010 (intervention

group) vs beneficiaries served by other providers (control group). Using a difference-in-differences approach, we estimated changes in spending and quality for the intervention group in the first and second years of exposure to the AQC relative to concurrent Fosbretabulin purchase changes for the control group. Regression and propensity score methods were used to adjust for differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.\n\nMAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was total quarterly medical spending per beneficiary. Secondary outcomes included spending by setting and type of service, 5 process measures of quality, potentially avoidable hospitalizations, and 30-day readmissions.\n\nRESULTS Before entering the AQC, total quarterly spending per beneficiary for the intervention group was $150 (95% CI, $25-$274) higher than for the control group and increased at a similar rate. In year 2 of the intervention group’s exposure to the AQC, this difference was reduced to $51 (95% CI, -$109 to $210; P = .53), constituting a significant differential change of -$99 (95% CI, -$183 to -$16; P = .02) or a 3.4% savings relative to an expected quarterly mean of $2895. Savings in year 1 were not significant (differential change, -$34; 95% CI, -$83 to $16; P = .18). Year 2 savings derived largely from lower spending on outpatient care (differential change, -$73; 95% CI, -$97 to -$50; P < .