Comparing VA to Non-VA Care
J Gen Intern Med
Comparing VA to Non-VA Care
Claire E. O'Hanlon 1
M.P.P. 1 3
Carrie Farmer 1
Ph.D. 1 2
Courtney Gidengil 1
M.D. 1
M.P.H. 0 1
0 RAND Corporation , Boston, MA , USA
1 Compliance with Ethical Standards:
2 RAND Corporation , Pittsburgh, PA , USA
3 Pardee RAND Graduate School, RAND Corporation , Santa Monica, CA , USA
National Other National Other Conflict of Interest: Ms. O'Hanlon was employed by Amgen Inc. as a graduate student intern from June to September 2016. Dr. Farmer and Dr. Gidengil declare no conflicts of interest.
-
T comments on our manuscript. Based on our review of
o the Editor: We thank Dr. Weeks for his thoughtful
the evidence in the published literature, we concluded that the
VA often, but not always, performs better than or similarly to
other systems of care with regard to safety and effectiveness.
We did not conclude, or intend to imply, that we now know
definitively that VA care overall is better than non-VA care,
especially considering how few studies have been published
on VA care with regard to the quality dimensions of timeliness,
patient-centeredness, efficiency, and equity.
To address Dr. Weeks’ specific critique related to national
versus non-national studies, we returned to our analysis and
examined whether including only results from nationally
representative studies would have changed our conclusions. We
found that our conclusions would not change substantially
(Table 1).
We also disagree with Dr. Weeks’ assertion that the only
relevant studies are those that measure a small set of
riskadjusted outcomes measures. Evaluations of process are
critical to understanding quality of care and identifying actionable
steps for providers.
Furthermore, we differ with Dr. Weeks regarding the
relevance of three studies that he mentions: rates of decline
of quality indicators were compared among VA and
nonVA settings1; safety process measures such as infection
prevention practices are critical components of quality2;
and while the paper by Vaughan-Sarrazin could arguably
have been excluded from this review because it compared
VA-using and non-VA patients only on the non-VA care
they received, omitting its finding does not change our core
conclusions (Table 1).3 In addition, even if the VA is
receiving Bcredit^ for care provided by other systems, that
such care is recorded in the VA’s record indicates that the
process was measured, which is important.
We agree that there is geographic variation in the
performance of the VA. We also agree that studies assessing
the quality of all care that veterans receive, from both VA
Table 1 Number of Studies Classified in Each Category According
to Original Review’s Methodology
*Excludes Vaughan-Sarrazin3
and non-VA providers, would be ideal. Similarly, we agree
that studies that compare veterans who receive only VA
care to veterans who receive only non-VA care over a
longer period of observation would make a valuable
contribution to understanding the quality of VA care. However,
we are not aware of any such studies. Systematic reviews
are limited to the available evidence.
1. Borzecki AM , Christiansen CL , Loveland S , Chew P , Rosen AK . Trends in the inpatient quality indicators: the Veterans Health Administration experience . Med Care . 2010 ; 48 ( 8 ): 694 - 702 .
2. Krein SL , Hofer TP , Kowalski CP , Olmsted RN , Kauffman CA , Forman JH , Banaszak-Holl J , Saint S. Use of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection prevention practices by US hospitals . Mayo Clin Proc . 2007 ; 82 ( 6 ): 672 - 678 .
3. Vaughan-Sarrazin MS , Wakefield B , Rosenthal GE . Mortality of Department of Veterans Affairs patients undergoing coronary revascularization in private sector hospitals . Health Serv Res . 2007 ; 42 ( 5 ): 1802 - 1821 . (...truncated)