Costs of Specialist Referrals From Employer-Sponsored Integrated Health Care Clinics Are Lower Than Those From Community Providers.

BACKGROUND: There have been very few published studies of referral management among commercially insured populations and none on referral management from employer-sponsored health centers. OBJECTIVE: Describe the referral management system of an integrated employer-sponsored health care system and compare specialist referral rates and costs of specialist visits between those initiated from employer-sponsored health clinics and those initiated from community providers. DESIGN: Retrospective, comparative cohort study using multivariate analysis of medical claims comparing care initiated in employer-sponsored health clinics with propensity-matched controls having specialist referrals initiated by community providers. PATIENTS: Adult patients (≥ 18 years) eligible for employer-sponsored clinical services incurring medical claims for specialist referrals between 12/1/2018 and 12/31/2020. The study cohort was comprised of 3129 receiving more than 75% of their care in the employer-sponsored clinic matched to a cohort of 3129 patients receiving care in the community. INTERVENTION: Specialist referral management program implemented by Crossover Health employer-sponsored clinics. MAIN MEASURES: Rates and costs of specialist referrals. KEY RESULTS: The relative rate of specialist referrals was 22% lower among patients receiving care in employers-sponsored health clinics (35.1%) than among patients receiving care in the community (45%, p <0.001). The total per-user per-month cost for patients in the study cohort was $372 (SD $894), compared to $401 (SD $947) for the community cohort, a difference of $29 (p<0.001) and a relative reduction of 7.2%. The lower costs can be attributed, in part, to lower specialist care costs ($63 (SD $140) vs $76 (SD $213) (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Employer-sponsored health clinics can provide effective integrated care and may be able to reduce avoidable specialist utilization. Standardized referral management and care navigation may drive lower specialist spend, when referrals are needed.

Employer-Sponsored Health Centers Provide Access to Integrated Care via a Hybrid of Virtual and In-Person Visits.

Background: Since the explosion of telemedicine resulting from the SARS-CoV2 pandemic, employers have been particularly interested in virtual primary care as a novel means of expanding primary care services. The purpose of this study is to describe a model of integrated care delivered both in-person and virtually at employer-sponsored health centers nationwide. The key outcomes of this analysis were the proportion of all care delivered in-person and virtually by clinical discipline, the types of care and member satisfaction for care delivered in-person and virtually, and a description of the use of multiple clinical disciplines by the employee population. Methods: Retrospective observational study comparing health services utilization of primary care, behavioral health, and physical medicine services both in-person and virtually in employer-sponsored clinics between January 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. Results: Of the 331,967 visits with employer-sponsored health center staff, 63% were in-person and 37% were delivered virtually. Most visits were for primary care services (59.5%), with physical medicine visits and behavioral health visits accounting for 25.1% and 15.4%, respectively. Whereas the preponderance of behavioral health visits were virtual visits (72.5%), less than a quarter (18.2%) of physical medicine visits were delivered virtually. 19.6% of patients were seen by more than two clinical disciplines and 2.6% were seen by three different disciplines. Overall, patients were highly likely to recommend the health center across both modalities (Net Promoter Score 89.1 for in-person care and 88.4 for virtual care). Discussion: The future of employer-sponsored integrated team-based care may require a hybrid approach that can lean heavily on virtual visits but requires the infrastructure necessary for in-person care.

Epileptogenesis causes acute and chronic increases in GABAA receptor endocytosis that contributes to the induction and maintenance of seizures in the hippocampal culture model of acquired epilepsy.

Altered GABAergic inhibitory tone has been observed in association with a number of both acute and chronic models of epilepsy and is believed to be the result, in part, of a decrease in function of the postsynaptic GABAA receptor (GABAAR). This study was carried out to investigate if alterations in receptor internalization contribute to the decrease in GABAAR function observed with epilepsy, utilizing the hippocampal neuronal culture model of low-Mg2+-induced spontaneous recurrent epileptiform discharges (SREDs). Analysis of GABAAR function in "epileptic" cultures showed a 62% reduction in [3H]flunitrazepam binding to the GABAA alpha receptor subunit and a 50% decrease in GABA currents when compared with controls. Confocal microscopy analysis of immunohistochemical staining of GABAAR beta2/beta3 subunit expression revealed approximately a 30% decrease of membrane staining in hippocampal cultures displaying SREDs immediately after low-Mg2+ treatment and in the chronic epileptic state. Low-Mg2+-treated cultures internalized antibody labeled GABAA receptor with an increase in rate of 68% from control. Inhibition of GABAAR endocytosis in epileptic cultures resulted in both a recovery to control levels of membrane GABAA beta2/beta3 immunostaining and a total blockade of SREDs. These results indicate that altered GABAAR endocytosis contributes to the decrease in GABAAR expression and function observed in this in vitro model of epilepsy and plays a role in causing and maintaining SREDs. Understanding the mechanisms underlying altered GABAA R recycling may offer new insights into the pathophysiology of epilepsy and provide novel therapeutic strategies to treat this major neurological condition.