A Novel Intervention for High-Need, High-Cost Medicaid Patients: a Study of ECHO Care.

BACKGROUND: A small number of high-need patients account for a disproportionate amount of Medicaid spending, yet typically engage little in outpatient care and have poor outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To address this issue, we developed ECHO (Extension for Community Health Outcomes) Care™, a complex care intervention in which outpatient intensivist teams (OITs) provided care to high-need high-cost (HNHC) Medicaid patients. Teams were supported using the ECHO model™, a continuing medical education approach that connects specialists with primary care providers for case-based mentoring to treat complex diseases. DESIGN: Using an interrupted time series analysis of Medicaid claims data, we measured healthcare utilization and expenditures before and after ECHO Care. PARTICIPANTS: ECHO Care served 770 patients in New Mexico between September 2013 and June 2016. Nearly all had a chronic mental illness, and over three-quarters had a chronic substance use disorder. INTERVENTION: ECHO Care patients received care from an OIT, which typically included a nurse practitioner or physician assistant, a registered nurse, a licensed mental health provider, and at least one community health worker. Teams focused on addressing patients' physical, behavioral, and social issues. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed the effect of ECHO Care on Medicaid costs and utilization (inpatient admissions, emergency department (ED) visits, other outpatient visits, and dispensed prescriptions. KEY RESULTS: ECHO Care was associated with significant changes in patients' use of the healthcare system. At 12 months post-enrollment, the odds of a patient having an inpatient admission and an ED visit were each reduced by approximately 50%, while outpatient visits and prescriptions increased by 23% and 8%, respectively. We found no significant change in overall Medicaid costs associated with ECHO Care. CONCLUSIONS: ECHO Care shifts healthcare utilization from inpatient to outpatient settings, which suggests decreased patient suffering and greater access to care, including more effective prevention and early intervention for chronic conditions.

Maximizing quality and value in Medicaid: using return on investment forecasting to support effective policymaking.

In order to serve increasing numbers of Medicaid beneficiaries, particularly during an economic recession, states must find ways to maximize the impact of available funds. Some states are identifying new ways of organizing, financing, and delivering health care in order to lower costs without sacrificing quality of care or enrollment capacity. An important tool for helping policymakers design such "value-added" strategies is return-on-investment (ROI) analysis. ROI forecasting has long been used to inform the allocation of limited resources in the private sector. This brief outlines what ROI can do, and in a few cases has already done, in the public sector, to improve quality and control costs in Medicaid.

Searching for a business case for quality in Medicaid managed care.

BACKGROUND: Despite the prevalence of evidence-based interventions to improve quality in health care systems, there is a paucity of documented evidence of a financial return on investment (ROI) for these interventions from the perspective of the investing entity. PURPOSES: To report on a demonstration project designed to measure the business case for selected quality interventions in high-risk high-cost patient populations in 10 Medicaid managed care organizations across the United States. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Using claims and enrollment data gathered over a 3-year period and data on the costs of designing, implementing, and operating the interventions, ROIs were computed for 11 discrete evidence-based quality-enhancing interventions. FINDINGS: A complex case management program to treat adults with multiple comorbidities achieved the largest ROI of 12.21:1. This was followed by an ROI of 6.35:1 for a program which treated children with asthma with a history of high emergency room (ER) use and/or inpatient admissions for their disease. An intervention for high-risk pregnant mothers produced a 1.26:1 ROI, and a program for adult patients with diabetes resulted in a 1.16:1 return. The remaining seven interventions failed to show positive returns, although four sites came close to realizing sufficient savings to offset investment costs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Evidence-based interventions designed to improve the quality of patient care may have the best opportunity to yield a positive financial return if it is focused on high-risk high-cost populations and conditions associated with avoidable emergency and inpatient utilization. Developing the necessary tracking systems for the claims and financial investments is critical to perform accurate financial ROI analyses.

Integrating health care for high-need medicaid beneficiaries with serious mental illness and chronic physical health conditions at managed care, provider, and consumer levels.

OBJECTIVE: Policies supporting value-based care and alternative payment models, notably in the Affordable Care Act and the Medicare Access & CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, offer hope to advance care integration for individuals with behavioral and chronic physical health conditions. The potential for integration to improve quality while managing costs for individuals with high needs, coupled with the remaining financial, operational, and policy challenges, underscores a need for continued discussion of integration programs' preliminary outcomes and lessons. The authors describe the early efforts of the HealthChoices HealthConnections pilot program for adult Medicaid beneficiaries with serious mental illness and co-occurring chronic conditions, which used a navigator model in 3 southeastern Pennsylvania counties. METHOD: The authors conducted a difference-in-differences analysis of emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and readmissions using Medicaid claims data and collected data about program implementation. RESULTS: ED visits decreased 4% among study group members (n = 4,788) while increasing almost 6% in the comparison group (n = 7,039) during the intervention period (p = .036); there were no statistically significant differences in hospitalizations or readmissions. This pilot demonstrated the promise of nurse navigators (care managers) to bridge gaps between the physical and mental health care systems, and the success of a private-public partnership developing a member profile to share behavioral and physical health information in the absence of an interoperable health information technology system. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The implementation lessons can inform state Medicaid Health Home models as well as accountable care organizations considering incorporation of behavioral health care. (PsycINFO Database Record

Connected Care: improving outcomes for adults with serious mental illness.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of Connected Care-a care coordination effort of physical and behavioral health managed care partners in Pennsylvania-on acute service use among adult Medicaid beneficiaries with serious mental illness (SMI). STUDY DESIGN: We examined changes in service utilization using a difference-in-differences model, comparing study group with a comparison group, and conducted key informant interviews to better understand aspects of program implementation. METHODS: We compared the difference in service use rates between baseline year and 2-year intervention period for the Connected Care group (n = 8633) with the difference in rates for the comparison group (n = 10,514), confirming results using a regression adjustment. RESULTS: Mental health hospitalizations (per 1000 members per month) decreased for the Connected Care group from 41.1 to 39.6, while increasing for the comparison group from 33.8 to 37.2 (P = .04). All-cause readmissions within 30 days decreased nearly 10% for Connected Care while increasing slightly for the comparison group (P < .01), with a similar pattern observed for 60- and 90-day all-cause readmissions. No differences were observed in physical health hospitalizations, drug and alcohol admissions, or ED use. Data from qualitative stakeholder interviews illuminated facilitators and barriers of implementing Connected Care. CONCLUSIONS: Payer-level healthcare information sharing can help identify members who could benefit from care coordination services, inform care management activities, and assist with pharmacy management. Results can inform state, health plan, and provider efforts around integration of care for individuals with SMI and improve care efficiencies and quality, which is especially important in this time of Medicaid expansion.

Medicaid expansion: considerations for states regarding newly eligible jail-involved individuals.

The expansion of Medicaid eligibility to Americans with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level should greatly increase access to coverage and services for people recently released from jail and, thus, improve health outcomes and reduce recidivism in this population. The population is disproportionately male, minority, and poor; suffers from high rates of mental and substance abuse disorders; and is expected to make up a substantial portion of the Medicaid expansion population. To ensure connections to needed services after release from jail, states could help inmates determine their eligibility and enroll in Medicaid; take advantage of federal grants to automate systems that determine eligibility; and include a robust array of behavioral health services in Medicaid benefit packages. In most states, new partnerships between Medicaid and corrections agencies at both the state and local levels will be needed to support these activities.

Challenges to using a business case for addressing health disparities.

The authors consider the challenges to quantifying both the business case and the social case for addressing disparities, which is central to achieving equity in the U.S. health care system. They describe the practical and methodological challenges faced by health plans exploring the business and social cases for undertaking disparity-reducing interventions. Despite these challenges, sound business and quality improvement principles can guide health care organizations seeking to reduce disparities. Place-based interventions may help focus resources and engage health care and community partners who can share in the costs of-and gains from-such efforts.