Are primary care services a substitute or complement for specialty and inpatient services?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether strategies designed to increase members' use of primary care services result in decreases (substitution) or increases (complementation) in the use and cost of other types of health services. STUDY SETTING: Encounter and cost data were extracted from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administrative data sources for the period 1995-1999. This timeframe captures the VA's natural experiment of increasing geographic access to primary care by establishing new satellite primary care clinics, known as Community-Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs). STUDY DESIGN: We exploited this natural experiment to estimate the substitutability of primary care for other health services and its impact on cost. Hypotheses were tested using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression, which was potentially subject to endogeneity bias. Endogeneity bias was assessed using a Hausman test. Endogeneity bias was accounted for by using instrumental variables analysis, which capitalized on the establishment of CBOCs to provide an exogenous identifier (change in travel distance to primary care). DATA COLLECTION: Demographic, encounter, and cost data were collected for all veterans using VA health services who resided in the catchment areas of new CBOCs and for a matched group of veterans residing outside CBOC catchment areas. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Change in distance to primary care was a significant and substantial predictor of change in primary care visits. OLS analyses indicated that an increase in primary care service use was associated with increases in the use of all specialty outpatient services and inpatient services, as well as increases in inpatient and outpatient costs. Hausman tests confirmed that OLS results for specialty mental health encounters and mental health admissions were unbiased, but that results for specialty medical encounters, physical health admissions, and outpatient costs were biased. Instrumental variables analyses indicated that an increase in primary care encounters was associated with a decrease in specialty medical encounters and was not associated with an increase in physical health admissions, or outpatient costs. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide evidence that health systems can implement strategies to encourage their members to use more primary care services without driving up physical health costs.

Implementation and evaluation of the VA DPP clinical demonstration: protocol for a multi-site non-randomized hybrid effectiveness-implementation type III trial.

BACKGROUND: The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) study showed that lifestyle intervention resulted in a 58% reduction in incidence of type 2 diabetes among individuals with prediabetes. Additional large randomized controlled trials have confirmed these results, and long-term follow-up has shown sustained benefit 10-20 years after the interventions ended. Diabetes is a common and costly disease, especially among Veterans, and despite strong evidence supporting the feasibility of type 2 diabetes prevention, the DPP has not been widely implemented. The first aim of this study will evaluate implementation of the Veterans Affairs (VA) DPP in three VA medical centers. The second aim will assess weight and hemoglobin A1c (A1c) outcomes, and the third aim will determine the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of implementation of the VA DPP from a health system perspective. METHODS/DESIGN: This partnered multi-site non-randomized systematic assignment study will use a highly pragmatic hybrid effectiveness-implementation type III mixed methods study design. The implementation and administration of the VA DPP will be funded by clinical operations while the evaluation of the VA DPP will be funded by research grants. Seven hundred twenty eligible Veterans will be systematically assigned to the VA DPP clinical demonstration or the usual care VA MOVE!® weight management program. A multi-phase formative evaluation of the VA DPP implementation will be conducted. A theoretical program change model will be used to guide the implementation process and assess applicability and feasibility of the DPP for VA. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) will be used to guide qualitative data collection, analysis, and interpretation of barriers and facilitators to implementation. The RE-AIM framework will be used to assess Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of the VA DPP. Twelve-month weight and A1c change will be evaluated for the VA DPP compared to the VA MOVE! PROGRAM: Mediation analyses will be conducted to identify whether program design differences impact outcomes. DISCUSSION: Findings from this pragmatic evaluation will be highly applicable to practitioners who are tasked with implementing the DPP in clinical settings. In addition, findings will determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the VA DPP in the Veteran population.