Evaluation of a National Care Coordination Program to Reduce Utilization Among High-cost, High-need Medicaid Beneficiaries With Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Medical, behavioral, and social determinants of health are each associated with high levels of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate a care coordination program designed to provide combined "whole-person care," integrating medical, behavioral, and social support for high-cost, high-need Medicaid beneficiaries by targeting access barriers and social determinants. RESEARCH DESIGN: Individual-level interrupted time series with a comparator group, using person-month as the unit of analysis. SUBJECTS: A total of 42,214 UnitedHealthcare Medicaid beneficiaries (194,834 person-months) age 21 years or above with diabetes, with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medicaid expansion, Supplemental Security Income without Medicare, or dual Medicaid/Medicare. MEASURES: Our outcome measures were any hospitalizations and any ED visits in a given month. Covariates of interest included an indicator for intervention versus comparator group and indicator and spline variables measuring changes in an outcome's time trend after program enrollment. RESULTS: Overall, 6 of the 8 examined comparisons were not statistically significant. Among Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries, we observed a larger projected decrease in ED visit risk among the intervention sample versus the comparator sample at 12 months postenrollment (difference-in-difference: -6.6%; 95% confidence interval: -11.2%, -2.1%). Among expansion beneficiaries, we observed a greater decrease in hospitalization risk among the intervention sample versus the comparator sample at 12 months postenrollment (difference-in-difference: -5.8%; 95% confidence interval: -11.4%, -0.2%). CONCLUSION: A care coordination program designed to reduce utilization among high-cost, high-need Medicaid beneficiaries was associated with fewer ED visits and hospitalizations for patients with diabetes in selected Medicaid programs but not others.

Evaluation of a Nationwide Pharmacist-Led Phone Outreach Program to Improve Osteoporosis Management in Older Women with Recently Sustained Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis-related fractures are a considerable economic burden on the U.S. health care system. Since 2008, the Centers for Medicare Medicaid Services have adopted a Medicare Part C Five-Star Quality Rating measure to ensure that a woman's previously unaddressed osteoporosis is managed appropriately after a fracture. Despite the effort to improve this gap in care, the 2013 CMS plan ratings fact sheet reported an average star rating of 1.4 stars for the osteoporosis measure, the lowest score for any measure across all health plans. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of conducting a pharmacist-led, telephone outreach program to members or their providers to improve osteoporosis management in elderly women after experiencing fractures.  METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized study to evaluate the effectiveness of 3 different intervention strategies within a nationwide managed care population. Women aged 66 years and older who experienced a new bone fracture between January 1, 2012-August 31, 2012, were identified through medical claims. Women who were treated with an osteoporosis medication or received a bone mineral density (BMD) test within a year of their fractures were excluded. Study patients were randomized into 3 intervention cohorts: (1) baseline intervention consisting of member educational mailing and provider educational mail or fax notification; (2) baseline intervention plus a live outbound intervention call to members by a pharmacist; and (3) baseline intervention plus a pharmacist call to members' providers to recommend starting osteoporosis therapy and/or a bone mineral density (BMD) test. An intent-to-treat and per protocol analyses were employed, and appropriate osteoporosis management (initiation of osteoporosis therapy and/or BMD testing) 120 days after the baseline intervention and 180 days after a fracture were measured. RESULTS: The study identified 6,591 members who were equally randomized into 3 cohorts. The baseline demographics in each cohort were similar. Results of the intent-to-treat analysis showed more members in cohort 3 receiving appropriate osteoporosis management (13.0%) compared with those in cohort 2 (10.3%, P less than 0.005) or compared with those in cohort 1 (9.1%, P less than 0.001). No difference was detected between those receiving additional member calls (cohort 2) and those receiving only the baseline intervention (cohort 1). Similar results were observed utilizing the 180 days after fracture time frame.  CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of a pharmacist-led telephone intervention directed at providers or members was examined in this randomized study. Pharmacist calls to members did not improve osteoporosis management over member and provider mail and fax notifications. Greater impact was demonstrated by performing a pharmacist call intervention with providers rather than with members.

Do hierarchical condition category model scores predict hospitalization risk in newly enrolled Medicare advantage participants as well as probability of repeated admission scores?

OBJECTIVES: To compare how well hierarchical condition categories (HCC) and probability of repeated admission (P(RA)) scores predict hospitalization. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study with 12-month follow-up. SETTING: A Medicare Advantage (MA) plan. PARTICIPANTS: Four thousand five hundred six newly enrolled beneficiaries. MEASUREMENT: HCC scores were identified from enrollment files. The P(RA) tool was administered by mail and telephone. Inpatient admissions were based on notifications. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare HCC scores of P(RA) responders and nonresponders. The receiver operating characteristic curve provided the area under the curve (AUC) for each score. Admission risk in the top 5% of scores was evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Within 60 days of enrollment, 45.1% of the 3,954 beneficiaries with HCC scores completed the P(RA) tool. HCC scores were lower for the 1,783 P(RA) respondents than the 2,171 nonrespondents (0.71 vs 0.81, P<.001). AUCs predicting hospitalization with regard to HCC and P(RA) were similar (0.638, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.603-0.674; 0.654, 95% CI=0.618-0.690). Individuals identified in the top 5% of scores using both tools, using HCC alone, or using P(RA) alone had higher risk for hospitalization than those below the 95th percentile (odds ratio (OR)=8.5, 95% CI=3.7-19.4, OR=3.8, 95% CI=2.3-6.3, and OR=3.9, 95% CI=2.3-6.4, respectively). CONCLUSION: HCC scores provided to MA plans for risk adjustment of revenue can also be used to identify hospitalization risk. Additional studies are required to evaluate whether a hybrid approach incorporating administrative and self-reported models would further optimize risk stratification efforts.