A qualitative evaluation of a citywide Community Health Partnership program.

While there have been numerous community-based programs in Baltimore, Maryland, aimed at helping patients access medical treatments and services, they historically were underutilized and did not operate synergistically. For that reason, sanofi-aventis, along with key stakeholders in Baltimore, developed the Community Health Partnership (CHP) to educate, empower, and connect patients to community health resources to enable patients to be more proactive about their health. The CHP utilizes a community health liaison (CHL) and a community health action team (CHAT) consisting of community health leaders who are hands-on activists and health care workers who coordinate activities and provide guidance for the CHP. The goal of the program is to foster community collaboration to raise awareness of the need to improve health in the community and to identify and connect patients to existing resources and services that can help. A qualitative evaluation of the Baltimore CHP was conducted through focus group and key informant interviews with members of the CHAT and CHP. Results suggest that the CHP program has enhanced patient-provider relationships, brought together a wealth of resources, and made people more aware of health information. The CHP facilitated providers' ability to help patients find resources and empowered patients in the community to better manage their health conditions. In parallel, physicians requested additional culturally sensitive resources on medical conditions that addressed the health literacy of their diverse patients. Through stakeholder engagement, many more communities beyond Baltimore can become better networked to help patients navigate the health care system and improve their health.

Cost-of-illness studies : a review of current methods.

The number of cost-of-illness (COI) studies has expanded considerably over time. One outcome of this growth is that the reported COI estimates are inconsistent across studies, thereby raising concerns over the validity of the estimates and methods. Several factors have been identified in the literature as reasons for the observed variation in COI estimates. To date, the variation in the methods used to calculate costs has not been examined in great detail even though the variations in methods are a major driver of variation in COI estimates. The objective of this review was to document the variation in the methodologies employed in COI studies and to highlight the benefits and limitations of these methods. The review of COI studies was implemented following a four-step procedure: (i) a structured literature search of MEDLINE, JSTOR and EconLit; (ii) a review of abstracts using pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria; (iii) a full-text review using pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria; and (iv) classification of articles according to the methods used to calculate costs. This review identified four COI estimation methods (Sum_All Medical, Sum_Diagnosis Specific, Matched Control and Regression) that were used in categorising articles. Also, six components of direct medical costs and five components of indirect/non-medical costs were identified and used in categorising articles.365 full-length articles were reflected in the current review following the structured literature search. The top five cost components were emergency room/inpatient hospital costs, outpatient physician costs, drug costs, productivity losses and laboratory costs. The dominant method, Sum_Diagnosis Specific, was a total costing approach that restricted the summation of medical expenditures to those related to a diagnosis of the disease of interest. There was considerable variation in the methods used within disease subcategories. In several disease subcategories (e.g. asthma, dementia, diabetes mellitus), all four estimation methods were represented, and in other cases (e.g. HIV/AIDS, obesity, stroke, urinary incontinence, schizophrenia), three of the four estimation methods were represented. There was also evidence to suggest that the strengths and weaknesses of each method were considered when applying a method to a specific illness. Comparisons and assessments of COI estimates should consider the method used to estimate costs both as an important source of variation in the reported COI estimates and as a marker of the reliability of the COI estimate.

Health disparities: a barrier to high-quality care.

PURPOSE: Disparities in the treatment of cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and cancer among the sexes and racial groups and possible interventions are discussed. SUMMARY: The ongoing process to identify and reduce health disparities has engaged numerous federal agencies as they monitor the nation's progress toward policy-driven and health-related objectives. Cardiovascular disease disproportionately affects minority groups and is the leading cause of death among women in the United States, and both groups receive suboptimal care for the disease. Disparities in the treatment of diabetes mellitus in African Americans, women, patients with less than a high school education, and the elderly have been found. Many minority groups continue to suffer disproportionately from cancer. Racial disparities also exist in cancer screening and treatment. Minorities are underrepresented in clinical trials for multiple reasons, many of which may be related to cultural beliefs. At all levels of coinsurance, the poor are less likely to seek preventive care. Adherence to national screening and treatment guidelines, clinical trial recruitment and participation, addressing language and geographic barriers, and increasing access to insurance are part of the coordinated efforts required to reduce health disparities. Because pharmacists influence patients' health status directly through pharmaceutical care and indirectly by engaging patients in their treatment, it is essential for pharmacists to be able to provide culturally competent care. CONCLUSION: Despite significant efforts over the past several years, health disparities continue to exist, particularly among minority groups. Interventions aimed at eliminating these disparities should include ensuring cultural competence among health care providers and improving health literacy among patients.

Longitudinal versus cross-sectional methodology for estimating the economic burden of breast cancer: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Projecting future breast cancer treatment expenditure is critical for budgeting purposes, medical decision making and the allocation of resources in order to maximise the overall impact on health-related outcomes of care. Currently, both longitudinal and cross-sectional methodologies are used to project the economic burden of cancer. This pilot study examined the differences in estimates that were obtained using these two methods, focusing on Maryland, US Medicaid reimbursement data for chemotherapy and prescription drugs for the years 1999-2000. METHODS: Two different methodologies for projecting life cycles of cancer expenditure were considered. The first examined expenditure according to chronological time (calendar quarter) for all cancer patients in the database in a given quarter. The second examined only the most recent quarter and constructed a hypothetical expenditure life cycle by taking into consideration the number of quarters since the respective patient had her first claim. RESULTS: We found different average expenditures using the same data and over the same time period. The longitudinal measurement had less extreme peaks and troughs, and yielded average expenditure in the final period that was 60% higher than that produced using the cross-sectional analysis; however, the longitudinal analysis had intermediate periods with significantly lower estimated expenditure than the cross-sectional data. CONCLUSIONS: These disparate results signify that each of the methods has merit. The longitudinal method tracks changes over time while the cross-sectional approach reflects more recent data, e.g. current practice patterns. Thus, this study reiterates the importance of considering the methodology when projecting future cancer expenditure.

Societal implications of the pharmacoeconomics of alpha1-antitrypsin deficiency.

The use of intermittent augmentation therapy for patients with alpha(1)-antitrypsin deficiency assists in slowing disease progression and may, as a result, reduce the likelihood of hospitalization and significant clinical events. There are significant cost and access issues related to current therapy management, since currently marked augmentation therapy is expensive and there have been periodic shortages. The high cost, access and reimbursement concerns have prompted questions about the potential pharmacoeconomic advantages of future treatments. In this review, we provide an overview of published research findings concerning the effectiveness of current therapy, reimbursement and cost issues and potential future advances in treatment for alpha(1)-antitrypsin deficiency.