Evaluation of a Diabetes Self-Management Program: Claims Analysis on Comorbid Illnesses, Health Care Utilization, and Cost.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 30.3 million Americans have diabetes mellitus. The US Department of Health and Human Services created national objectives via its Healthy People 2020 initiative to improve the quality of life for people who either have or are at risk for diabetes mellitus, and hence, lower the personal and national economic burden of this debilitating chronic disease. Diabetes self-management education interventions are a primary focus of this initiative. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the Better Choices Better Health Diabetes (BCBH-D) self-management program on comorbid illness related to diabetes mellitus, health care utilization, and cost. METHODS: A propensity score matched two-group, pre-post design was used for this study. Retrospective administrative medical and pharmacy claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment were used for outcome variables. The intervention cohort included diabetes mellitus patients who were recruited to a diabetes self-management program. Control cohort subjects were identified from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment by at least two diabetes-associated claims (International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision, ICD-9 250.xx) within 2 years before the program launch date (October 1, 2011-September 30, 2013) but did not participate in BCBH-D. Controls were matched to cases in a 3:1 propensity score match. Outcome measures included pre- and postintervention all-cause and diabetes-related utilization and costs. Cost outcomes are reported as least squares means. Repeated measures analyses (generalized estimating equation approach) were conducted for utilization, comorbid conditions, and costs. RESULTS: The program participants who were identified in HealthCore Integrated Research Environment claims (N=558) were matched to a control cohort of 1669 patients. Following the intervention, the self-management cohort experienced significant reductions for diabetes mellitus-associated comorbid conditions, with the postintervention disease burden being significantly lower (mean 1.6 [SD 1.6]) compared with the control cohort (mean 2.1 [SD 1.7]; P=.001). Postintervention all-cause utilization was decreased in the intervention cohort compared with controls with -40/1000 emergency department visits vs +70/1000; P=.004 and -5780 outpatient visits per 1000 vs -290/1000; P=.001. Unadjusted total all-cause medical cost was decreased by US $2207 in the intervention cohort compared with a US $338 decrease in the controls; P=.001. After adjustment for other variables through structural equation analysis, the direct effect of the BCBH-D was -US $815 (P=.049). CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the BCBH-D program experienced reduced all-cause health care utilization and costs. Direct cost savings were US $815. Although encouraging, given the complexity of the patient population, further study is needed to cross-validate the results.

Virtual Visits for Acute, Nonurgent Care: A Claims Analysis of Episode-Level Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Expansion of virtual health care-real-time video consultation with a physician via the Internet-will continue as use of mobile devices and patient demand for immediate, convenient access to care grow. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to analyze the care provided and the cost of virtual visits over a 3-week episode compared with in-person visits to retail health clinics (RHC), urgent care centers (UCC), emergency departments (ED), or primary care physicians (PCP) for acute, nonurgent conditions. METHODS: A cross-sectional, retrospective analysis of claims from a large commercial health insurer was performed to compare care and cost of patients receiving care via virtual visits for a condition of interest (sinusitis, upper respiratory infection, urinary tract infection, conjunctivitis, bronchitis, pharyngitis, influenza, cough, dermatitis, digestive symptom, or ear pain) matched to those receiving care for similar conditions in other settings. An episode was defined as the index visit plus 3 weeks following. Patients were children and adults younger than 65 years of age without serious chronic conditions. Visits were classified according to the setting where the visit occurred. Care provided was assessed by follow-up outpatient visits, ED visits, or hospitalizations; laboratory tests or imaging performed; and antibiotic use after the initial visit. Episode costs included the cost of the initial visit, subsequent medical care, and pharmacy. RESULTS: A total of 59,945 visits were included in the analysis (4635 virtual visits and 55,310 nonvirtual visits). Virtual visit episodes had similar follow-up outpatient visit rates (28.09%) as PCP (28.10%, P=.99) and RHC visits (28.59%, P=.51). During the episode, lab rates for virtual visits (12.56%) were lower than in-person locations (RHC: 36.79%, P<.001; UCC: 39.01%, P<.001; ED: 53.15%, P<.001; PCP: 37.40%, P<.001), and imaging rates for virtual visits (6.62%) were typically lower than in-person locations (RHC: 5.97%, P=.11; UCC: 8.77%, P<.001; ED: 43.06%, P<.001; PCP: 11.26%, P<.001). RHC, UCC, ED, and PCP were estimated to be $36, $153, $1735, and $162 more expensive than virtual visit episodes, respectively, including medical and pharmacy costs. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual care appears to be a low-cost alternative to care administered in other settings with lower testing rates. The similar follow-up rate suggests adequate clinical resolution and that patients are not using virtual visits as a first step before seeking in-person care.

Evaluation of value-based insurance design for primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of value-based insurance design (VBID), which removed patient cost sharing for primary care visits, on healthcare spending in a large, geographically diverse employer. STUDY DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, difference-in-differences (DID) design, administrative claims-based study. METHODS: Healthcare spending during the preintervention period (2008 and 2009) was compared with the postintervention period (2011 through 2014) to measure the impact of removing primary care cost sharing. The study population included Anthem commercially insured enrollees with continuous medical eligibility from 2008 to 2014 who were younger than 65 years. The VBID cohort included health plan enrollees from a national large employer that implemented the benefit change. The comparison cohort included other Anthem enrollees who did not have a similar benefit change and were propensity score-matched to the VBID cohort. Utilization of various types of healthcare services was also examined. RESULTS: The VBID cohort experienced a $12.0 per member per month relative reduction in overall spending compared with the comparison cohort (P = .02). The trend was driven by reductions in expenditures for emergency department (ED) visits ($1.3 relative reduction; DID, -10.0%; P = .03) and other outpatient services ($7.6 relative reduction; DID, -5.8%; P = .02), which aligned with reduced utilization of ED visits (DID, -4.5%; P = .07) and other outpatient services (DID, -4.1%; P = .004). For physician office visits, the VBID cohort did not experience a significant relative increase compared with the comparison cohort (DID, 0.9%; P = .25). CONCLUSIONS: The attempt to increase primary care access by reducing cost sharing did not produce a negative outcome in terms of total spending for healthcare.

Variability and growth in spending for outpatient specialty pharmaceuticals.

Specialty pharmaceuticals are a unique group of drug agents used to treat complex clinical conditions. Many specialty pharmaceuticals are biological in nature and administered through injection or infusion. Tracking spending on these pharmaceuticals is complex, because these products may be processed as either medical or pharmacy claims. This benchmarking study of ten Blue Cross Blue Shield plans, representing almost eighteen million covered lives, documents large expenditures on select specialty pharmaceutical categories and much variation in spending across plans, age groups, and time. Our results underscore the need for insurers to scrutinize trends in specialty pharmaceutical spending and identify appropriate management strategies.

Health plans' strategies for managing outpatient specialty pharmaceuticals.

Balancing increased spending for specialty pharmaceuticals while providing affordable and equitable coverage for consumers is a key issue for public and private payers. Health plans rely on an array of strategies, including both medical management and those used for more traditional pharmaceuticals. To explore specific management strategies for outpatient specialty pharmaceuticals, a survey was administered to thirty-eight Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, focused on identifying core strategies. Prior authorization was the most commonly used strategy, implemented by 83.3 percent of respondents. Other frequently implemented management strategies included claims review (82.8 percent), formulary management (76.7 percent), and utilization review (70 percent).