Harnessing health plan enrollee data to boost membership in patient-powered research networks.

BACKGROUND: Patient-powered research networks (PPRNs) have been employing and exploring different methods to engage patients in research activities specific to their conditions. One way to intensify patient engagement is to partner with payer stakeholders. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of two common payer-initiated outreach methods (postal mail versus email) for inviting prospective candidates to participate in their initiatives. METHODS: This descriptive study linked members of a nationally-representative private insurance network to four disease-specific PPRN registries. Eligible members meeting diagnostic criteria who were not registered in any of the four PPRNs by 02/28/2018 were identified, and randomly assigned to either the mail or email group. They were contacted in two outreach efforts: first on 04/23/2018, and one follow-up on 05/23/2018. New registration rates by outreach method as of 8/31/2018 were determined by relinking. We compared registrants and non-registrants using bivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 14,571 patients were assigned to the mail group, and 14,574 to the email group. Invitations were successfully delivered to 13,834 (94.9%) mail group and 10,205 (70.0%) email group members. A small but significantly larger proportion of mail group members, (n = 78; 0.54, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] {0.42-0.67%}) registered in PPRNs relative to the email group (n = 24; 0.16, 95% CI {0.11-0.25%}), p < 0.001. Members who registered had more comorbidities, were more likely to be female, and had marginally greater medical utilization, especially emergency room visits, relative to non-registrants (52.0% vs. 42.5%, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: A health plan outreach to invite members to participate in PPRNs was modestly effective. Regular mail outperformed less costly email. Providing more value-add to participants may be a possible way to increase recruitment success.

Data linkages between patient-powered research networks and health plans: a foundation for collaborative research.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-powered research networks (PPRNs) are a valuable source of patient-generated information. Diagnosis code-based algorithms developed by PPRNs can be used to query health plans' claims data to identify patients for research opportunities. Our objective was to implement privacy-preserving record linkage processes between PPRN members' and health plan enrollees' data, compare linked and nonlinked members, and measure disease-specific confirmation rates for specific health conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This descriptive study identified overlapping members from 4 PPRN registries and 14 health plans. Our methods for the anonymous linkage of overlapping members used secure Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, 1-way, cryptographic hash functions. Self-reported diagnoses by PPRN members were compared with claims-based computable phenotypes to calculate confirmation rates across varying durations of health plan coverage. RESULTS: Data for 21 616 PPRN members were hashed. Of these, 4487 (21%) members were linked, regardless of any expected overlap with the health plans. Linked members were more likely to be female and younger than nonlinked members were. Irrespective of duration of enrollment, the confirmation rates for the breast or ovarian cancer, rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, or vasculitis PPRNs were 72%, 50%, 75%, and 67%, increasing to 91%, 67%, 93%, and 80%, respectively, for members with ≥5 years of continuous health plan enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that PPRN membership and health plan data can be successfully linked using privacy-preserving record linkage methodology, and used to confirm self-reported diagnosis. Identifying and confirming self-reported diagnosis of members can expedite patient selection for research opportunities, shorten study recruitment timelines, and optimize costs.

Utilization and Outcomes of BRCA Genetic Testing and Counseling in a National Commercially Insured Population: The ABOUT Study.

IMPORTANCE: BRCA genetic testing has substantial public health impact, yet little is known of the real-world experiences of the more than 100 000 Americans undergoing testing annually. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with use of BRCA testing, assess whether delivery of genetic counseling and testing services adheres to professional guidelines, and measure the impact on patient-reported outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The American BRCA Outcomes and Utilization of Testing (ABOUT) Study analyzed data from a consecutive national series of 11 159 women whose clinicians ordered BRCA testing between December 2011 and December 2012. Aetna mailed recruitment information across the United States to commercial health plan members whose clinicians had ordered BRCA testing. A total of 3874 women (34.7%) completed questionnaires. Deidentified clinician-reported data from all respondents and a random sample of 2613 nonrespondents were also analyzed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportion of eligible participants who met testing criteria and respondents' report of receiving genetic counseling by a genetics clinician and its association with BRCA knowledge, understanding, and satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: Among 3628 women respondents whose clinicians ordered comprehensive BRCA testing, most were white non-Hispanic (2502 [69.0%]), college educated (2953 [81.4%]), married (2751 [75.8%]), and had higher incomes (2011 [55.4%]). Approximately 16.4% (596) did not meet testing criteria. Mutations were identified in 161 (5.3%) of these women who received comprehensive testing. Only 1334 (36.8%) reported receiving genetic counseling from a genetics clinician prior to testing; the lowest rates (130 [12.3%]) were among patients of obstetrician/gynecologists. The most commonly reported reason for not receiving this clinical service was lack of clinician recommendation. Those who received it demonstrated greater knowledge about BRCA (mean score difference adjusted for demographics and clinician specialty, ß = 0.99 [95% CI, 0.83-1.14]; P < .001) and expressed greater understanding (ß = 0.47 [95% CI, 0.41-0.54]; P < .001) and satisfaction (ß = 2.21 [95% CI, 1.60-2.81]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Despite improved patient knowledge, understanding, and satisfaction among patients who receive genetic counseling provided by a genetics clinician, as well as multiple guidelines emphasizing the importance of genetic counseling, most US women undergoing BRCA genetic testing do not receive this clinical service. Lack of physician recommendation is the most commonly reported reason. These findings demonstrate important gaps in clinical genetics services. Recently mandated coverage of genetic counseling services as a preventive service without patient cost sharing should contribute to improving clinical genetics services and associated outcomes in the future.