Long term cost outcomes among commercially insured patients undergoing bariatric surgical procedures.

Objective: Bariatric procedures have become safer in recent years, warranting new data on long-term costs. This study examined the impact of bariatric procedures on a person's long-term healthcare costs up to 10 years and if it differed by socio-economic status (SES). Methods: This retrospective observational study compared the downstream health care cost of patients with obesity who had undergone bariatric surgery (BS) between 2009 and 2018 to a 1:1 matched group of members with obesity but no surgery. Results: 167,764 individuals from administrative claims data with an obesity diagnosis were included; 83,882 in the BS group and 83,882 in the non-surgical group. In follow-up years 2-10, the BS group was associated with lower total medical healthcare cost compared to the non-surgical group (cost ratios ranged 0.85-0.93, p values < 0.05). When stratifying the BS group by SES quartiles, there were no significant cost differences by SES (cost ratios ranged from 0.96 to 1.05, most p values > 0.05). Conclusions: BS was associated with lower long-term follow-up medical cost and cost savings appeared similar among the SES quartiles in the BS group. The study results may help policy makers and employers in designing benefits and extending coverage for bariatric surgical procedures.

The association between hypertensive disorders during pregnancy and maternal and neonatal outcomes: a retrospective claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hypertensive disorders during pregnancy continue to increase in prevalence and are associated with several adverse outcomes and future cardiovascular risk for mothers. This study evaluated the association of hypertensive disorders compared to no hypertension during pregnancy with neonatal and maternal outcomes. We then evaluated risk factors associated with progression from a less to more severe hypertensive disorder during pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a propensity-matched retrospective cohort study utilizing Medicaid claims data from a national insurer. The study population consisted of mothers with and without hypertensive disorders who delivered between 7/1/2016-12/31/2018 and their infants. Hypertensive disorders included gestational hypertension, chronic hypertension, preeclampsia, and superimposed preeclampsia. Propensity score matching was used to match mothers without to those with hypertensive disorders. Regression models were used to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes. Stepwise logistic regression was used to determine characteristics associated with the progression of gestational hypertension to preeclampsia or chronic hypertension to superimposed preeclampsia. RESULTS: We observed the highest risk of cesarean delivery (odds ratio [OR]:1.61 and 1.99) in mothers and preterm delivery (OR:2.22 and 5.37), respiratory distress syndrome (OR:2.39 and 4.19), and low birthweight (OR:3.64 and 9.61) in babies born to mothers with preeclampsia or superimposed preeclampsia compared to no hypertension, respectively (p < 0.05 for all outcomes). These outcomes were slightly higher among chronic or gestational hypertension compared to no hypertension, however, most were not statistically significant. Risk of neonatal intensive care unit utilization was higher among more severe hypertensive disorders (OR:2.41 for preeclampsia, OR:4.87 for superimposed preeclampsia). Obesity/overweight and having a history of preeclampsia during a prior pregnancy were most likely to predict progression from gestational/chronic hypertension to preeclampsia/superimposed preeclampsia. CONCLUSION: Mothers and neonates born to mothers with preeclampsia or superimposed preeclampsia experienced more adverse outcomes compared to those without hypertension. Mothers and neonates born to mothers with gestational hypertension had outcomes similar to those without hypertension. Outcomes for those with chronic hypertension fell in between gestational hypertension and preeclampsia. Obesity/overweight and having a history of preeclampsia during a prior pregnancy were strong risk factors for hypertension progression.

Association Between Oncology Clinical Pathway Utilization and Toxicity and Cost Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: This retrospective observational study compared cancer care toxicity and cost outcomes for patients with metastatic cancer with nine different cancer types prescribed on- versus off-pathway regimens. METHODS: This study used claims and authorization data from a national insurer between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2021. Participants included adults with metastatic breast, lung, colorectal, pancreatic, melanoma, kidney, bladder, gastric, or uterine cancer, who were prescribed first-line anticancer regimens. Multivariable regressions were used to assess outcomes including counts of emergency room visits or hospitalizations, use of supportive care medications, immune-related adverse events (IRAEs), and health care costs. RESULTS: Of the 8,357 patients in the study, 5,453 (65.3%) were prescribed on-pathway regimens. The on-pathway proportion trended downward, from 74.3% in 2018 to 59.8% in 2021. The on- and off-pathway groups had a similar proportion of patients with treatment-related hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.080; P = .201) and IRAEs (aOR, 0.961; P = .497). More all-cause hospitalizations (aOR, 1.679; P = .013) were observed among patients with melanoma treated on-pathway. The on-pathway group had higher use of supportive care drugs in bladder cancer (aOR, 4.602; P < .001) and colorectal cancer (aOR, 4.465; P < .001), and lower use in breast (aOR, 0.668; P = .001) and lung cancer (aOR, 0.550; P < .001). On average, on-pathway patients incurred $17,589 less total health care cost (P < .001), and $22,543 lower chemotherapy cost (P < .001) than those from the off-pathway group. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that use of on-pathway regimens was associated with significant cost savings. Toxicity outcomes were variable by disease, but overall, there were similar numbers of treatment-related hospitalizations and IRAEs compared to off-pathway regimens. This cross-institutional study provides evidence to support the use of clinical pathway regimens for patients with metastatic cancer.

Observational Analysis of a Generalized, Health Plan-led Community Health Worker Intervention in Medicaid.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: In 2018, a Medicaid managed care plan launched a new community health worker (CHW) initiative in several counties within a state, designed to improve the health and quality of life of members who could benefit from additional services. The CHW program involved telephonic and face-to-face visits from CHWs who provided support, empowerment, and education to members, while identifying and addressing health and social issues. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a generalized (not disease-specific), health plan-led CHW program on overall healthcare use and spending. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from adult members who received the CHW intervention (N = 538 participants) compared to those who were identified for participation but were unable to be reached (N = 435 nonparticipants). Outcomes measures included healthcare utilization, including scheduled and emergency inpatient admissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient visits; and healthcare spending. The follow-up period for all outcome measures was 6 months. Using generalized linear models, 6-month change scores were regressed on baseline characteristics to adjust for between-group differences (eg, age, sex, comorbidities) and an indicator for group. RESULTS: Program participants experienced a greater increase in outpatient evaluation and management visits (0.09 per member per month [PMPM]) than the comparison group during the first 6 months of the program. This greater increase was observed across in-person (0.07 PMPM), telehealth (0.03 PMPM), and primary care (0.06 PMPM) visits. There was no observed difference in inpatient admissions, ED utilization or allowed medical spending and pharmacy spending. CONCLUSIONS: A health plan-led CHW program successfully increased multiple forms of outpatient utilization in a historically disadvantaged population of patients. Health plans may be particularly well positioned to finance, sustain, and scale programs that address social drivers of health.

Provider Charges And State Surprise Billing Laws: Evidence From New York And California.

Surprise billing laws that allow dispute arbitration relying on provider charges may incentivize out-of-network providers to increase their charges to increase upcoming or future out-of-network payments. Although the federal No Surprises Act forbids arbitrators from considering charges during payment disputes over surprise bills covered by the act, states with existing laws can continue to use the specified state laws, which may allow the consideration of charges. This analysis examined provider charges in two such states, using claims data to compare trends in billed charges for out-of-network care during surprise bill scenarios involving nonemergency inpatient hospitalizations. The analysis considered New York, where state law uses arbitration tied to charges; California, where state law uses a payment standard rather than charges; and a comparison group of states without a law regarding surprise billing. We estimated that provider out-of-network charges for the nonemergency out-of-network bills we studied increased by $1,157 (24 percent) in New York after the passage of New York's surprise billing law and decreased by $752 (25 percent) in California compared to states without surprise billing laws. Assistant surgeons and surgical assistants had a large increase in charges in New York from before to after the law's passage, which may have driven the overall increase in charges.

Disconnected: a survey of users and nonusers of telehealth and their use of primary care.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to assess awareness, perceptions, and value of telehealth in primary care from the perspective of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, Web-based survey of adults with access to telehealth services who visited healthcare providers for any of the 20 most-commonly seen diagnoses during telehealth visits. Three groups were studied: registered users (RUs) of telehealth had completed a LiveHealth Online (a health plan telehealth service provider) visit, registered nonusers (RNUs) registered for LiveHealth Online but had not conducted a visit, and nonregistered nonusers (NRNUs) completed neither step. RESULTS: Of 32 831 patients invited, 3219 (9.8%) responded and 766 met eligibility criteria and completed surveys: 390 (51%) RUs, 117 (15%) RNUs, and 259 (34%) NRNUs. RUs were least likely to have a primary care usual source of care (65.6% vs 78.6% for RNUs vs 80.0% for NRNUs; P < .001). Nearly half (46.8%) of RUs were unable to get an appointment with their doctor, and 34.8% indicated that their doctor's office was closed. Among the 3 groups, RUs were most likely to be employed (89.5% vs 88.9% vs 82.2%; P = .007), have post-high school education (94.4% vs 93.2% vs 86.5%; P = .003), and live in urban areas (81.0% vs 69.2% vs 76.0%; P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth users reported that they relied on live video for enhanced access and were less connected to primary care than nonusers were. Telehealth may expand service access but risks further fragmentation of care and undermining of the primary care function absent better coordination and information sharing with usual sources of patients' care.

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.