Role of prices in driving the variation in spending across medical groups.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the relative role of prices versus utilization in the variation in total spending per patient across medical groups. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of medical claims for commercially insured adults from a large national insurer in 2018. STUDY DESIGN: After assigning patients to a medical group based on primary care visits in 2018, we calculated total medical spending for each patient in that year. Total spending included care provided by clinicians within the medical group and care provided by other providers, including hospitals. It did not include drug spending. We estimated the case mix adjusted spending per patient for each medical group. Within each market, we categorized medical groups into quartiles based on the group's spending per patient. To decompose spending variation into price versus utilization, we compared spending differences between highest and lowest quartile medical groups under two scenarios: (1) using actual prices (2) using a standardized price (same price used for a given service across the nation). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In total, 3,921,736 patients were assigned to 7284 medical groups. Per-patient spending in the highest quartile of spending medical groups was $1813 higher than per-patient spending in the lowest spending quartile of medical groups (50% higher relative spending). This overall difference was primarily driven by differences in inpatient care, imaging, and specialty care. In the scenario where we used standardized prices, the difference in spending between medical groups in the top and bottom quartiles decreased to $1425, implying that 79% of the $1813 difference in spending between the top and bottom quartile groups is explained by utilization and the remaining 21% by prices. The likely explanation for the modest impact of prices is that patients cared for by a given medical group receive care across a wide range of providers. CONCLUSIONS: Prices explained a modest fraction of the differences in spending between medical groups.

Variation in spending associated with primary care practices.

OBJECTIVES: To measure variation in spending and inpatient prices associated with the primary care physician (PCP) practice to which patients are attributed. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of claims data. METHODS: We used random effect models to estimate case mix-adjusted spending across large PCP practices within 3-digit zip codes. We compare inpatient prices for patients in high-spending practices with those in low-spending practices. RESULTS: The physician practice to which a patient was attributed is associated with significant differences in spending after controlling for patient comorbidities and geography. Patients attributed to practices in the top quartile of total medical expenses have about 30% higher spending than patients attributed to practices in the bottom quartile of adjusted spending in their 3-digit zip code. If patients attributed to practices in the top 2 quartiles had spending equivalent to those in the median practice, total spending would drop by 8%. Price variation accounts for a meaningful amount of the variation, with inpatient prices 17% higher in top-quartile vs bottom-quartile practices. We cannot disaggregate the large variation in utilization into practice patterns and unmeasured case mix (including unmeasured differences in patients' socioeconomic status) vs random health shocks, but correlation in spending patterns across years suggests that some persistent differences in spending patterns exist. CONCLUSIONS: There are meaningful opportunities to reduce spending by changing patient PCP selection, encouraging patients to use lower-priced specialists and hospitals, and eliminating wasteful care. Attention must be paid to the best ways to reap these savings.

Impact of treatment-related discussions on healthcare resource use and costs among patients with severe mental illness.

OBJECTIVE: Serious mental illnesses (SMIs), including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder (MDD), are often treated with antipsychotic medications. Unfortunately, medication non-adherence is widespread and is associated with serious adverse outcomes. However, little real-world data are available describing adherence, compliance, or other medication-taking-related discussions between providers and patients. This study described these communications in ambulatory care. METHODS: Commercially insured patients having acute (emergency or inpatient) behavioral health (BH) events were included by specific criteria: age 18-65 years; diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or MDD; continuous health insurance coverage 6 months before to 12 months after the first claim (index) date during 01/01/2014‒12/31/2015; and prescribed antipsychotic medication. Medical charts were abstracted for ambulatory visits with a BH diagnosis through 12 months after the acute event, describing any treatment compliance discussions that occurred. BH-related healthcare utilization and costs were measured via insurance claims. Results were analyzed by observation of an antipsychotic medication taking-related (i.e. compliance or adherence) discussion at the initial abstracted visit. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included: 62% female, mean age 41 years. Only 58% had antipsychotic compliance discussions during the first abstracted ambulatory visit. A total of 680 BH-related visits were abstracted for the 90 patients. Providers frequently discussed any psychotropic medication use (97% of all visits abstracted); however, discussion of compliance with BH talk therapies was less common (49% of visits among patients with a first visit antipsychotic discussion and 23% without, p < .001). Follow-up BH-related healthcare utilization and costs were not significantly different by cohort. Patients with ≥2 compliance discussions had a significantly lower risk of follow-up acute events, which are the costliest components of healthcare for SMI (p = .023). CONCLUSION: Increasing the frequency of antipsychotic treatment-related adherence/compliance discussions may represent an opportunity to improve the quality of care for these vulnerable patients and reduce the overall economic burden associated with the treatment of SMI diagnosis.

Cost of subcutaneous immunotherapy in a large insured population in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects up to 40% of the United States population, with approximately $11 billion annual medical costs. Allergy immunotherapy is the best option for long-term symptomatic relief, but treatment compliance can be low. The objective was to describe subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT)-related costs for patients overall and those with inconsistent treatment. METHODS: This study observed commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D health plan enrollees. Included subjects had claims with AR diagnostic codes during 1 January 2011-31 December 2015 and ≥1 SCIT claim during 1 January 2013-31 December 2015 (index date = first SCIT claim date). A control sample was chosen randomly at a 1:3 ratio of SCIT to controls. Inconsistent use was defined as a ≥90 day gap after ≥1 SCIT. Patient characteristics were compared between SCIT patients and controls. Costs were calculated for all SCIT patients and the inconsistent subgroup. RESULTS: Compared with controls (n = 394,479), SCIT (n = 131,493) patients were younger (39.3 vs. 41.4 years), more likely female (56.4% vs. 50.7%) and more likely in a commercial plan (91.6% vs. 83.6%); all p < .001. Among SCIT patients, 15.1% had inconsistent use. Among all SCIT patients, the 3 year total plan-paid SCIT-related costs were $205,741,125 (18% was for inconsistent subgroup) and patient-paid costs were $47,560,450 (15% for inconsistent). Per-member-per-month costs were $0.48 plan-paid and $0.11 patient-paid, with $0.09 plan-paid and $0.02 patient-paid for inconsistent use. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed 15% of patients may have costly inconsistent SCIT treatment. Greater understanding is needed regarding the reasons for inconsistent use of subcutaneous allergy immunotherapy.

Treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization, and healthcare costs among patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension in a real-world US database.

Several new medications for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) have recently been introduced; however, current real-world data regarding US patients with PAH are limited. We conducted a retrospective administrative claims study to examine PAH treatment patterns and summarize healthcare utilization and costs among patients with newly diagnosed PAH treated in US clinical practice. Patients newly treated for PAH from 1 January 2010 to 31 March 2015 were followed for ≥12 months. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization, and costs were described. Adherence (proportion of days covered), persistence (months until therapy discontinuation/modification), and the probability of continuing the index regimen were analyzed by index regimen cohort (monotherapy versus combination therapy). Of 1637 eligible patients, 93.8% initiated treatment with monotherapy and 6.2% with combination therapy. The most common index regimen was phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE-5I) monotherapy (70.0% of patients). A total of 581 patients (35.5%) modified their index regimen during the study. Most patients (55.4%) who began combination therapy did so on or within six months of the index date. Endothelin receptor agonists (ERAs) and combination therapies were associated with higher adherence than PDE-5Is and monotherapies, respectively. Healthcare utilization was substantial across the study population, with costs in the combination therapy cohort more than doubling from baseline to follow-up. The majority of patients were treated with monotherapies (most often, PDE-5Is), despite combination therapies and ERAs being associated with higher medication adherence. Index regimen adjustments occurred early and in a substantial proportion of patients, suggesting that inadequate clinical response to monotherapies may not be uncommon.