Exploring the Relationship Between Medication Adherence and Diabetes Disparities among Hispanic Patients in a Large Health System.

BACKGROUND: Sub-optimal HbA1c control is a driver of disparities in diabetes outcomes among Hispanic patients. Differences in medication adherence may underlie racial/ethnic differences in HbA1c level. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between medication adherence and disparities in HbA1c level among Hispanic patients, relative to other racial/ethnic groups, obtaining care in the University of California Health System (UC Health). DESIGN: This study used clinical, administrative, and prescription dispensing data (January-December 2021) derived from the electronic health records of 5 Academic Medical Centers in UC Health, and linear regression models (LRMs) to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of the association between medication adherence, race/ethnicity, and HbA1c level. Adjusted LRMs were run with and without the measure of medication adherence to assess this relationship. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a UC Health primary care physician (PCP), with ≥ 1 PCP visit within the last 3 years, ages 18-75, reporting Asian, Hispanic, or White race/ethnicity, and who had ≥ 2 encounters with an ICD diagnosis of diabetes or had a prescription for a diabetes medication within the last 2 years, as of 12/31/21 (N = 27, 542; Asian = 6253, Hispanic = 7216, White = 14,073). MAIN MEASURES: Our measure of medication adherence was the proportion of days covered (PDC) for diabetes medications in 2021. Our outcome was the most recent HbA1c value. KEY RESULTS: In the LRM excluding the PDC, Hispanic ethnicity was positively associated with HbA1c level (ß = 0.31, p = < 0.001). In the LRM model including PDC, PDC was negatively associated with HbA1c level (ß = - 0.18, p = < 0.001). However, the positive relationship between Hispanic ethnicity and HbA1c level did not change (ß = 0.31, p = < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that the relationship between Hispanic ethnicity, HbA1c level, and factors outside of medication adherence should be explored among primary care patients receiving care in Academic Medical Centers.

Differential Impact of a Plan-Led Standardized Complex Care Management Intervention on Subgroups of High-Cost High-Need Medicaid Patients.

Interventions to better coordinate care for high-need high-cost (HNHC) Medicaid patients frequently fail to demonstrate changes in hospitalizations or emergency department (ED) use. Many of these interventions are modeled after practice-level complex care management (CCM) programs. The authors hypothesized that a national CCM program may be effective for some subgroups of HNHC patients, and the overall null effect may obfuscate subgroup-level impact. They used a previously published typology defining 6 subgroups of high-cost Medicaid patients and evaluated program impact by subgroup. The analysis used an individual-level interrupted time series with a comparison group. Intervention subjects were high-cost adult Medicaid patients who enrolled in 1 of 2 national CCM programs implemented by UnitedHealthcare (UHC) (n = 39,687). The comparators were patients who met CCM program criteria but were ineligible due to current enrollment in another UHC/Optum led program (N = 26,359). The intervention was a CCM program developed by UHC/Optum to provide "whole person care" delivering standardized interventions to address medical, behavioral, and social needs for HNHC Medicaid patients, and the outcome was probability of hospitalization or ED use in a given month, estimated at 12 months postenrollment. A reduction in risk of ED utilization for 4 of 6 subgroups was found. A reduction in risk of hospitalization for 1 of 6 subgroups was also found. The authors conclude that standardized health plan led CCM programs demonstrate effectiveness for certain subgroups of HNHC patients in Medicaid. This effectiveness is principally in reducing ED risk and may extend to the risk of hospitalization for a small number of patients.

Putting Evidence Into Practice: An Update on the US Preventive Services Task Force Methods for Developing Recommendations for Preventive Services.

PURPOSE: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent body that makes evidence-based recommendations regarding preventive services to improve health for people nationwide. Here, we summarize current USPSTF methods, describe how methods are evolving to address preventive health equity, and define evidence gaps for future research. METHODS: We summarize current USPSTF methods as well as ongoing methods development. RESULTS: The USPSTF prioritizes topics on the basis of disease burden, extent of new evidence, and whether the service can be provided in primary care and going forward will increasingly consider health equity. Analytic frameworks specify the key questions and linkages connecting the preventive service to health outcomes. Contextual questions provide information on natural history, current practice, health outcomes in high-risk groups, and health equity. The USPSTF assigns a level of certainty to the estimate of net benefit of a preventive service (high, moderate, or low). The magnitude of net benefit is also judged (substantial, moderate, small, or zero/negative). The USPSTF uses these assessments to assign a letter grade from A (recommend) to D (recommend against). I statements are issued when evidence is insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: The USPSTF will continue to evolve its methods for simulation modeling and to use evidence to address conditions for which there are limited data for population groups who bear a disproportionate burden of disease. Additional pilot work is underway to better understand the relations of the social constructs of race, ethnicity, and gender with health outcomes to inform the development of a USPSTF health equity framework.

Addressing Gaps in Research to Reduce Disparities and Advance Health Equity: The USPSTF Incorporation of the NASEM Taxonomy on Closing Evidence Gaps in Clinical Prevention.

This Viewpoint reviews the evidence gaps reported to Congress by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2021 on improving health inequities in prevention and uses the 3 taxonomies provided by National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to classify these gaps.

Does the diabetes health plan have a differential impact on medication adherence among beneficiaries with fewer financial resources?

BACKGROUND: The Diabetes Health Plan (DHP), a value-based insurance plan that reduces cost sharing, was previously shown to modestly increase employer-level medication adherence. It is unclear how the DHP might impact individuals with different incomes. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of the DHP on individual-level medication adherence, by income level. METHODS: This is a retrospective, quasiexperimental study. An employer-level propensity score match was done to identify suitable control employers, followed by individual-level propensity score weighing. These weights were applied to difference-in-difference models examining the effect of the DHP and the effect of income on changes in adherence to metformin, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzymes/angiotensin receptor blockers. The weights were then applied to a differences-in-differences-in-differences model to estimate the differential impact of DHP status on changes in adherence by income group. RESULTS: The study population included 2,065 beneficiaries with DHP and 17,704 matched controls. There were no significant differences in changes to adherence for any medications between beneficiaries enrolled in the DHP vs standard plans. However, adherence to all medications was higher among those with incomes greater than $75,000 (year 1: metformin: +7.3 percentage points; statin +4.3 percentage points; angiotensin-converting enzymes/angiotensin receptor blockers: +6.2 percentage points; P < 0.01) compared with those with incomes less than $50,000. The differences-in-differences-in-differences term examining the impact of income on the DHP effect was not significant for any comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find significant associations between the DHP and changes in individual-level medication adherence, even for low-income beneficiaries. New strategies to improve consumer engagement may be needed to translate value-based insurance designs into changes in patient behavior. DISCLOSURES: Drs Ettner and Moin received grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (Principal Investigator: Carol Mangione). Mr Luchs received support for attending meetings and/or travel (minimal-mileage and hotel on 2 occasions). Mr Chan has an employee benefit to purchase stock for UnitedHealth Group.

Evaluating Natural Experiments that Impact the Diabetes Epidemic: an Introduction to the NEXT-D3 Network.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes is an ongoing public health issue in the USA, and, despite progress, recent reports suggest acute and chronic diabetes complications are increasing. RECENT FINDINGS: The Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes 3.0 (NEXT-D3) Network is a 5-year research collaboration involving six academic centers (Harvard University, Northwestern University, Oregon Health & Science University, Tulane University, University of California Los Angeles, and University of California San Francisco) and two funding agencies (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health) to address the gaps leading to persisting diabetes burdens. The network builds on previously funded networks, expanding to include type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention and an emphasis on health equity. NEXT-D3 researchers use rigorous natural experiment study designs to evaluate impacts of naturally occurring programs and policies, with a focus on diabetes-related outcomes. NEXT-D3 projects address whether and to what extent federal or state legislative policies and health plan innovations affect T2D risk and diabetes treatment and outcomes in the USA; real-world effects of increased access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act; and the effectiveness of interventions that reduce barriers to medication access (e.g., decreased or eliminated cost sharing for cardiometabolic medications and new medications such as SGLT-2 inhibitors for Medicaid patients). Overarching goals include (1) expanding generalizable knowledge about policies and programs to manage or prevent T2D and educate decision-makers and organizations and (2) generating evidence to guide the development of health equity goals to reduce disparities in T2D-related risk factors, treatment, and complications.

Diabetes And The Fragmented State Of US Health Care And Policy.

Progress in the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes-the dominant form of diabetes-appears to have stalled in the US over the past decade, and diabetes-related morbidity has increased nationally. The most geographically and socioeconomically disadvantaged segments of the population have been especially hard hit, and interventions that reduce the risk for diabetes have not reached these populations. In this overview article we lay out how fragmentation in health policy and governance, payers and reimbursement design, and service delivery in the US has contributed to low accountability and coordination, and thus stagnation and persistent inequities. We also review the evidence regarding past, ongoing, and new reforms that may help address fragmentation, lower diabetes burdens, and narrow disparities.

Actions to Transform US Preventive Services Task Force Methods to Mitigate Systemic Racism in Clinical Preventive Services.

Importance: US life expectancy and health outcomes for preventable causes of disease have continued to lag in many populations that experience racism. Objective: To propose iterative changes to US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) processes, methods, and recommendations and enact a commitment to eliminate health inequities for people affected by systemic racism. Design and Evidence: In February 2021, the USPSTF began operational steps in its work to create preventive care recommendations to address the harmful effects of racism. A commissioned methods report was conducted to inform this process. Key findings of the report informed proposed updates to the USPSTF methods to address populations adversely affected by systemic racism and proposed pilots on implementation of the proposed changes. Findings: The USPSTF proposes to consider the opportunity to reduce health inequities when selecting new preventive care topics and prioritizing current topics; seek evidence about the effects of systemic racism and health inequities in all research plans and public comments requested, and integrate available evidence into evidence reviews; and summarize the likely effects of systemic racism and health inequities on clinical preventive services in USPSTF recommendations. The USPSTF will elicit feedback from its partners and experts and proposed changes will be piloted on selected USPSTF topics. Conclusions and Relevance: The USPSTF has developed strategies intended to mitigate the influence of systemic racism in its recommendations. The USPSTF seeks to reduce health inequities and other effects of systemic racism through iterative changes in methods of developing evidence-based recommendations, with partner and public input in the activities to implement the advancements.

Evaluation of the University of California Diabetes Prevention Program (UC DPP) Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes can negatively impact long term health outcomes, healthcare costs and quality of life. However, intensive lifestyle interventions, including the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), can significantly lower risk of incident type 2 diabetes among overweight adults with prediabetes. Unfortunately, the majority of adults in the US who are at risk of developing diabetes do not engage in DPP-based lifestyle change programs. Increased adoption of evidence-based obesity and diabetes prevention interventions, such as the DPP, may help large employers reduce health risks and improve health outcomes among employees. In 2018, the University of California Office of thePresident (UCOP) implemented the UC DPP Initiative, a novel, multi-component program to address diabetes and obesity prevention across the UC system. METHODS: The goal of our study is to conduct a multifaceted evaluation of the UC DPP Initiative using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Our evaluation will integrate unique and diverse UC data sources, including electronic health record (EHR) data, administrative claims, campus-based DPP cohort data, qualitative interviews and site visits. Our primary outcome of interest is the mean percent weight change among three groups of overweight/obese UC beneficiaries at risk for diabetes at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include mean percent weight change at 24-month follow-up, barriers and facilitators associated with implementatio, as well as  the degree of program adoption and maintenance. DISCUSSION: Our study will help inform diabetes and obesity prevention efforts across the UC system. Findings from this evaluation will also be highly applicable to universities and large employers, as well as community organizers, healthcare organizations and insurers implementing the DPP and/or other health promotion interventions.

High-cost high-need patients in Medicaid: segmenting the population eligible for a national complex case management program.

BACKGROUND: High-cost high-need patients are typically defined by risk or cost thresholds which aggregate clinically diverse subgroups into a single 'high-need high-cost' designation. Programs have had limited success in reducing utilization or improving quality of care for high-cost high-need Medicaid patients, which may be due to the underlying clinical heterogeneity of patients meeting high-cost high-need designations. METHODS: Our objective was to segment a population of high-cost high-need Medicaid patients (N = 676,161) eligible for a national complex case management program between January 2012 and May 2015 to disaggregate clinically diverse subgroups. Patients were eligible if they were in the top 5 % of annual spending among UnitedHealthcare Medicaid beneficiaries. We used k-means cluster analysis, identified clusters using an information-theoretic approach, and named clusters using the patients' pattern of acute and chronic conditions. We assessed one-year overall and preventable hospitalizations, overall and preventable emergency department (ED) visits, and cluster stability. RESULTS: Six clusters were identified which varied by utilization and stability. The characteristic condition patterns were: 1) pregnancy complications, 2) behavioral health, 3) relatively few conditions, 4) cardio-metabolic disease, and complex illness with relatively 5) low or 6) high resource use. The patients varied by cluster by average ED visits (2.3-11.3), hospitalizations (0.3-2.0), and cluster stability (32-91%). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that disaggregating subgroups of high-cost high-need patients in a large multi-state Medicaid sample identified clinically distinct clusters of patients who may have unique clinical needs. Segmenting previously identified high-cost high-need populations thus may be a necessary strategy to improve the effectiveness of complex case management programs in Medicaid.

Association between industry payments and prescriptions of long-acting insulin: An observational study with propensity score matching.

BACKGROUND: The rapidly increased spending on insulin is a major public health issue in the United States. Industry marketing might be one of the upstream determinants of physicians' prescription of long-acting insulin-the most commonly used and costly type of insulin, but the evidence is lacking. We therefore aimed to investigate the association between industry payments to physicians and subsequent prescriptions of long-acting insulin. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using the databases of Open Payments and Medicare Part D, we examined the association between the receipt of industry payments for long-acting insulin in 2016 and (1) the number of claims; (2) the costs paid for all claims; and (3) the costs per claim of long-acting insulin in 2017. We also examined the association between the receipt of payments and the change in these outcomes from 2016 to 2017. We employed propensity score matching to adjust for the physician-level characteristics (sex, years in practice, specialty, and medical school attended). Among 145,587 eligible physicians treating Medicare beneficiaries, 51,851 physicians received industry payments for long-acting insulin worth $22.3 million. In the propensity score-matched analysis including 102,590 physicians, we found that physicians who received the payments prescribed a higher number of claims (adjusted difference, 57.8; 95% CI, 55.8 to 59.7), higher costs for total claims (adjusted difference, +$22,111; 95% CI, $21,387 to $22,836), and higher costs per claim (adjusted difference, +$71.1; 95% CI, $69.0 to $73.2) of long-acting insulin, compared with physicians who did not receive the payments. The association was also found for changes in these outcomes from 2016 to 2017. Limitations to our study include limited generalizability, confounding, and possible reverse causation. CONCLUSIONS: Industry marketing payments to physicians for long-acting insulin were associated with the physicians' prescriptions and costs of long-acting insulin in the subsequent year. Future research is needed to assess whether policy interventions on physician-industry financial relationships will help to ensure appropriate prescriptions and limit overall costs of this essential drug for diabetes care.

Connecting Provider to home: A home-based social intervention program for older adults.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with multiple medical conditions and complex social issues are at risk for high utilization and poor outcomes. The Connecting Provider to Home program deployed teams of a social worker and a community health worker (CHW) to support patients with social issues and access to primary care. Our objectives were to examine the impact of the program on utilization and satisfaction with care among older adults with complex social and medical issues. DESIGN: Retrospective quasi-experimental observational study with matched comparator group. SETTING: Community-based program in Southern California. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred twenty community dwelling adults. INTERVENTION: Community-based healthcare program delivered by a social worker and CHW team for older adults with complex medical and social needs. MEASUREMENTS: Acute hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits in the 12 months preceding and following enrollment in the pilot program. A "difference-in-difference" analysis using a matched comparator group was conducted. Comparator group data of patients receiving usual care were obtained. Surveys were conducted to assess patient satisfaction and experiences with the program. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 74 years, and the program demonstrated statistically significant reductions in acute hospitalizations and ED use compared with 700 comparator patients. Pre/post-acute hospitalizations and ED visits were reduced in the intervention group. The average per patient per year reduction in acute hospitalizations was -0.66, whereas the average per patient reduction in ED use was -0.57. Patients enrolled in the program reported high levels of satisfaction and rated the program favorably. CONCLUSIONS: A care model with a social worker and CHW can be linked to primary care to address patient social needs and potentially reduce utilization of healthcare services and enhance patient experiences with care.

Reducing Emergency Department Visits Among Patients With Diabetes by Embedding Clinical Pharmacists in the Primary Care Teams.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists are effective at improving control of cardiovascular risk factors, but it less clear whether these improvements translate into less emergency department (ED) use and fewer hospitalizations. The UCMyRx program embed pharmacists in primary care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine if the integration of pharmacists into primary care was associated with lower ED and hospital use for patients with diabetes. DESIGN: This was a quasi-experimental study with a comparator group. SUBJECTS: The analytic sample included patients with diabetes with uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors (A1C >9%, blood pressure >140/90 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol >130 mg/dL) who had 1 or more visits in either a UCMyRx (648 patients, 14 practices) or usual care practice (1944 patients, 14 practices). MEASURES: Our outcomes were ED and hospitalization rates as measured before and after the consultations between UCMyRx and usual care. Our predictor variable was the pharmacist consultation. Poisson generalized estimating equations model was used to estimate the adjusted predicted change in utilization before and after the pharmacist consultation. The Average Treatment Effect on the Treated was estimated. RESULTS: In models adjusted, the adjusted mean predicted number of emergency department visits/month during the year before the consultation was 0.09 among UCMyRx patients. During the year after initiating the care with the pharmacists, this rate decreased to an adjusted mean monthly rate of 0.07, with an Average Treatment Effect on the Treated=0.021 (P=0.035), a predicted reduction of 21% in emergency department visits associated with the clinical pharmacist consults. There was a nonsignificant predicted 3.2% reduction in hospitalizations over time for patients in the UCMyRx program. CONCLUSION: Clinical pharmacists are an important addition to clinical care teams in primary care practices and significantly decreased utilization of the ED among patients with poorly controlled diabetes.

Association of the Diabetes Health Plan with emergency room and inpatient hospital utilization: a Natural Experiment for Translation in Diabetes (NEXT-D) Study.

INTRODUCTION: To examine the association of a novel disease-specific health plan, known as the Diabetes Health Plan (DHP), with emergency room (ER) and hospital utilization among patients with diabetes and pre-diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Quasi-experimental design, with employer group as the unit of analysis, comparing changes in any ER and inpatient hospital utilization over a 3-year period. Inverse probability weighting was used to control for differences between employers purchasing DHP versus standard plans. Estimated differences in utilization are calculated as average treatment effects on the treated. We used employees and dependents from employer groups contracting with a large, national private insurer between 2009 and 2012. Eligibility and claims data from continuously covered employees and dependents with diabetes and pre-diabetes (n=74 058) were aggregated to the employer level. The analysis included 9 DHP employers (n=7004) and 183 control employers (n=67 054). RESULTS: DHP purchase was associated with 2.4 and 1.8 percentage points absolute reduction in mean rates of any ER utilization, representing 13% and 10% relative reductions at 1 and 2 years post-DHP (p=0.012 and p=0.046, respectively). There was no significant association between DHP purchase and hospital utilization. CONCLUSION: Employers purchasing diabetes-specific health benefit designs may experience lower rates of resource-intensive services such as ER utilization.

Readmission Rates for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program: an Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmission rates decreased for myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (CHF), and pneumonia with implementation of the first phase of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). It is not established whether readmissions fell for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), an HRRP condition added in 2014. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether HRRP penalties influenced COPD readmissions among Medicare, Medicaid, or privately insured patients. DESIGN: We analyzed a retrospective cohort, evaluating readmissions across implementation periods for HRRP penalties ("pre-HRRP" January 2010-April 2011, "implementation" May 2011-September 2012, "partial penalty" October 2012-September 2014, and "full penalty" October 2014-December 2016). PATIENTS: We assessed discharged patients ≥ 40 years old with COPD versus those with HRRP Phase 1 conditions (AMI, CHF, and pneumonia) or non-HRRP residual diagnoses in the Nationwide Readmissions Database. INTERVENTIONS: HRRP was announced and implemented during this period, forming a natural experiment. MEASUREMENTS: We calculated differences-in-differences (DID) for 30-day COPD versus HRRP Phase 1 and non-HRRP readmissions. KEY RESULTS: COPD discharges for 1.2 million Medicare enrollees were compared with 22 million non-HRRP and 3.4 million HRRP Phase 1 discharges. COPD readmissions decreased from 19 to 17% over the study. This reduction was significantly greater than non-HRRP conditions (DID - 0.41%), but not HRRP Phase 1 (DID + 0.02%). A parallel trend was observed in the privately insured, with significant reduction compared with non-HRRP (DID - 0.83%), but not HRRP Phase 1 conditions (DID - 0.45%). Non-significant reductions occurred in Medicaid (DID - 0.52% vs. non-HRRP and - 0.21% vs. Phase 1 conditions). CONCLUSIONS: In Medicare, HRRP implementation was associated with reductions in COPD readmissions compared with non-HRRP controls but not versus other HRRP conditions. Parallel findings were observed in commercial insurance, but not in Medicaid. Condition-specific penalties may not reduce readmissions further than existing HRRP trends.

Evaluation of a National Care Coordination Program to Reduce Utilization Among High-cost, High-need Medicaid Beneficiaries With Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Medical, behavioral, and social determinants of health are each associated with high levels of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate a care coordination program designed to provide combined "whole-person care," integrating medical, behavioral, and social support for high-cost, high-need Medicaid beneficiaries by targeting access barriers and social determinants. RESEARCH DESIGN: Individual-level interrupted time series with a comparator group, using person-month as the unit of analysis. SUBJECTS: A total of 42,214 UnitedHealthcare Medicaid beneficiaries (194,834 person-months) age 21 years or above with diabetes, with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medicaid expansion, Supplemental Security Income without Medicare, or dual Medicaid/Medicare. MEASURES: Our outcome measures were any hospitalizations and any ED visits in a given month. Covariates of interest included an indicator for intervention versus comparator group and indicator and spline variables measuring changes in an outcome's time trend after program enrollment. RESULTS: Overall, 6 of the 8 examined comparisons were not statistically significant. Among Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries, we observed a larger projected decrease in ED visit risk among the intervention sample versus the comparator sample at 12 months postenrollment (difference-in-difference: -6.6%; 95% confidence interval: -11.2%, -2.1%). Among expansion beneficiaries, we observed a greater decrease in hospitalization risk among the intervention sample versus the comparator sample at 12 months postenrollment (difference-in-difference: -5.8%; 95% confidence interval: -11.4%, -0.2%). CONCLUSION: A care coordination program designed to reduce utilization among high-cost, high-need Medicaid beneficiaries was associated with fewer ED visits and hospitalizations for patients with diabetes in selected Medicaid programs but not others.

Trends in Costs of Care and Utilization for Medicaid Patients With Diabetes in Accountable Care Communities.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Medicaid beneficiaries with diabetes have complex care needs. The Accountable Care Communities (ACC) Program is a practice-level intervention implemented by UnitedHealthcare to improve care for Medicaid beneficiaries. We examined changes in costs and utilization for Medicaid beneficiaries with diabetes assigned to ACC versus usual care practices. RESEARCH DESIGN: Interrupted time series with concurrent control group analysis, at the person-month level. The ACC was implemented in 14 states, and we selected comparison non-ACC practices from those states to control for state-level variation in Medicaid program. We adjusted the models for age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidities, seasonality, and state-by-year fixed effects. We examined the difference between ACC and non-ACC practices in changes in the time trends of expenditures and hospital and emergency room utilization, for the 4 largest categories of Medicaid eligibility [Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income (without Medicare), Expansion, Dual-Eligible]. SUBJECTS/MEASURES: Eligibility and claims data from Medicaid adults with diabetes from 14 states between 2010 and 2016, before and after ACC implementation. RESULTS: Analyses included 1,200,460 person-months from 66,450 Medicaid patients with diabetes. ACC implementation was not associated with significant changes in outcome time trends, relative to comparators, for all Medicaid categories. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid patients assigned to ACC practices had no changes in cost or utilization over 3 years of follow-up, compared with patients assigned to non-ACC practices. The ACC program may not reduce costs or utilization for Medicaid patients with diabetes.

Results from NEXT-D: the association of a pre-diabetes-specific health plan and rates of incident diabetes among a national sample of working-age adults.

BACKGROUND: Pre-diabetes affects one-third of adults in the USA and a subset will progress to type 2 diabetes. Our objective was to determine whether a disease-specific health plan, known as the Diabetes Health Plan (DHP), designed to improve care for persons with pre-diabetes and diabetes also led to lower rates of incident diabetes among adults with pre-diabetes. METHODS: We examined eligibility and claims data from a large payer who offered the DHP to a national sample of employers. We included adult employees and dependents who were continuously covered by the DHP over a 4-year study window. The primary outcome was incident diabetes. We conducted propensity score matching at the employer level to find comparable control employer groups offering standard plans. Using an adjusted logistic regression model at the individual level, we tested the association between DHP employer group status and incident diabetes diagnosis during the 3 years of postbaseline follow-up. FINDINGS: Our analysis included data from 11 965 continuously enrolled adults with pre-diabetes (n=1538 from nine employers offering DHP; n=10 427 from 105 control employers offering standard plans). DHP employees and covered dependents with pre-diabetes had an 8% lower absolute predicted probability of incident diabetes compared with individuals from employer groups offering standard benefit plans (29% predicted probability of incident diabetes for DHP vs 37% for controls, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A pre-diabetes-specific health benefit design was associated with lower rates of incident diabetes and represents an area of needed future study.

Factors Associated with Differential Readmission Diagnoses Following Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Readmissions after exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are penalized under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). Understanding attributable diagnoses at readmission would improve readmission reduction strategies. OBJECTIVES: Determine factors that portend 30-day readmissions attributable to COPD versus non-COPD diagnoses among patients discharged following COPD exacerbations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed COPD discharges in the Nationwide Readmissions Database from 2010 to 2016 using inclusion and readmission definitions in HRRP. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We evaluated readmission odds for COPD versus non-COPD returns using a multilevel, multinomial logistic regression model. Patient-level covariates included age, sex, community characteristics, payer, discharge disposition, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Hospital-level covariates included hospital ownership, teaching status, volume of annual discharges, and proportion of Medicaid patients. RESULTS: Of 1,622,983 (a weighted effective sample of 3,743,164) eligible COPD hospitalizations, 17.25% were readmitted within 30 days (7.69% for COPD and 9.56% for other diagnoses). Sepsis, heart failure, and respiratory infections were the most common non-COPD return diagnoses. Patients readmitted for COPD were younger with fewer comorbidities than patients readmitted for non-COPD. COPD returns were more prevalent the first two days after discharge than non-COPD returns. Comorbidity was a stronger driver for non-COPD (odds ratio [OR] 1.19) than COPD (OR 1.04) readmissions. CONCLUSION: Thirty-day readmissions following COPD exacerbations are common, and 55% of them are attributable to non-COPD diagnoses at the time of return. Higher burden of comorbidity is observed among non-COPD than COPD rehospitalizations. Readmission reduction efforts should focus intensively on factors beyond COPD disease management to reduce readmissions considerably by aggressively attempting to mitigate comorbid conditions.