Reducing Hospitalizations and Multidrug-Resistant Organisms via Regional Decolonization in Hospitals and Nursing Homes.

Importance: Infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, length of hospitalization, and health care costs. Regional interventions may be advantageous in mitigating MDROs and associated infections. Objective: To evaluate whether implementation of a decolonization collaborative is associated with reduced regional MDRO prevalence, incident clinical cultures, infection-related hospitalizations, costs, and deaths. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study was conducted from July 1, 2017, to July 31, 2019, across 35 health care facilities in Orange County, California. Exposures: Chlorhexidine bathing and nasal iodophor antisepsis for residents in long-term care and hospitalized patients in contact precautions (CP). Main Outcomes and Measures: Baseline and end of intervention MDRO point prevalence among participating facilities; incident MDRO (nonscreening) clinical cultures among participating and nonparticipating facilities; and infection-related hospitalizations and associated costs and deaths among residents in participating and nonparticipating nursing homes (NHs). Results: Thirty-five facilities (16 hospitals, 16 NHs, 3 long-term acute care hospitals [LTACHs]) adopted the intervention. Comparing decolonization with baseline periods among participating facilities, the mean (SD) MDRO prevalence decreased from 63.9% (12.2%) to 49.9% (11.3%) among NHs, from 80.0% (7.2%) to 53.3% (13.3%) among LTACHs (odds ratio [OR] for NHs and LTACHs, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.40-0.57), and from 64.1% (8.5%) to 55.4% (13.8%) (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.93) among hospitalized patients in CP. When comparing decolonization with baseline among NHs, the mean (SD) monthly incident MDRO clinical cultures changed from 2.7 (1.9) to 1.7 (1.1) among participating NHs, from 1.7 (1.4) to 1.5 (1.1) among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 30.4%; 95% CI, 16.4%-42.1%), from 25.5 (18.6) to 25.0 (15.9) among participating hospitals, from 12.5 (10.1) to 14.3 (10.2) among nonparticipating hospitals (group × period interaction reduction, 12.9%; 95% CI, 3.3%-21.5%), and from 14.8 (8.6) to 8.2 (6.1) among LTACHs (all facilities participating; 22.5% reduction; 95% CI, 4.4%-37.1%). For NHs, the rate of infection-related hospitalizations per 1000 resident-days changed from 2.31 during baseline to 1.94 during intervention among participating NHs, and from 1.90 to 2.03 among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 26.7%; 95% CI, 19.0%-34.5%). Associated hospitalization costs per 1000 resident-days changed from $64 651 to $55 149 among participating NHs and from $55 151 to $59 327 among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 26.8%; 95% CI, 26.7%-26.9%). Associated hospitalization deaths per 1000 resident-days changed from 0.29 to 0.25 among participating NHs and from 0.23 to 0.24 among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 23.7%; 95% CI, 4.5%-43.0%). Conclusions and Relevance: A regional collaborative involving universal decolonization in long-term care facilities and targeted decolonization among hospital patients in CP was associated with lower MDRO carriage, infections, hospitalizations, costs, and deaths.

Underestimation of travel-associated risks by adult and paediatric travellers compared to expert assessment: A cross-sectional study at a hospital-based family pre-travel clinic.

BACKGROUND: Travellers' perception of their risk for acquiring travel-related conditions is an important contributor to decisions and behaviors during travel. In this study, we aimed to assess the differences between traveller-perceived and expert-assessed risk of travel-related conditions in children and adults travelling internationally and describe factors that influence travellers' perception of risk. METHODS: Children and adults were recruited at the Hospital for Sick Children's Family Travel Clinic between October 2014 and July 2015. A questionnaire was administered to participants to assess their perceived risk of acquiring 32 travel-related conditions using a 7-point Likert scale. Conditions were categorized as vector-borne diseases, vaccine-preventable diseases, food and water borne diseases, sexually transmitted infections and other conditions. Two certified travel medicine experts reviewed each patient's chart and assigned a risk score based on the same 7-point Likert scale. Traveller and expert risk scores were compared using paired t-tests. RESULTS: In total, 207 participants were enrolled to participate in this study, 97 children (self-reported, n = 8; parent-reported, n = 89), and 110 adults. Travel-related risk for adults and parents answering for their children were significantly underestimated when compared to expert-assessed risk for 26 of the 32 assessed conditions. The underestimated conditions were the same for both adults and parents answering for children. Travel-related risk was not over-estimated for any condition. CONCLUSIONS: Adults underestimated their children's and their own risk for most travel-related conditions. Strategies to improve the accuracy of risk perception of travel-related conditions by travellers are needed to optimize healthy travel for children and their families.

Economic and utilization outcomes of medication management at a large Medicaid plan with disease management pharmacists using a novel artificial intelligence platform from 2018 to 2019: a retrospective observational study using regression methods.

BACKGROUND: Medication therapy management (MTM) and comprehensive medication management (CMM) have been practiced by clinical pharmacists as a predominantly manual activity with interventions documented in a record-keeping system. Program evaluations, largely based on estimations of projected savings and utilization reductions, have not accurately predicted actual claims and utilization changes, leading many to doubt the efficacy of medication management. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact on actual medical claims of a novel artificial intelligence (AI) platform that identifies members and provides decision support to clinicians in performing telephonic interventions similar to MTM and CMM with high-risk Medicaid members. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used mixed-effects regression models that flexibly account for general trends in cost, as measured by actual claims, to identify the amount of savings and associated impact. To study the economics, total cost of care (TCoC), defined as all medication costs plus all noncapitated medical costs, was evaluated. Utilization was evaluated through the number of emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, bed days, and readmissions. The study included 2,150 predominantly middle-aged (aged 40-64 years) Medicaid members with an average of 10 medications for chronic conditions among an average of 25 total medications. The analysis considered cost and utilization data from August 2017 through April 2019. Interventions occurred between January 2018 and February 2019. RESULTS: Statistically significant correlations were found between receiving interventions and decreased costs and utilization. The economic study found a 19.3% reduction in the TCoC (P < 0.001) that, applied to a preintervention monthly cost of $2,872, yielded a savings of $554 per member per month (PMPM). Medication costs showed a 17.4% reduction (P < 0.001), which, when applied to preintervention cost of $1,110, yielded a savings of $192 PMPM. The utilization study found a 15.1% reduction in ED visits (P = 0.002), a 9.4% reduction in hospital admissions (P = 0.008), and a 10.2% reduction in bed days (P = 0.01). Return on investment is 12.4:1 based on TCoC savings and program costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study evaluated the CMM-Wrap program, which used an advanced AI platform integrated with health plan data, clinical pharmacists trained in disease management, telephonic patient engagement, and closed-loop provider coordination. The results correlate cost and utilization savings with the program. The TCoC savings of $554 PMPM translates to approximately $1.2M a month and more than $14M annually for the 2,150 members in the study. We believe Medicaid and Medicare payment of AI enhanced telephonic CMM services would substantially decrease government health care expenditures, whereas improving health program expansion to Medicaid members with similar risks could save the Health Plan $109M annually. For instance, we estimate that California's Medicaid (Medi-Cal) program could save more than $1B annually by applying the program's observed impact to a similar high-risk cohort (about 1.6%) of Medi-Cal members. Additionally, benefits will accrue to nonmanaged health plans based on the savings themselves. DISCLOSURES: There was no external funding for this study. The program itself was funded by Inland Empire Health Plan. The retrospective study was a collaboration of the 3 partners (Surveyor Health, Inland Empire Health Plan, and Preveon Health) each of which funded its additional costs of preparing the study. Kessler, Mebine, E. Von Schweber, and L. Von Schweber are employed by Surveyor Health. McConnell and Jai are employed by Inland Empire Health Plan. Nguyen, Kiroyan, and Ho are employed by Preveon Health. Desai reports fees from Surveyor Health for work on this study. E. Von Schweber and L. Von Schweber have 2 patents licensed to Surveyor Health: Unified Evaluation, Presentation and Modification of Healthcare Regimens Method and Apparatus for Information Surveying.

Does Medicaid Insurance Provide Sufficient Access to Pediatric Orthopedic Care Under the Affordable Care Act?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act had a profound impact on health insurance coverage of children. Given the importance of pediatric specialty care, this study assessed access to pediatric orthopedic urgent care for a child's likely operative distal radius fracture. Researchers called 180 pediatric orthopedic surgeons in 8 states requesting appointments for the caller's fictitious 11-year-old child who suffered a distal radius fracture. Each office was called twice to assess the ability to obtain an appointment for Medicaid and privately insured patients. Overall, significantly fewer offices scheduled appointments for Medicaid than privately insured patients (38.3% vs 82.8%, P < .001). Patients with Medicaid in states without Medicaid expansion were more successful in obtaining appointments than patients with Medicaid in states with Medicaid expansion (41 [47%] vs 28 [30%]; P < .001; 95% confidence interval = 0.3-0.9). Pediatric Medicaid patients experienced reduced access to care, and this access was worse in states that had expanded Medicaid eligibility.

Osteoporosis: A Review of Treatment Options.

Approximately 10 million men and women in the U.S. have osteoporosis,1 a metabolic bone disease characterized by low bone density and deterioration of bone architecture that increase the risk of fractures.2 Osteoporosis-related fractures can increase pain, disability, nursing home placement, total health care costs, and mortality.3 The diagnosis of osteoporosis is primarily determined by measuring bone mineral density (BMD) using noninvasive dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporosis medications include bisphosphonates, receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand inhibitors, estrogen agonists/antagonists, parathyroid hormone analogues, and calcitonin.3-6 Emerging therapies utilizing novel mechanisms include a cathepsin K inhibitor and a monoclonal antibody against sclerostin.7,8 While professional organizations have compiled recommendations for the management of osteoporosis in various populations, a consensus has yet to develop as to which is the gold standard; therefore, economic evaluations have been increasingly important to help guide decision-makers. A review of cost-effectiveness literature on the efficacy of oral bisphosphonates has shown alendronate and risedronate to be most cost-effective in women with low BMD without previous fractures.9 Guidelines are inconsistent as to the place in therapy of denosumab (Prolia, Amgen). In economic analyses evaluating treatment of postmenopausal women, denosumab outperformed risedronate and ibandronate; its efficacy was comparable to generic alendronate, but it cost more.10 With regard to older men with osteoporosis, denosumab was also found to be cost-effective when compared with bisphosphonates and teriparatide (Forteo, Lilly).11.