Unrestricted Direct Access to Physical Therapist Services Is Associated With Lower Health Care Utilization and Costs in Patients With New-Onset Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent conditions for which patients seek physical therapy in the United States. The American Physical Therapy Association categorizes direct access to physical therapist services into 3 levels: limited, provisional, and unrestricted. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of level of access to physical therapist services with LBP-related health care utilization and costs. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with new-onset LBP between 2008 and 2013; data were from OptumLabs Data Warehouse. METHODS: We identified 59,670 individuals who were 18 years old or older, who had new-onset LBP, and who had commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance through a private health plan. We examined 2 samples. The first was health care utilization among individuals who saw a physical therapist first in states with either unrestricted access or provisional access. The second was LBP-related costs among individuals who saw either a physical therapist or a primary care physician first. RESULTS: Individuals who saw a physical therapist first in states with provisional access had significantly higher measures of health care utilization within 30 days, including plain imaging and frequency of physician visits, than individuals who saw a physical therapist first in states with unrestricted access. Compared with individuals who saw a primary care physician first, pooled across provisional-access and unrestricted-access states, those who saw a physical therapist first in provisional-access states had 25% higher relative costs at 30 days and 32% higher relative costs at 90 days, whereas those who saw a physical therapist first in unrestricted-access states had 13% lower costs at 30 days and 32% lower costs at 90 days. LIMITATIONS: This was a claims-based study with limited information on patient characteristics, including severity and duration of pain. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term LBP-related health care utilization and costs were lower for individuals in unrestricted-access states than in provisional-access states.

A new algorithm to build bridges between two patient-reported health outcome instruments: the MOS SF-36® and the VR-12 Health Survey.

PURPOSE: To develop bridging algorithms to score the Veterans Rand-12 (VR-12) scales for comparability to those of the SF-36® for facilitating multi-cohort studies using data from the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) linked to Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS), and to provide a model for minimizing non-statistical error in pooled analyses stemming from changes to survey instruments over time. METHODS: Observational study of MHOS cohorts 1-12 (1998-2011). We modeled 2-year follow-up SF-36 scale scores from cohorts 1-6 based on baseline SF-36 scores, age, and gender, yielding 100 clusters using Classification and Regression Trees. Within each cluster, we averaged follow-up SF-36 scores. Using the same cluster specifications, expected follow-up SF-36 scores, based on cohorts 1-6, were computed for cohorts 7-8 (where the VR-12 was the follow-up survey). We created a new criterion validity measure, termed "extensibility," calculated from the square root of the mean square difference between expected SF-36 scale averages and observed VR-12 item score from cohorts 7-8, weighted by cluster size. VR-12 items were rescored to minimize this quantity. RESULTS: Extensibility of rescored VR-12 items and scales was considerably improved from the "simple" scoring method for comparability to the SF-36 scales. CONCLUSIONS: The algorithms are appropriate across a wide range of potential subsamples within the MHOS and provide robust application for future studies that span the SF-36 and VR-12 eras. It is possible that these surveys in a different setting outside the MHOS, especially in younger age groups, could produce somewhat different results.

A Brief, Multifaceted, Generic Intervention to Improve Blood Pressure Control and Reduce Disparities Had Little Effect.

BACKGROUND: Poor blood pressure (BP) control and racial disparities therein may be a function of clinical inertia and ineffective communication about BP care. METHODS: We compared two different interventions (electronic medical record reminder for BP care (Reminder only, [RO]), and clinician training on BP care-related communication skills plus the reminder (Reminder + Training, [R+T]) with usual care in three primary care clinics, examining BP outcomes among 8,866 patients, and provider-patient communication and medication adherence among a subsample of 793. RESULTS: Clinician counseling improved most at R+T. BP improved overall; R+T had a small but significantly greater reduction in diastolic BP (DBP; -1.7 mm Hg). White patients at RO experienced greater overall improvements in BP control. Site and race disparities trends suggested that disparities decreased at R+T, either stayed the same or decreased at Control; and stayed the same or increased at RO. CONCLUSIONS: More substantial or racial/ethnically tailored interventions are needed.

Comparison of health outcomes for male seniors in the Veterans Health Administration and Medicare Advantage plans.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with the Medicare Advantage (MA) plans with regard to health outcomes. DATA SOURCES: The Medicare Health Outcome Survey, the 1999 Large Health Survey of Veteran Enrollees, and the Ambulatory Care Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients (Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003). STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. EXTRACTION METHODS: Men 65+ receiving care in MA (N=198,421) or in VHA (N=360,316). We compared the risk-adjusted probability of being alive with the same or better physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) health at 2-years follow-up. We computed hazard ratio (HR) for 2-year mortality. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Veterans had a higher adjusted probability of being alive with the same or better PCS compared with MA participants (VHA 69.2 versus MA 63.6 percent, p<.001). VHA patients had a higher adjusted probability than MA patients of being alive with the same or better MCS (76.1 versus 69.6 percent, p<.001). The HRs for mortality in the MA were higher than in the VHA (HR, 1.26 [95 percent CI 1.23-1.29]). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the VHA has better patient outcomes than the private managed care plans in Medicare. The VHA's performance offers encouragement that the public sector can both finance and provide exemplary health care.

Differences in risk-adjusted mortality between medicaid-eligible patients enrolled in medicare advantage plans and those enrolled in the veterans health administration.

BACKGROUND: We compared risk-adjusted mortality rates between Medicaid-eligible patients in the Medicare Advantage plans ("MA dual enrollees") and Medicaid-eligible patients in the Veterans Health Administration ("VHA dual enrollees"). METHODS: We used the Death Master File to ascertain the vital status of 1912 MA and 2361 VHA dual enrollees. We used Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The 3-year mortality rates of VHA and MA dual enrollees were 15.8% and 19.0%, respectively. The adjusted HR of mortality in the MA dual enrollees was significantly higher than in the VHA dual enrollees (HR, 1.260 [95% CI, 1.044-1.520]). This was also the case for elderly patients and those from racial/ethnic minority groups. CONCLUSIONS: The VHA had better health outcomes than did MA plans. The VHA's performance is reassuring, given its emphasis on equal access to healthcare in an environment that is less dependent on patient financial considerations.

Change in health status and mortality as indicators of outcomes: comparison between the Medicare Advantage Program and the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Comparing health outcomes with adequate methodology is central to performance assessments of health care systems. We compared the Medicare Advantage Program (MAP) and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with regard to changes in health status and mortality. METHODS: We used the Death-Master-File for vital status and the Short-Form 36 to determine physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) health at baseline and at 2 years. We compared the probability of being alive with the same or better (than would be expected by chance) PCS (or MCS) at 2 years and mortality, while adjusting for case-mix. Given the geographic variations in MAP enrollment, we did a regional sub-analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the probability of being alive with the same or better PCS except for the South (VHA 65.8% vs. MAP 62.5%, P = .0014). VHA patients had a slightly higher probability than MAP patients of being alive with the same or better MCS (71.8% vs. 70.1%, P = .002) but no significant regional variations. The hazard ratios for mortality in the MAP were higher than in the VHA across all regions. CONCLUSION: With the use of appropriate methodology, we found small differences in 2-year health outcomes that favor the VHA.

Risk-adjusted mortality as an indicator of outcomes: comparison of the Medicare Advantage Program with the Veterans' Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: The Medicare Advantage Program (MAP) and the Veterans' Health Administration (VHA) currently provide many services that benefit the elderly, and a comparative study of their risk-adjusted mortality rates has the potential to provide important information regarding these 2 systems of care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this retrospective study was to compare mortality rates between the MAP and the VHA after controlling for case-mix differences. SUBJECTS: This study consisted of 584,294 MAP patients and 420,514 VHA patients. MEASURES: We used the Death Master File to ascertain the vital status of each study subject over approximately 4 years. We used Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the MAP compared with VHA patients. RESULTS: The average age for male MAP patients was 73.8 years (+/- 5.6) and for male VHA patients was 74.05 years (+/- 6.3). Unadjusted mortality rates of males for VHA and MAP were 25.7% and 22.8%, respectively, over approximately 4 years (P < 0.0001), respectively. The case-mix of VHA patients, however, was sicker than those from MAP. After adjusting for case-mix, the HR for mortality in the MAP was significantly higher than that in the VHA (HR, 1.404; 95% CI = 1.383-1.426). We obtained similar results when we compared the mortality rates of females for VHA and MAP. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for their higher prevalence of chronic disease and worse self-reported health, mortality rates were lower for patients cared for in the VHA compared with those in the MAP. Further studies should examine what differences in care structures and processes contribute to lower mortality in the VHA.