Creating a model program for influenza surveillance in California: results from the 2005-2006 influenza season.

BACKGROUND: Influenza surveillance is valuable for monitoring trends in influenza-related morbidity and mortality. Using the 2005-2006 influenza season as an example, this paper describes a comprehensive influenza surveillance program used by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). METHODS: Data collected from patients evaluated for acute respiratory illness in a given week were reported and summarized the following week, including (1) electronic hospital pneumonia and influenza admission and antiviral usage records from Kaiser Permanente, (2) sentinel provider influenza-like illness (ILI) reports, (3) severe pediatric influenza case reports (e.g., children either hospitalized in intensive care or expired), (4) school clinic ILI evaluations, and (5) positive influenza test results from a network of academic, hospital, commercial, and public health laboratories and the state CDPH Viral and Rickettsial Disease Laboratory. RESULTS: Influenza activity in California in the 2005-2006 season was moderate in severity; all clinical and laboratory markers rose and fell consistently. Extensive laboratory characterization identified the predominant circulating virus strain as A/California/7/2004(H3N2), which was a component of the 2005-2006 influenza vaccine; 96% of samples tested showed adamantane resistance. CONCLUSIONS: By using multiple, complementary surveillance methods coupled with a strong laboratory component, the CDPH has developed a simple, flexible, stable, and widely accepted influenza surveillance system that can monitor trends in statewide influenza activity, ascertain the correlation between circulating strains with vaccine strains, and assist with detection of new strain variants. The methods described can serve as a model for influenza surveillance in other states.

Medicaid chemical dependency patients in a commercial health plan: do high medical costs come down over time?

A cohort of 197 Medicaid-insured patients presenting for treatment in Kaiser Permanente's outpatient chemical dependency treatment program were observed the year prior to their program intake visit and followed for 3 years afterwards, to compare their medical costs and utilization to demographically matched commercially insured patients entering the same programs. The Medicaid-insured patients on average incurred medical costs 60% higher than non-Medicaid patients during the 12-month preintake period ($5402 vs $3377). [corrected] During the 3 years subsequently, however, both groups of chemical dependency patients displayed significant declines in medical costs, averaging 30% from the baseline period to the third year of follow-up. Cost trends reflected declines in use of hospital days, emergency department visits, and nonemergent outpatient visits. These results may help address concerns among Medicaid managed care providers and payers by giving a more realistic account of the long-term costs of this group of high-utilizing enrollees.

Medicaid patients in a private health maintenance organization: patterns of chemical dependency treatment.

Although many Medicaid beneficiaries receive health care through commercial health maintenance organizations (HMOs), the impact of private managed care on low-income individuals seeking treatment for substance abuse has rarely been studied. This study examined treatment patterns of 234 Medicaid recipients who presented for care at an HMO between 1995 and 1997. After adjustment for demographic factors and duration of health plan membership, the Medicaid patients returned to start treatment after intake less often (odds ratio = 0.60) and dropped out of treatment sooner (median = 14 versus 28 days) than non-Medicaid patients. While many Medicaid patients received significant amounts of substance abuse treatment, further research is needed to explain the observed treatment gap and to identify areas where HMOs can improve services for some of their most vulnerable members.

The Depression-Arkansas scale: A validation study of a new brief depression scale in an HMO.

Recent trends in mental-health care have increased the need for practical depression instruments. The Depression-Arkansas (D-ARK), a brief, economical, multipurpose instrument, has been validated for assessing major depressive disorder (MDD) and depressive-symptom severity. Psychometric properties of the D-ARK were compared with standard depression scales (Beck Depression Inventory and Geriatric Depression Scale) among 294 adult and 193 senior primary-care patients, respectively, and 163 patients enrolled in cognitive-behavioral depression classes. The severity scale displayed adequate internal reliability (coefficient alpha =.81-.86), high correlation with the BDI-2 (r =.78-.83) and GDS (r =.75), and similar factor structure to the BDI-2. The D-ARK was calibrated against the BDI-2 and GDS, providing familiar severity category cutpoints with the new instrument. This study yields further data supporting the reliability, validity, and practical utility of the D-ARK.