Modeling the Health and Budgetary Impacts of a Team-based Hypertension Care Intervention That Includes Pharmacists.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the potential health and budgetary impacts of implementing a pharmacist-involved team-based hypertension management model in the United States. RESEARCH DESIGN: In 2017, we evaluated a pharmacist-involved team-based care intervention among 3 targeted groups using a microsimulation model designed to estimate cardiovascular event incidence and associated health care spending in a cross-section of individuals representative of the US population: implementing it among patients with: (1) newly diagnosed hypertension; (2) persistently (≥1 year) uncontrolled blood pressure (BP); or (3) treated, yet persistently uncontrolled BP-and report outcomes over 5 and 20 years. We describe the spending thresholds for each intervention strategy to achieve budget neutrality in 5 years from a payer's perspective. RESULTS: Offering this intervention could prevent 22.9-36.8 million person-years of uncontrolled BP and 77,200-230,900 heart attacks and strokes in 5 years (83.8-174.8 million and 393,200-922,900 in 20 years, respectively). Health and economic benefits strongly favored groups 2 and 3. Assuming an intervention cost of $525 per enrollee, the intervention generates 5-year budgetary cost-savings only for Medicare among groups 2 and 3. To achieve budget neutrality in 5 years across all groups, intervention costs per person need to be around $35 for Medicaid, $180 for private insurance, and $335 for Medicare enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting a pharmacist-involved team-based hypertension model could substantially improve BP control and cardiovascular outcomes in the United States. Net cost-savings among groups 2 and 3 make a compelling case for Medicare, but favorable economics may also be possible for private insurers, particularly if innovations could moderately lower the cost of delivering an effective intervention.

Relationship Between Adherence to Antihypertensive Medication Regimen and Out-of-Pocket Costs Among People Aged 35 to 64 With Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance.

We used administrative claims data from 2014 on people with employer-sponsored health insurance to assess the proportion of patients taking antihypertensive medications, rates of nonadherence to these medication regimens, and out-of-pocket costs paid by patients. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to examine the association between out-of-pocket costs and nonadherence. Results indicated that patients filled the equivalent of 13 monthly prescriptions and paid $76 out of pocket over the calendar year; the likelihood of nonadherence increased as out-of-pocket costs increased (adjusted odds ratios ranged from 1.04 to 1.78; P < .001). These findings suggest a need for improvement in adherence among patients with employer-sponsored insurance.

Association Between Self-Reported Hypertension and Antihypertensive Medication Use and Cardiovascular Disease-Related Events and Expenditures Among Patients Diagnosed With Hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: Research suggests that persons who are aware of the risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) are more likely to engage in healthy behaviors than persons who are not aware of the risk factors. We examined whether patients whose insurance claims included an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) code associated with hypertension who self-reported high blood pressure were more likely to fill antihypertensive medication prescriptions and less likely to have CVD-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations (hereinafter, CVD-related events) and related medical expenditures than patients with these codes who did not self-report high blood pressure. METHODS: We used a large convenience sample from the MarketScan Commercial Database linked with the MarketScan Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Database to identify patients aged 18-64 in the United States whose insurance claims included an ICD-9 code associated with hypertension and who completed an HRA from 2008 through 2012 (n = 111 655). We used multivariate logistic regression analysis to examine the association between self-reported high blood pressure and (1) filling prescriptions for antihypertensive medications and (2) CVD-related events. Because most patients with hypertension will not have a CVD-related event, we used a 2-part model to analyze medical expenditures. The first part estimated the likelihood of a CVD-related event, and the second part estimated expenditures. RESULTS: Patients with an ICD-9 code of hypertension who self-reported high blood pressure had a significantly higher predicted probability of filling antihypertensive medication prescriptions (26.5%; 95% confidence interval, 25.7-27.3; P < .001), had a significantly lower predicted probability of a CVD-related event (0.6%, P < .001), and on average spent significantly less on CVD-related events ($251, P = .01) than patients who did not self-report high blood pressure. CONCLUSION: This study affirms that self-knowledge of high blood pressure, even among patients who are diagnosed and treated for hypertension, can be improved. Interventions that improve patients' awareness of their hypertension may improve antihypertensive medication use and reduce adverse CVD-related events.

Applying Behavioral Economics to Public Health Policy: Illustrative Examples and Promising Directions.

Behavioral economics provides an empirically informed perspective on how individuals make decisions, including the important realization that even subtle features of the environment can have meaningful impacts on behavior. This commentary provides examples from the literature and recent government initiatives that incorporate concepts from behavioral economics in order to improve health, decision making, and government efficiency. The examples highlight the potential for behavioral economics to improve the effectiveness of public health policy at low cost. Although incorporating insights from behavioral economics into public health policy has the potential to improve population health, its integration into government public health programs and policies requires careful design and continual evaluation of such interventions. Limitations and drawbacks of the approach are discussed.

Modeled Health and Economic Impact of Team-Based Care for Hypertension.

INTRODUCTION: Team-based interventions for hypertension care have been widely studied and shown effective in improving hypertension outcomes. Few studies have evaluated long-term effects of these interventions; none have assessed broad-scale implementation. This study estimates the prospective health, economic, and budgetary impact of universal adoption of a team-based care intervention model that targets people with treated but uncontrolled hypertension in the U.S. METHODS: Analysis was conducted in 2014-2015 using a microsimulation model, constructed with various data sources from 1948 to 2014, designed to evaluate prospective cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related interventions in the U.S. POPULATION: Ten-year primary outcomes included prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension; incident myocardial infarction, stroke, CVD events, and CVD-related mortality; intervention and net medical costs by payer; productivity; and quality-adjusted life years. RESULTS: About 4.7 million (13%) fewer people with uncontrolled hypertension and 638,000 prevented cardiovascular events would be expected over 10 years. Assuming $525 per enrollee, implementation would cost payers $22.9 billion, but $25.3 billion would be saved in averted medical costs. Estimated net cost savings for Medicare approached $5.8 billion. Net costs were especially sensitive to intervention costs, with break-even thresholds of $300 (private), $450 (Medicaid), and $750 (Medicare). CONCLUSIONS: Nationwide adoption of team-based care for uncontrolled hypertension could have sizable effects in reducing CVD burden. Based on the study's assumptions, the policy would be cost saving from the perspective of Medicare and may prove to be cost effective from other payers' perspectives. Expected net cost savings for Medicare would more than offset expected net costs for all other insurers.