A new perspective on the value of minimally invasive colorectal surgery-payer, provider, and patient benefits.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) are proven, but overall financial benefits are not fully explored. Our goal was to evaluate the financial benefits of MIS from the payer's perspective to demonstrate the value of minimally invasive colorectal surgery. METHODS: A Truven MarketScan® claim-based analysis identified all 2013 elective, inpatient colectomies. Cases were stratified into open or MIS approaches based on ICD-9 procedure codes; then costs were assessed using a similar distribution across diagnosis related groups (DRGs). Care episodes were compared for average allowed costs, complication, and readmission rates after adjusting costs for demographics, comorbidities, and geographic region. RESULTS: A total of 4615 colectomies were included-2054 (44.5 %) open and 2561 (55.5 %) MIS. Total allowed episode costs were significantly lower MIS than open ($37,540 vs. $45,284, p < 0.001). During the inpatient stay, open cases had significantly greater ICU utilization (3.9 % open vs. 2.0 % MIS, p < 0.001), higher overall complications (52.8 % open vs. 32.3 % MIS, p < 0.001), higher colorectal-specific complications (32.5 % open vs. 17.9 % MIS, p < 0.001), longer LOS (6.39 open vs. 4.44 days MIS, p < 0.001), and higher index admission costs ($39,585 open vs. $33,183 MIS, p < 0.001). Post-discharge, open cases had significantly higher readmission rates/100 cases (11.54 vs. 8.28; p = 0.0013), higher average readmission costs ($3055 vs. $2,514; p = 0.1858), and greater 30-day healthcare costs than MIS ($5699 vs. $4357; p = 0.0033). The net episode cost of care was $7744/patient greater for an open colectomy, even with similar DRG distribution. CONCLUSIONS: In a commercially insured population, the risk-adjusted allowed costs for MIS colectomy episodes were significantly lower than open. The overall cost difference between MIS and open was almost $8000 per patient. This highlights an opportunity for health plans and employers to realize financial benefits by shifting from open to MIS for colectomy. With increasing bundled payment arrangements and accountable care sharing programs, the cost impact of shifting from open to MIS introduces an opportunity for cost savings.

Open vs. Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy: Commercially Insured Costs and Readmissions.

PURPOSE: To analyze commercial payer differences in the average costs and readmission rates between inpatient open hysterectomies and three types of outpatient hysterectomies: laparoscopic, laparoscopic assisted, and vaginal. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY: A retrospective claims data analysis was conducted using the 2012 and 2013 Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounter Database.The study was limited to women 18-64 years old who had pharmacy coverage, 12 months of commercial insurance coverage in 2012, and at least 1 month in 2013.Readmission costs were capped at $100,000 and outpatient hysterectomy costs were adjusted to be on the same basis as open costs based on the portion of cancer cases, geographic region, and risk profile. RESULTS: There were 21,926 hysterectomy cases meeting our criteria. Total average allowed costs for the day of surgery and 30 days following surgery were statistically significantly higher for inpatient open hysterectomies than outpatient hysterectomies (cost differences of $1,270 for laparoscopic, $2,764 for assisted laparoscopic, and $4,582 for vaginal; P<.001 for all comparisons). Readmission rates within 30 days following surgery were statistically significantly higher for inpatient open hysterectomies (3.05 per 100 cases) than those for outpatient laparoscopic (2.10 per 100 cases; P<.001) and assisted laparoscopic (2.17 per 100 cases; P=.01) hysterectomies, but not for vaginal hysterectomies (2.46 per 100 cases; P=.16). CONCLUSION: Inpatient open hysterectomies have statistically significantly higher average allowed costs than outpatient laparoscopic, laparoscopic assisted, and vaginal hysterectomies and statistically significantly higher readmission rates than outpatient laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomies.

Cost Differences Between Open and Minimally Invasive Surgery.

PURPOSE: To analyze the cost difference between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery from a commercial payer perspective for colectomy, ventral hernia repair, thoracic resection (resection of the lung), and hysterectomy. DESIGN: A retrospective claims data analysis was conducted using the 2011 and 2012 Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounter Database. Study eligibility criteria included age 18-64 years, pharmacy coverage, ≥ 1 month of eligibility in 2012, and a claim coded with 1 of the 4 surgical procedures of interest; the index year was 2012. METHODOLOGY: Average allowed facility and professional costs were calculated during inpatient stay (or day of surgery for outpatient hysterectomy) and the 30 days after discharge for MIS vs open surgery. Cost difference was compared after adjusting for presence of cancer, geographic region, and risk profile (age, gender, and comorbidities). RESULTS: In total, 46,386 cases in the 2012 MarketScan database represented one of the surgeries of interest. The difference in average allowed surgical procedure cost (facility and professional) between open surgery vs adjusted MIS was $10,204 for colectomy; $3,721, ventral hernia repair; $12,989, thoracic resection; and $1,174, noncancer hysterectomy (P < .001 for all comparisons).The difference in average allowed cost in the 30 days after surgery between open surgery vs adjusted MIS was $1,494 for colectomy, $1,320 for ventral hernia repair, negative $711 for thoracic resection, and negative $425 for noncancer hysterectomy (P < .001 for all comparisons, except P = .487 for thoracic resection). CONCLUSION: MIS was associated with statistically significantly lower costs than open surgery for all 4 analyzed surgeries.

Prevalence and Economic Burden of Epilepsy in the Institutionalized Medicare Fee-for-Service Population.

BACKGROUND: Based on data from 2003 to 2007, the prevalence of epilepsy was significantly higher in the institutionalized elderly population than in the noninstitutionalized population, but the recent prevalence and economic impact of epilepsy specifically in the institutionalized Medicare population have not been reported. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence and economic burden of epilepsy and inpatient utilization rates among institutionalized Medicare beneficiaries and to provide a 10-year projection of their population size and the associated costs. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the institutionalized Medicare population with and without epilepsy using Medicare 5% sample claims data from 2013 and 2014. The identification of epilepsy required ≥1 qualifying claims with an epilepsy diagnosis, or ≥2 qualifying claims ≥30 days apart with a diagnosis of convulsion, in 2014. Institutionalized status was identified by having ≥6 consecutive months of nursing facility claims in 2013 or 2014. Inpatient admissions and 30-day readmissions, average allowed costs, and risk-adjusted incremental costs of epilepsy were calculated and compared between the institutionalized population of Medicare beneficiaries with and without epilepsy. The 2015 Medicare 100% and 5% sample data and inputs from other external sources were used to project the 10-year trends in the size and cost of the institutionalized Medicare population with epilepsy. RESULTS: The prevalence of epilepsy in 2014 was 11.1% in the institutionalized Medicare population. The institutionalized population with epilepsy had significantly higher per-patient per-month (PPPM) costs ($3479 vs $2381, respectively; P <.001), inpatient admissions per 1000 beneficiaries (1105 vs 697, respectively; P <.001), and 30-day readmissions per 1000 beneficiaries (287 vs 145, respectively; P <.001) versus the institutionalized population without epilepsy. The risk-adjusted incremental cost of epilepsy for the institutionalized population was $507.33 PPPM. Based on our model, between 2017 and 2027 an 18% increase in size and a 72% increase in cost are projected for the institutionalized Medicare beneficiaries with epilepsy. CONCLUSION: The high cost and inpatient resource utilization, as well as the projected growth of the institutionalized Medicare population with epilepsy highlight the need for further investigation of care management opportunities to reduce the cost burden associated with this condition.

Taking stock of wellness.

The health cost crisis has spawned a thriving cost-control industry that offers an ever-growing number of "solutions." The authors of this article encourage employers to go back to the basics in evaluating these offerings, including their wellness policies and programs. This article describes the many ways different employers do wellness, the evidence base for wellness, how employers should target wellness candidates, and the elements of success and failure for wellness initiatives.

The cost impact to Medicare of shifting treatment of worsening heart failure from inpatient to outpatient management settings.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify the potential cost savings to Medicare of shifting the site of treatment for worsening heart failure (HF) from inpatient to outpatient (OP) settings for a subset of worsening HF episodes among the Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of a random 5% sample of 2014 FFS Medicare beneficiaries was conducted. Incidence and cost of worsening HF episodes in both inpatient and OP settings were identified. These results were used to calculate cost savings associated with shifting a proportion of worsening HF episodes from the inpatient to OP settings. RESULTS: A total of 151,908 HF beneficiaries were identified. The estimated annual cost for the treatment of worsening HF across both inpatient and OP settings ranged from US$9.3 billion to US$17.0 billion or 2.4%-4.3% of total Medicare FFS spend. The cost saving associated with shifting worsening HF treatment from inpatient hospital setting to OP settings was US$667.5 million or 0.17% of total Medicare spend when 10% of HF admissions were targeted and 60% of targeted HF admissions were successfully shifted. The cost savings increased to US$2.098 billion or 0.53% of total Medicare spend when 20% of HF admissions were targeted and 90% of targeted HF admissions were successfully shifted. CONCLUSION: Treatment options that can shift costly hospital admissions for worsening HF treatment to less expensive OP settings potentially lead to significant cost savings to Medicare. Pursuit of OP therapy options for treating worsening HF might be considered a viable alternative.

Comparing hospice and nonhospice patient survival among patients who die within a three-year window.

There is a widespread belief by some health care providers and the wider community that medications used to alleviate symptoms may hasten death in hospice patients. Conversely, there is a clinical impression among hospice providers that hospice might extend some patients' lives. We studied the difference of survival periods of terminally ill patients between those using hospices and not using hospices. We performed retrospective statistical analysis on selected cohorts from large paid claim databases of Medicare beneficiaries for five types of cancer and congestive heart failure (CHF) patients. We analyzed the survival of 4493 patients from a sample of 5% of the entire Medicare beneficiary population for 1998-2002 associated with six narrowly defined indicative markers. For the six patient populations combined, the mean survival was 29 days longer for hospice patients than for nonhospice patients. The mean survival period was also significantly longer for the hospice patients with CHF, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and marginally significant for colon cancer (P=0.08). Mean survival was not significantly different (statistically) for hospice vs. nonhospice patients with breast or prostate cancer. Across groups studied, hospice enrollment is not significantly associated with shorter survival, but for certain terminally ill patients, hospice is associated with longer survival times. The claims-based method used death within three years as a surrogate for a clinical judgment to recommend hospice, which means our findings apply to cases where a clinician is very sure the patient will die within three years, and it points to the need to validate these findings.

Cost comparison of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy in colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colectomy has been shown to be safe, oncologically comparable, and clinically beneficial over open colectomy for colon cancer, but utilization remains low. Objectives To evaluate the cost of laparoscopic colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective claims data analysis using the 2012 and 2013 Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounter Database. The denominator population consisted of individuals who had commercial insurance coverage in all months of 2012 and >1 month in 2013 and pharmacy coverage throughout eligibility. The study population included individuals aged 18-64 years who were identified with colon cancer in 2013 and underwent an elective inpatient open colectomy or laparoscopic colectomy between January and November 2013. The cost and re-admission rate of open vs laparoscopic colectomy were compared after risk, adjusting for comorbidities, demographics, and geographic region. RESULTS: During the study period, 1299 elective inpatient colon cancer colectomies were performed (open, n = 558; laparoscopic, n = 741). After risk adjustment, the laparoscopic vs open group was shown to have lower re-admission rates (6.61 and 10.93 per 100 cases, respectively, p = .0165), lower average re-admission costs ($1676 and $3151, respectively, p = .0309), and lower 30-day post-discharge healthcare utilization costs ($4842 and $7121, respectively, p = .0047). Average allowed cost for the combined inpatient and 30-day post-discharge period was lower for laparoscopic vs open colectomy cases ($36,395 and $44,226, respectively, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The cost of laparoscopic colectomy was found to be statistically significantly less than that of open colectomy in patients undergoing elective surgery for colon cancer.

The Clinical and Economic Burden of Hyperkalemia on Medicare and Commercial Payers.

BACKGROUND: Hyperkalemia (serum potassium >5.0 mEq/L) may be caused by reduced kidney function and drugs affecting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and is often present in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). OBJECTIVE: To quantify the burden of hyperkalemia in US Medicare fee-for-service and commercially insured populations using real-world claims data, focusing on prevalence, comorbidities, mortality, medical utilization, and cost. METHODS: A descriptive, retrospective claims data analysis was performed on patients with hyperkalemia using the 2014 Medicare 5% sample and the 2014 Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounter databases. The starting study samples required patient insurance eligibility during ≥1 months in 2014. The identification of hyperkalemia and other comorbidities required having ≥1 qualifying claims in 2014 with an appropriate International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code in any position. To address the differences between patients with and without hyperkalemia, CKD subsamples were analyzed separately. Mortality rates were calculated in the Medicare sample population only. The claims were grouped into major service categories; the allowed costs reflected all costs incurred by each cohort divided by the total number of member months for that cohort. RESULTS: The prevalence of hyperkalemia in the Medicare and commercially insured samples was 2.3% and 0.09%, respectively. Hyperkalemia was associated with multiple comorbidities, most notably CKD. The prevalence of CKD in the Medicare and the commercially insured members with hyperkalemia was 64.8% and 31.8%, respectively. After adjusting for CKD severity, the annual mortality rate for Medicare patients with CKD and hyperkalemia was 24.9% versus 10.4% in patients with CKD without hyperkalemia. The allowed costs in patients with CKD and hyperkalemia in the Medicare and commercially insured cohorts were more than twice those in patients with CKD without hyperkalemia. Inpatient care accounted for >50% of costs in patients with CKD and hyperkalemia. CONCLUSION: Hyperkalemia is associated with substantial clinical and economic burden among US commercially insured and Medicare populations.

Cardiovascular event incidence and cost in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Medicare claims-based actuarial analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic burden of cardiovascular events in Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This claims-based actuarial analysis queried 2013 and 2014 Medicare 5% samples, defining a denominator of fee-for-service beneficiaries. Average per patient per month allowed cost ($PPPM) was calculated for T2DM, demographically adjusted non-T2DM, and denominator. Per member per month allowed cost ($PMPM) was calculated by dividing total population cost by member months in the denominator. Costs of five pre-specified cardiovascular events were calculated as a contribution to denominator $PMPM, as contribution to $PPPM in T2DM, and as incremental cost. RESULTS: During the study period, 22.1% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries had T2DM; of these, 9.68% experienced a cardiovascular event or cardiovascular-related death. T2DM cost represented 37.9% of total allowed $PMPM for the denominator. Average total allowed $PPPM for a T2DM beneficiary was $1,834, compared with $850 for a non-T2DM beneficiary (2.2-times higher). Annual rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina admission, heart failure admission, and coronary revascularization in T2DM were 3.3-, 2.4-, 3.2-, 4.0-, and 2.8-times higher than in non-T2DM, and utilization of health services was also greater in T2DM. Cardiovascular events in T2DM accounted for 50% of denominator cardiovascular event cost; 3.6% of denominator population $PMPM was attributable to cardiovascular events in T2DM. Risk-adjusted incremental cardiovascular event cost represented 18.1% of $PPPM in T2DM or 6.9% of $PMPM in the denominator population. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular events in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with T2DM contribute substantially to Medicare cardiovascular events, resource utilization, and cost.

Comparison of Treatment Costs for Breast Cancer, by Tumor Stage and Type of Service.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of breast cancer at early stages is associated with better clinical and survival outcomes. How the costs of care vary depending on the stage at which breast cancer was diagnosed has not been thoroughly examined. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the stage-dependent average per capita cost of breast cancer treatment for a commercially insured population of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of claims data was based on a population selected from the Truven Healthcare MarketScan commercial claims database. The study comprised women aged 18 to 64 years with breast cancer who had ≥2 claims in 2010 that were ≥30 days apart and included an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis code for breast cancer (174.xx, 233.0) in any position of the claim. Two years of postdiagnosis claims data were analyzed by stage at diagnosis (ie, 0, I/II, III, and IV). RESULTS: In total, 8360 women met the criteria for study inclusion (stage 0, N = 2300; stage I/II, N = 4425; stage III, N = 1134; and stage IV, N = 501). The costs were higher for patients whose cancer was more advanced at diagnosis, for all cumulative 6-month periods (months 0-6, 0-12, 0-18, and 0-24). The average costs per patient allowed by the insurance company in the year after diagnosis were $60,637, $82,121, $129,387, and $134,682 for disease stage 0, I/II, III, and IV, respectively. The average costs allowed per patient in the 24 months after the index diagnosis were $71,909, $97,066, $159,442, and $182,655 for disease stage 0, I/II, III, and IV, respectively. The cost difference based on the stage at diagnosis was largely driven by the cost of chemotherapy and noncancer treatments. CONCLUSION: Treating advanced- versus early-stage breast cancer is associated with significant increases in incremental costs. Knowledge of the relevant stage-specific cost data provides support for strengthening programs, such as breast cancer screening, that are designed to shift breast cancer diagnosis to earlier disease stages.

Inpatient Utilization and Costs for Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries with Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Although the medical and economic burden of heart failure in the United States is already substantial, it will likely grow as the population ages and life expectancy increases. Not surprisingly, most of the heart failure burden is borne by individuals aged ≥65 years, many of whom are in the Medicare population. The population-based utilization and costs of inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure are not well understood by payers and providers. OBJECTIVE: To create a real-world view of utilization and costs associated with inpatient admissions, readmissions, and admissions to skilled nursing facilities among Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries with heart failure. METHODS: The study used the 2011 and 2012 Medicare 5% sample limited data set to perform a retrospective analysis of claims data. The look-back year that was used to identify certain patient characteristics was 2011, and 2012 was the analysis period for the study. Beneficiaries with heart failure were defined as those who had ≥1 acute inpatient, emergency department, nonacute inpatient, or outpatient claims in 2012 containing an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code for heart failure. To be included in the study, beneficiaries with heart failure had to have eligibility for ≥1 months in 2012 and in all 2011 months, with Part A and Part B eligibility in all the study months, and no enrollment in an HMO (Medicare Advantage plan). Utilization of inpatient admissions, inpatient readmissions, and skilled nursing facility admissions in 2012 were reported for Medicare FFS beneficiaries with heart failure and for all Medicare FFS beneficiaries. The costs for key metrics included all allowed Medicare payments in 2012 US dollars. RESULTS: The 2012 Medicare FFS population for this study consisted of 1,461,935 patients (1,301,545 without heart failure; 160,390 with heart failure); the heart failure prevalence was 11%. The Medicare-allowed cost per member per month (PMPM) was $3395 for a patient with heart failure, whereas the allowed cost for the total Medicare population was $1045 PMPM. The Medicare-allowed amounts for the population with heart failure accounted for 34% of the total annual Medicare FFS population-allowed amounts. The heart failure population constituted 41.5%, 55.3%, and 49.5% of total Medicare FFS inpatient admissions, readmissions, and admissions to skilled nursing facilities, respectively. The costs of inpatient admissions, readmissions, and admissions to skilled nursing facilities among the heart failure population contributed $182 PMPM (17.5%), $58 PMPM (5.6%), and $46 PMPM (4.4%), respectively, to the total Medicare FFS population-allowed cost of $1045 PMPM. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare FFS beneficiaries with heart failure have high inpatient admission and readmission rates and generate substantial costs. Because a substantial portion of all inpatient admissions are for Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure, it is reasonable for hospitals in Medicare accountable care organizations to focus on more aggressive post-acute care management, including a focus on reducing readmissions for the population with heart failure. Our study findings highlight areas of high service utilization and cost for Medicare patients with heart failure that can be of value to Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans, and providers.

Stigma towards borderline personality disorder: effectiveness and generalizability of an anti-stigma program for healthcare providers using a pre-post randomized design.

BACKGROUND: Stigmatization among healthcare providers towards mental illnesses can present obstacles to effective caregiving. This may be especially the case for borderline personality disorder (BPD). Our study measured the impact of a three hour workshop on BPD and dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) on attitudes and behavioral intentions of healthcare providers towards persons with BPD as well as mental illness more generally. The intervention involved educational and social contact elements, all focused on BPD. METHODS: The study employed a pre-post design. We adopted the approach of measuring stigmatization towards persons with BPD in one half of the attendees and stigmatization towards persons with a mental illness in the other half. The stigma-assessment tool was the Opening Minds Scale for Healthcare Providers (OMS-HC). Two versions of the scale were employed - the original version and a 'BPD-specific' version. A 2x2 mixed model factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the dependent variable, stigma score. The between-subject factor was survey type. The within-subject factor was time. RESULTS: The mixed-model ANOVA produced a significant between-subject main effect for survey type, with stigma towards persons with BPD being greater than that towards persons with a mental illness more generally. A significant within-subject main effect for time was also observed, with participants showing significant improvement in stigma scores at Time 2. The main effects were subsumed by a significant interaction between time and survey type. Bonferroni post hoc tests indicated significant improvement in attitudes towards BPD and mental illness more generally, although there was a greater improvement in attitudes towards BPD. CONCLUSIONS: Although effectiveness cannot be conclusively demonstrated with the current research design, results are encouraging that the intervention was successful at improving healthcare provider attitudes and behavioral intentions towards persons with BPD. The results further suggest that anti stigma interventions effective at combating stigma against a specific disorder may also have positive generalizable effects towards a broader set of mental illnesses, albeit to a lessened degree.

The value of colonoscopic colorectal cancer screening of adults aged 50 to 64.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the value of life-years saved due to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy for the population aged 50 to 64 years. The cost perspective is that of a private (commercial) insurer, while the value perspective includes survival past age 65 years, when most of the US population is insured by Medicare. We focused on colonoscopy because it is not only diagnostic but also therapeutic; because positive results on other screening tests generally are followed up with colonoscopy; and to build on previous study results that colonoscopy is ultimately more cost-effective than other screening, even considering its expense. STUDY DESIGN: Monte Carlo simulation. METHODS: Using a large multi-state cancer registry, a large national administrative claims database, and a model of CRC development based on published clinical literature, we estimated the impact of screening with colonoscopy on incidence of CRC, aggregate cost of colonoscopies and CRC, and life-years saved. RESULTS: Assuming 2013 commercial reimbursement rates for screening and treatment, we found that increasing screening adherence from 50% to 100% would cost about $3 per member per month (2013 US$) and reduce CRC treatment costs by about $1 per member per month. The cost per life-year saved is approximately $12,000, an amount that is much lower than for cervical or breast cancer screening and comparable to lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that commercial insurers and employers should promote CRC screening as a high-value service. Promoting such screening through high-quality, low-cost providers would be an exemplar of efficient system innovation.

Longitudinal Commercial Claims-Based Cost Analysis of Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Patterns.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy is one of the most common complications of diabetes. The screening of patients with diabetes to detect retinopathy is recommended by several professional guidelines but is an underutilized service. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the relationship between the frequency of retinopathy screening and the cost of care in adult patients with diabetes. METHODS: Truven Health MarketScan commercial databases (2000-2013) were used to identify the diabetic population aged 18 to 64 years for the performance of a 2001-2013 annual trend analysis of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and a 10-year longitudinal analysis of patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. In the trend analysis, the prevalence of diabetes, screening rate, and allowed cost per member per month (PMPM) were calculated. In the longitudinal analysis, data from 4 index years (2001-2004) of patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were combined, and the costs were adjusted to be comparable to the 2004 index year cohort, using the annual diabetes population cost trends calculated in the trend analysis. The longitudinal population was segmented into the number of years of diabetic retinopathy screening (ie, 0, 1-4, 5-7, and 8-10), and the relationship between the years of screening and the PMPM allowed costs was analyzed. The difference in mean incremental cost between years 1 and 10 in each of the 4 cohorts was compared after adjusting for explanatory variables. RESULTS: In the trend analysis, between 2001 and 2013, the prevalence of diabetes increased from 3.93% to 5.08%, retinal screening increased from 26.27% to 29.58%, and the average total unadjusted allowed cost of care for each patient with diabetes increased from $822 to $1395 PMPM. In the longitudinal analysis, the difference between the screening cohorts' mean incremental cost increase was $185 between the 0- and 1-4-year cohorts (P <.003) and $202 between the 0- and 5-7-year cohorts (P <.023). The cost differences between the other cohorts, including $217 between the 0- and 8-10-year cohorts (P <.066), were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our analysis, the annual retinopathy screening rate for patients with diabetes has remained low since 2001, and has been well below the guideline-recommended screening levels. For patients with type 2 diabetes, the mean increase in healthcare expenditures over a 10-year period after diagnosis is not statistically different among those with various retinopathy screening rates, although the increase in healthcare spending is lower for patients with diabetes who were not screened for retinopathy compared with patients who did get screened.

Medicare cost in matched hospice and non-hospice cohorts.

Hospice care is perceived as enhancing life quality for patients with advanced, incurable illness, but cost comparisons to non-hospice patients are difficult to make. The very large Medicare expenditures for care given during the end of life, combined with the pressure on Medicare spending, make this information important. We sought to identify cost differences between patients who do and do not elect to receive Medicare-paid hospice benefits. We introduce an innovative prospective/retrospective case-control method that we used to study 8,700 patients from a sample of 5% of the entire Medicare beneficiary population for 1999-2000 associated with 16 narrowly defined indicative markers. For the majority of cohorts, mean and median Medicare costs were lower for patients enrolled in hospice care. The lower costs were not associated with shorter duration until death. For important terminal medical conditions, including non-cancers, costs are lower for patients receiving hospice care. The lower cost is not associated with shorter time until death, and appears to be associated with longer mean time until death.

Resource utilization and cost in a commercially insured population with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a serious public health concern and a leading cause of disability. Previous studies have shown this disease is associated with an economic burden of more than $60 billion annually in direct and indirect costs in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the annual and longitudinal costs associated with the treatment of patients with schizophrenia from a payer perspective. METHODS: Two claim-based analyses were conducted using data from the Truven Health MarketScan database of a commercially insured population: (1) an annual snapshot of patients with newly diagnosed and chronic schizophrenia, and (2) a 24-month longitudinal analysis of patients with newly diagnosed schizophrenia. The snapshot analysis included individuals who had ≥2 claims with a diagnosis code for schizophrenia on separate dates during 2011 (with the date of the first claim designated as the index date), and who were enrolled for 12 months before the index date. For the longitudinal analysis, patients were included if they were continuously enrolled for 24 months after the date of schizophrenia diagnosis, which was designated as the index date. The claims were grouped by inpatient, outpatient, professional, and prescription drug categories, and were further segmented by claims for schizophrenia, other psychiatric, and nonschizophrenia/nonpsychiatric conditions. RESULTS: A total of 8985 patients with schizophrenia met the inclusion criteria for the snapshot analysis. The mean cost per patient per month (PPPM) for a patient with schizophrenia was $1806 versus $419 per member per month for the demographically adjusted nonschizophrenic (ie, matched for age and sex) population. The PPPM cost of $1806 for patients with schizophrenia was 42% for inpatient expenditures, 33% for outpatient, and 25% for prescription drug costs. The annual inpatient admission rates were 636 per 1000 patients with schizophrenia and 48 per 1000 persons for the demographically adjusted population without schizophrenia. The annual emergency department visits for patients with schizophrenia were 2270 per 1000 patients and 158 per 1000 persons without schizophrenia for the demographically adjusted population. For the longitudinal analysis, 1902 patients with newly diagnosed schizophrenia were identified. The total claim costs for patients increased from $800 monthly in the 12 months before the index date to approximately $2000 in the month before the index date. The highest costs occurred in the month of diagnosis (designated as the index month; mean cost, $6601). The total all-cause claim cost after the index date decreased to $1635 monthly for months 2 to 6, $1456 monthly for months 7 to 12, $1324 monthly for months 13 to 18, and $1218 monthly for months 19 to 24. CONCLUSION: Although the prevalence of schizophrenia is low in a commercially insured US population, this analysis shows that the average total claim cost per patient with schizophrenia is more than 4 times the average total claim cost for a demographically adjusted population without schizophrenia. Furthermore, for newly diagnosed patients with schizophrenia, the cost, which is largely driven by inpatient charges, is highest in the month of diagnosis.

The economic burden of ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage in medicare beneficiaries with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a retrospective claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the economic implications of oral anticoagulation therapy requires careful consideration of the risks and costs of stroke and major hemorrhage. The majority of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are aged ≥65 years, so focusing on the Medicare population is reasonable when discussing the risk for stroke. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relative economic burden associated with stroke and major hemorrhage among Medicare beneficiaries who are newly diagnosed with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of a 5% sample of Medicare claims data for patients with NVAF from 2006 to 2008. Patients with NVAF without any claims of AF during the 12 months before the first (index) claim for AF in 2007 (baseline period) were identified and were classified into 4 cohorts during a 12-month follow-up period after the index date. These cohorts included (1) no claims for ischemic stroke or major hemorrhage (without stroke or hemorrhage); (2) no claims for ischemic stroke and ≥1 claims for major hemorrhage (hemorrhage only); (3) ≥1 claims for ischemic stroke and no major hemorrhage claims (stroke only); and (4) ≥1 claims each for ischemic stroke and for major hemorrhage (stroke and hemorrhage). The 1-year mean postindex total all-cause healthcare costs adjusted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC) score were compared among the study cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 9455 eligible patients included in this study, 3% (N = 261) of the patients had ischemic stroke claims only, 3% (N = 276) had hemorrhage claims only, and <1% (N = 13) had both during the follow-up period. The unadjusted follow-up healthcare costs were $63,781 and $64,596 per patient for the ischemic stroke only and the hemorrhage only cohorts, respectively, compared with $35,474 per patient for those without hemorrhage or stroke claims. After adjustment for HCC risk score, the mean incremental costs for patients with stroke claims only and hemorrhage claims only, relative to those without stroke or hemorrhage claims, were $26,776 (95% confidence interval [CI], $20,785-$32,767; P <.001) and $26,168 (95% CI, $20,375-$31,961; P <.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: The economic burden of managing patients with NVAF who experience ischemic stroke and hemorrhage were similarly significant during the first year after a diagnosis of NVAF. The burden of major bleeding complications on patients, clinicians, and payers should not be overlooked, and these complications should be considered in conjunction with the cost-savings associated with ischemic stroke risk reduction in future cost-benefit evaluations of oral anticoagulation therapy.

Medical claim cost impact of improved diabetes control for medicare and commercially insured patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes prevalence is increasing in the United States, yet the control of critical clinical metrics (e.g., hemoglobin A1c [A1c], blood pressure, and lipids) remains suboptimal. Lower A1c levels have been shown to be associated with lower diabetes complication rates, and reduced medical costs have been reported in individuals with diabetes who have improved glycemic control. While many studies have quantified the impact of A1c control on medical claim costs, this article provides new information on the cost and event impact of better control for all 3 metrics for the commercial population and Medicare population separately. OBJECTIVES: To (a) quantify current type 2 diabetes control rates for A1c, blood pressure, and lipids and (b) model the impact of scenarios for better control of these metrics on diabetes complication rates and complication costs in people with diabetes in commercially insured and Medicare populations. METHODS: 858 adults with commercial (n = 392) or Medicare (n = 466) coverage and type 2 diabetes were identified from approximately 10,000 individuals in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES; combined series 2005-2006 and 2007-2008). Based on each individual's risk factors, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study modeling tool was used to project rates of 7 diabetes complications under status quo A1c, blood pressure, and lipid levels and complication rates under better management. Three improved management scenarios were created to model the impact of better control in all commercially insured and Medicare individuals with type 2 diabetes who had A1c, blood pressure, or lipids not at goal and in a subset of individuals whose A1c levels were ≥ 7%, with or without blood pressure or lipids not at goal. Thomson Reuters MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database (2006-2009) and Medicare 5% sample data (2006-2009), including the eligibility data for each, were used to develop both the average annual costs and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs, adjusted to 2012 dollars, in commercially insured and Medicare fee-for-service patients with diabetes and the cost of diabetes-related complications to monetize the impact of reducing complications. RESULTS: Analysis of NHANES data showed that type 2 diabetes prevalence is 6.1% in commercially insured individuals aged 20 to 64 years and 19.4% in Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. Of patients with type 2 diabetes, 47% of commercially insured patients and 38% of Medicare patients were found to have A1c ≥ 7%. With improved control of A1c, blood pressure, and lipid levels that were not at goal, as modeled in 3 management scenarios, reductions in the probability of complications across all patients with diabetes ranged from 43% to 67% in the commercial population and 28% to 49% in the Medicare population. The cost savings effect from reduced complications across all patients with diabetes ranged from $67 to $105 PPPM in the commercial population and $99 to $158 in the Medicare population. The high end of this savings range yielded a reduction of about 10% in total costs when compared with an average of $1,090 PPPM in commercially insured patients with diabetes and an average of $1,565 PPPM in Medicare patients with diabetes derived from large claims databases, both in projected 2012 dollars. CONCLUSION: Results of this analysis suggest that better control of A1c, blood pressure, and lipids is associated with savings opportunities in commercially insured and Medicare patients with type 2 diabetes. A focus on only patients with uncontrolled A1c offers a somewhat higher per-patient cost reduction than for all uncontrolled diabetes patients but greatly diminishes the number of targeted patients.

Variation in adherence with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) drug therapy guidelines: a retrospective actuarial claims data analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an irreversible and often progressive disease that requires lifelong adherence to complicated drug therapy regimens. The well established Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines recommend specific drug therapy protocols, yet patient adherence to drug therapy and physician adherence to prescribing guidelines is reported to be suboptimal. In this claims based analysis of COPD patients, drug therapy treatment patterns including inhaled corticosteroids and long acting bronchodilator use were evaluated by COPD severity level. METHODS: A cohort of patients with COPD (without co-existing asthma) was identified in Thomas Reuters MarketScan Commercial Database 2007 (diagnosis codes 491.xx, 492.xx, 496.xx). Using one year (2007) of claims data, a COPD severity risk score was calculated for each patient using established claim logic. Severity levels of mild, moderate, severe, and very severe were established to mimic the GOLD severity levels. Each patient's claim experience was examined for inhaled corticosteroid and long acting bronchodilator use for compliance with GOLD guidelines. RESULTS: Prevalence of COPD (without co-existing asthma) was 0.7% (44,366 cases). The distribution of COPD subjects into claim based severity levels was 30% mild, 53% moderate, 14% severe and 3% very severe. Claims for inhaled corticosteroid therapy were identified for 8% of mild and 19% of moderate COPD patients; claims for short acting bronchodilator therapy without concomitant use of long acting bronchodilators were identified for 20% of moderate, 14% of severe and 8% of very severe COPD patients; and claims for single long acting bronchodilator therapy in combination with inhaled corticosteroid therapy were identified for 12% of moderate, 19% of severe and 2% of very severe COPD patients. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests less than optimal compliance with recommended drug therapy treatment for COPD patients based on GOLD guidelines. This study further suggests the utility of claims data analyses for providing reasonable aggregate distributions of COPD severity which allows for health plans and disease management programs to stratify COPD patients by severity level and examine opportunities for improved drug therapy management. Study findings should be considered in the context of the study limitations.