High-cost high-need patients in Medicaid: segmenting the population eligible for a national complex case management program.

BACKGROUND: High-cost high-need patients are typically defined by risk or cost thresholds which aggregate clinically diverse subgroups into a single 'high-need high-cost' designation. Programs have had limited success in reducing utilization or improving quality of care for high-cost high-need Medicaid patients, which may be due to the underlying clinical heterogeneity of patients meeting high-cost high-need designations. METHODS: Our objective was to segment a population of high-cost high-need Medicaid patients (N = 676,161) eligible for a national complex case management program between January 2012 and May 2015 to disaggregate clinically diverse subgroups. Patients were eligible if they were in the top 5 % of annual spending among UnitedHealthcare Medicaid beneficiaries. We used k-means cluster analysis, identified clusters using an information-theoretic approach, and named clusters using the patients' pattern of acute and chronic conditions. We assessed one-year overall and preventable hospitalizations, overall and preventable emergency department (ED) visits, and cluster stability. RESULTS: Six clusters were identified which varied by utilization and stability. The characteristic condition patterns were: 1) pregnancy complications, 2) behavioral health, 3) relatively few conditions, 4) cardio-metabolic disease, and complex illness with relatively 5) low or 6) high resource use. The patients varied by cluster by average ED visits (2.3-11.3), hospitalizations (0.3-2.0), and cluster stability (32-91%). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that disaggregating subgroups of high-cost high-need patients in a large multi-state Medicaid sample identified clinically distinct clusters of patients who may have unique clinical needs. Segmenting previously identified high-cost high-need populations thus may be a necessary strategy to improve the effectiveness of complex case management programs in Medicaid.

Evaluation of a National Care Coordination Program to Reduce Utilization Among High-cost, High-need Medicaid Beneficiaries With Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Medical, behavioral, and social determinants of health are each associated with high levels of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate a care coordination program designed to provide combined "whole-person care," integrating medical, behavioral, and social support for high-cost, high-need Medicaid beneficiaries by targeting access barriers and social determinants. RESEARCH DESIGN: Individual-level interrupted time series with a comparator group, using person-month as the unit of analysis. SUBJECTS: A total of 42,214 UnitedHealthcare Medicaid beneficiaries (194,834 person-months) age 21 years or above with diabetes, with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medicaid expansion, Supplemental Security Income without Medicare, or dual Medicaid/Medicare. MEASURES: Our outcome measures were any hospitalizations and any ED visits in a given month. Covariates of interest included an indicator for intervention versus comparator group and indicator and spline variables measuring changes in an outcome's time trend after program enrollment. RESULTS: Overall, 6 of the 8 examined comparisons were not statistically significant. Among Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries, we observed a larger projected decrease in ED visit risk among the intervention sample versus the comparator sample at 12 months postenrollment (difference-in-difference: -6.6%; 95% confidence interval: -11.2%, -2.1%). Among expansion beneficiaries, we observed a greater decrease in hospitalization risk among the intervention sample versus the comparator sample at 12 months postenrollment (difference-in-difference: -5.8%; 95% confidence interval: -11.4%, -0.2%). CONCLUSION: A care coordination program designed to reduce utilization among high-cost, high-need Medicaid beneficiaries was associated with fewer ED visits and hospitalizations for patients with diabetes in selected Medicaid programs but not others.

Differential Impact of a Plan-Led Standardized Complex Care Management Intervention on Subgroups of High-Cost High-Need Medicaid Patients.

Interventions to better coordinate care for high-need high-cost (HNHC) Medicaid patients frequently fail to demonstrate changes in hospitalizations or emergency department (ED) use. Many of these interventions are modeled after practice-level complex care management (CCM) programs. The authors hypothesized that a national CCM program may be effective for some subgroups of HNHC patients, and the overall null effect may obfuscate subgroup-level impact. They used a previously published typology defining 6 subgroups of high-cost Medicaid patients and evaluated program impact by subgroup. The analysis used an individual-level interrupted time series with a comparison group. Intervention subjects were high-cost adult Medicaid patients who enrolled in 1 of 2 national CCM programs implemented by UnitedHealthcare (UHC) (n = 39,687). The comparators were patients who met CCM program criteria but were ineligible due to current enrollment in another UHC/Optum led program (N = 26,359). The intervention was a CCM program developed by UHC/Optum to provide "whole person care" delivering standardized interventions to address medical, behavioral, and social needs for HNHC Medicaid patients, and the outcome was probability of hospitalization or ED use in a given month, estimated at 12 months postenrollment. A reduction in risk of ED utilization for 4 of 6 subgroups was found. A reduction in risk of hospitalization for 1 of 6 subgroups was also found. The authors conclude that standardized health plan led CCM programs demonstrate effectiveness for certain subgroups of HNHC patients in Medicaid. This effectiveness is principally in reducing ED risk and may extend to the risk of hospitalization for a small number of patients.

Does catheter type effect pregnancy rate in intrauterine insemination cycles?

PURPOSE: To determine if a soft insemination catheter increases pregnancy rates. METHODS: Seven hundred forty-seven consecutive intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles in 364 women in a reproductive endocrinology office between October 1998 and March 2000. Patients with even birth years were inseminated with the Tomcat catheter, and those with odd birth year with the Wallace IUI catheter. Clinical pregnancy rates were compared. RESULTS: The Wallace catheter group included 180 women for 372 cycles and an overall pregnancy rate of 16.4%. The Tomcat catheter group included 184 women for 375 cycles and an overall pregnancy rate of 18.1%. This difference is not statistically significant (P = 0.61). Potential confounders were accounted for. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the softer Wallace catheter to the less pliable Tomcat catheter during IUI cycles, there was no significant difference in pregnancy rate when using a standard gentle technique that includes not touching the top of the fundus with the catheter.