Reexamining Differences Between Black and White Veterans in Hospital Mortality and Other Outcomes in Veterans Affairs and Other Hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: To examine Black-White patient differences in mortality and other hospital outcomes among Veterans treated in Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA hospitals. BACKGROUND: Lower hospital mortality has been documented in older Black patients relative to White patients, yet the mechanisms have not been determined. Comparing other hospital outcomes and multiple hospital systems may help inform the reasons for these differences. METHODS: Repeated cross-sectional analysis of hospitalization records was conducted for Veterans discharged in VA and non-VA hospitals from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017 in 11 states. Hospital outcomes included 30-day mortality, 30-day readmissions, inpatient costs, and length of stay. Hospitalizations were for acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, gastrointestinal bleeding, heart failure, pneumonia, and stroke. Differences in outcomes were estimated between Black and White patients for VA and non-VA hospitals and age groups younger than 65 years or 65 years and older in regression models adjusting for patient and hospital factors. RESULTS: There were a total of 459,574 study patients. Older Black patients had lower adjusted mortality for acute myocardial infarction, gastrointestinal bleeding, heart failure, and pneumonia. Adjusted probability of readmission was higher and adjusted mean length of stay and costs were greater for older Black patients relative to White patients in non-VA hospitals for several conditions. Fewer differences were observed in younger patients and in VA hospitals. CONCLUSION: While older Black patients had lower mortality, other outcomes compared poorly with White patients. Differences were not fully explained by observable patient and hospital factors although social determinants may contribute to these differences.

Growth of Community Outpatient Care in the Veterans Affairs System After the MISSION Act.

BACKGROUND: The Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act of 2018 authorized a major expansion of purchased care in the community for Veterans experiencing access barriers in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. OBJECTIVE: To estimate changes in primary care, mental health, and emergency/urgent care visits in the VA and community fiscal years (FY) 2018-2021 and differences between rural and urban clinics. DESIGN: A national, longitudinal study of VA clinics and outpatient utilization. Clinic-level analysis was conducted to estimate changes in number and proportion of clinic visits provided in the community associated with the MISSION Act adjusting for clinic characteristics and underlying time trends. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 1050 VA clinics and 6.6 million Veterans assigned to primary care. MAIN MEASURES: Number of primary care, mental health, and emergency/urgent care visits provided in the VA and community and the proportion provided in the community. KEY RESULTS: Nationally, community primary care visits increased by 107% (50,611 to 104,923), community mental health visits increased by 167% (100,701 to 268,976), and community emergency/urgent care visits increased by 129% (142,262 to 325,407) from the first quarter of 2018 to last quarter of 2021. In adjusted analysis, after MISSION Act implementation, there was an increase in community visits as a proportion of total clinic visits for emergency/urgent care and mental health but not primary care. Rural clinics had larger increases in the proportion of community visits for primary care and emergency/urgent care than urban clinics. CONCLUSIONS: After the MISSION Act, more outpatient care shifted to the community for emergency/urgent care and mental health care but not primary care. Community care utilization increased more in rural compared to urban clinics for primary care and emergency/urgent care. These findings highlight the challenges and importance of maintaining provider networks in rural areas to ensure access to care.

The Clinical Resource Hub Telehealth Program and Use of Primary Care, Emergency, and Inpatient Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted delivery of health care services worldwide. We examined the impact of the pandemic on clinics participating in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program, rolled out nationally in October 2019, to improve access to care at under-resourced VA clinics or "spoke" sites through telehealth services delivered by regional "hub" sites. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the CRH program was associated with increased access to primary care, we compared use of primary, emergency, and inpatient care at sites that adopted CRH for primary care (CRH-PC) with sites that did not adopt CRH-PC, pre-post pandemic onset. DESIGN: Difference-in-difference and event study analyses, adjusting for site characteristics. STUDY COHORT: A total of 1050 sites (254 CRH-PC sites; 796 comparison sites), fiscal years (FY) 2019-2021. INTERVENTION: CRH Program for Primary Care. MAIN MEASURES: Quarterly number of VA visits per site for primary care (across all and by modality, in-person, video, and phone), emergency care, and inpatient care. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, CRH-PC sites, compared with non-CRH-PC sites, had on average 221 additional primary care visits (a volume increase of 3.4% compared to pre-pandemic). By modality, CRH-PC sites had 643 fewer in-person visits post-pandemic (- 14.4%) but 723 and 128 more phone and video visits (+ 39.9% and + 159.5%), respectively. CRH-PC sites, compared with non-CRH-PC sites, had fewer VA ED visits (- 4.2%) and hospital stays (- 5.1%) in VA medical centers. Examining visits per patient, we found that CRH-PC sites had 48 additional telephone primary care visits per 1000 primary care patients (an increase of 9.8%), compared to non-program sites. CONCLUSIONS: VA's pre-pandemic rollout of a new primary care telehealth program intended to improve access facilitated primary care visits during the pandemic, a period fraught with care disruptions, and limited in-person health care delivery, indicating the potential for the program to offer health system resilience.

Lower comorbidity scores and severity levels in Veterans Health Administration hospitals: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies found that documentation of comorbidities differed when Veterans received care within versus outside Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Changes to medical center funding, increased attention to performance reporting, and expansion of Clinical Documentation Improvement programs, however, may have caused coding in VHA to change. METHODS: Using repeated cross-sectional data, we compared Elixhauser-van Walraven scores and Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) severity levels for Veterans' admissions across settings and payers over time, utilizing a linkage of VHA and all-payer discharge data for 2012-2017 in seven US states. To minimize selection bias, we analyzed records for Veterans admitted to both VHA and non-VHA hospitals in the same year. Using generalized linear models, we adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Following adjustment, VHA admissions consistently had the lowest predicted mean comorbidity scores (4.44 (95% CI 4.34-4.55)) and lowest probability of using the most severe DRG (22.1% (95% CI 21.4%-22.8%)). In contrast, Medicare-covered admissions had the highest predicted mean comorbidity score (5.71 (95% CI 5.56-5.85)) and highest probability of using the top DRG (35.3% (95% CI 34.2%-36.4%)). CONCLUSIONS: More effective strategies may be needed to improve VHA documentation, and current risk-adjusted comparisons should account for differences in coding intensity.

Learning from national implementation of the Veterans Affairs Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program for improving access to care: protocol for a six year evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program aims to improve patient access to care by implementing time-limited, regionally based primary or mental health staffing support to cover local staffing vacancies. VA's Office of Primary Care (OPC) designed CRH to support more than 1000 geographically disparate VA outpatient sites, many of which are in rural areas, by providing virtual contingency clinical staffing for sites experiencing primary care and mental health staffing deficits. The subsequently funded CRH evaluation, carried out by the VA Primary Care Analytics Team (PCAT), partnered with CRH program leaders and evaluation stakeholders to develop a protocol for a six-year CRH evaluation. The objectives for developing the CRH evaluation protocol were to prospectively: 1) identify the outcomes CRH aimed to achieve, and the key program elements designed to achieve them; 2) specify evaluation designs and data collection approaches for assessing CRH progress and success; and 3) guide the activities of five geographically dispersed evaluation teams. METHODS: The protocol documents a multi-method CRH program evaluation design with qualitative and quantitative elements. The evaluation's overall goal is to assess CRH's return on investment to the VA and Veterans at six years through synthesis of findings on program effectiveness. The evaluation includes both observational and quasi-experimental elements reflecting impacts at the national, regional, outpatient site, and patient levels. The protocol is based on program evaluation theory, implementation science frameworks, literature on contingency staffing, and iterative review and revision by both research and clinical operations partners. DISCUSSION: Health systems increasingly seek to use data to guide management and decision-making for newly implemented clinical programs and policies. Approaches for planning evaluations to accomplish this goal, however, are not well-established. By publishing the protocol, we aim to increase the validity and usefulness of subsequent evaluation findings. We also aim to provide an example of a program evaluation protocol developed within a learning health systems partnership.

A Primary Care Telehealth Pilot Program to Improve Access: Associations with Patients' Health Care Utilization and Costs.

Background: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) piloted an innovative video telehealth program called Virtual Integrated Multisite Patient Aligned Care Teams (V-IMPACT) in fiscal year (FY) 2014. V-IMPACT set up one regional "hub" site where primary care (PC) teams provided regular PC through telehealth services to patients in outlying "spoke" sites that experienced gaps in provider coverage. We evaluated associations between clinic-level adoption of V-IMPACT and patients' utilization and VHA's costs for primary, emergency, and inpatient care. Materials and Methods: This observational study used repeated cross-sections of 208,612 unique veteran patients assigned to a PC team in 22 V-IMPACT spoke sites from FY2013 to FY2018. V-IMPACT adoption in a spoke site was indicated if more than 1% of patients assigned to PC in a site used V-IMPACT services during the year. Association between V-IMPACT adoption and outcomes were assessed using mixed-effects models. Results: V-IMPACT adoption was associated with increased telehealth visits for PC (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 2.42 [1.29 to 4.55]) and for primary care mental health integration (IRR = 7.25 [2.69 to 19.54]). V-IMPACT adoption was not associated with in-person visits, or with total visits (in-person plus video telehealth). V-IMPACT adoption was also not associated with acute hospital stays, emergency department visits, or VHA costs. Conclusions: Programs such as VHA's V-IMPACT can increase telehealth visits for PC, allowing successful transition across modalities and facilitating continuity of care without impacting total care. Programs should track substitution of in-person visits with telehealth visits and examine its effects on patients' health outcomes, satisfaction, and travel costs.

Use of the Veterans' Choice Program and Attrition From Veterans Health Administration Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Concerns over timely access and waiting times for appointments in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) spurred the push towards greater privatization. In 2014, VHA increased the provision of care from community providers through the Veterans' Choice Program (Choice). OBJECTIVES: We examined the characteristics of patients and practices more likely to use Choice care and whether using Choice care affected patients' attrition from VHA primary care. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a longitudinal study of VHA primary care users in the fiscal year 2015 and their attrition 2 years later. In the multivariate analysis, we examined whether attrition from VHA primary care was related to prior use of Choice care. SUBJECTS: A total of 1.4 million nonelderly patients diagnosed with chronic conditions. MEASURES: Choice outpatient care utilization was measured in the baseline year. Attrition was measured as not receiving any VHA primary care in 2 subsequent years. RESULTS: In our cohort, 93,710 (7%) patients used some Choice outpatient care, and these patients were more likely to be female, White or Hispanic, to have more primary care utilization at baseline, and to have long driving distances to VHA care. Practices which sent more patients out for Choice care had lower mean scores for patient-centered medical home implementation and longer mean waiting times for appointments. In the adjusted analysis, the probability of attrition was significantly lower (-0.009) among patients who used Choice outpatient care (0.036) versus patients who did not (0.044) (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of community outpatient providers in the Choice program was associated with less attrition from VHA primary care.

Veterans' Reliance on VA Care by Type of Service and Distance to VA for Nonelderly VA-Medicaid Dual Enrollees.

BACKGROUND: Not much is known about nonelderly veterans and their reliance on care from the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system when they have access to non-VA care. OBJECTIVES: To estimate VA reliance for nonelderly veterans enrolled in VA and Medicaid. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal analysis of Medicaid claims data and VA administrative data to compare patients' utilization of VA and Medicaid services 12 months before and for up to 12 months after Medicaid enrollment began. SUBJECTS: Nonelderly veterans (below 65 y) receiving VA care and newly enrolled in Medicaid, calendar years 2006-2010 (N=19,890). MEASURES: VA reliance (proportion of care received in VA) for major categories of outpatient and inpatient care. RESULTS: Patients used VA outpatient care at similar levels after enrolling in Medicaid with the exceptions of emergency department (ED) and obstetrics/gynecology care, which decreased. VA inpatient utilization was similar after Medicaid enrollment for most types of care. VA-adjusted outpatient reliance was highest for mental health care (0.99) and lowest for ED care (0.02). VA-adjusted inpatient reliance was highest for respiratory (0.80) and cancer stays (0.80) and lowest for musculoskeletal stays (0.20). Associations between VA reliance and distance to VA providers varied by type of care. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans dually enrolled in Medicaid received most of their outpatient care from the VA except ED, obstetrics/gynecology, and dental care. Patients received most of their inpatient care from Medicaid except mental health, respiratory, and cancer care. Sensitivity to travel distance to VA providers explained some of these differences.

High Quality of Care Persists With Shifting Depression Services From VA Specialty to Integrated Primary Care.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Offering depression collaborative care services in primary care (PC) settings can reduce use of nonintegrated mental health care resources and improve mental health care access, particularly for vulnerable PC patients. Tests of effects on depression care quality, however, are needed. We examined overall quality of depression care and tested whether increasing clinic engagement in Veterans Affairs (VA)'s Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) services was associated with differences in depression care quality over time. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective longitudinal cohort study of 80,136 Veterans seen in 26 Southern California VA PC clinics (October 1, 2008-September 30, 2013). Using multilevel regression models adjusting for year, clinic, and patient characteristics, we predicted effects of clinic PC-MHI engagement (ie, percent of PC patients receiving PC-MHI services) on 3 VA-developed longitudinal electronic population-based depression quality measures among Veterans newly diagnosed with depression (n=12,533). RESULTS: Clinic PC-MHI engagement rates were not associated with significant depression care quality differences. Across all clinics, average rates of follow-up within 84 or 180 days were, 66.4% and 74.5%, respectively. Receipt of minimally appropriate treatment was 80.5%. Treatment probabilities were significantly higher for vulnerable PC patients (homeless: 4.5%, P=0.03; serious mental illness: 15.2%, P<0.001), than for otherwise similar patients without these characteristics. CONCLUSIONS/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Study patients treated in PC clinics with greater PC-MHI engagement received similarly high quality depression care, and even higher quality for vulnerable patients. Findings support increasing use of PC-MHI models to the extent that they confer some advantage over existing services (eg, access, patient satisfaction) other than quality of care.

Effects of Intensive Primary Care on High-Need Patient Experiences: Survey Findings from a Veterans Affairs Randomized Quality Improvement Trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensive primary care programs aim to coordinate care for patients with medical, behavioral, and social complexity, but little is known about their impact on patient experience when implemented in a medical home. OBJECTIVE: Determine how augmenting the VA's medical home (Patient Aligned Care Team, PACT) with a PACT-Intensive Management (PIM) program influences patient experiences with care coordination, access, provider relationships, and satisfaction. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of patient survey data from a five-site randomized quality improvement study. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand five hundred sixty-six Veterans with hospitalization risk scores ≥ 90th percentile and recent acute care. INTERVENTION: PIM offered patients intensive care coordination, including home visits, accompaniment to specialists, acute care follow-up, and case management from a team staffed by primary care providers, social workers, psychologists, nurses, and/or other support staff. MAIN MEASURES: Patient-reported experiences with care coordination (e.g., health goal assessment, test and appointment follow-up, Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)), access to healthcare services, provider relationships, and satisfaction. KEY RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-nine PIM and 768 PACT patients responded to the survey (response rate 60%). Patients randomized to PIM were more likely than those in PACT to report that they were asked about their health goals (AOR = 1.26; P = 0.046) and that they have a VA provider whom they trust (AOR = 1.35; P = 0.005). PIM patients also had higher mean (SD) PACIC scores compared with PACT patients (2.91 (1.31) vs. 2.75 (1.25), respectively; P = 0.022) and were more likely to report 10 out of 10 on satisfaction with primary care (AOR = 1.25; P = 0.048). However, other effects on coordination, access, and satisfaction did not achieve statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Augmenting VA's patient-centered medical home with intensive primary care had a modestly positive influence on high-risk patients' experiences with care coordination and provider relationships, but did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported access and satisfaction measures.

Impact of Primary Care Intensive Management on High-Risk Veterans' Costs and Utilization: A Randomized Quality Improvement Trial.

Background: Primary care models that offer comprehensive, accessible care to all patients may provide insufficient resources to meet the needs of patients with complex conditions who have the greatest risk for hospitalization. Objective: To assess whether augmenting usual primary care with team-based intensive management lowers utilization and costs for high-risk patients. Design: Randomized quality improvement trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03100526). Setting: 5 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers. Patients: Primary care patients at high risk for hospitalization who had a recent acute care episode. Intervention: Locally tailored intensive management programs providing care coordination, goals assessment, health coaching, medication reconciliation, and home visits through an interdisciplinary team, including a physician or nurse practitioner, a nurse, and psychosocial experts. Measurements: Utilization and costs (including intensive management program expenses) 12 months before and after randomization. Results: 2210 patients were randomly assigned, 1105 to intensive management and 1105 to usual care. Patients had a mean age of 63 years and an average of 7 chronic conditions; 90% were men. Of the patients assigned to intensive management, 487 (44%) received intensive outpatient care (that is, ≥3 encounters in person or by telephone) and 204 (18%) received limited intervention. From the pre- to postrandomization periods, mean inpatient costs decreased more for the intensive management than the usual care group (-$2164 [95% CI, -$7916 to $3587]). Outpatient costs increased more for the intensive management than the usual care group ($2636 [CI, $524 to $4748]), driven by greater use of primary care, home care, telephone care, and telehealth. Mean total costs were similar in the 2 groups before and after randomization. Limitations: Sites took up to several months to contact eligible patients, limiting the time between treatment and outcome assessment. Only VA costs were assessed. Conclusion: High-risk patients with access to an intensive management program received more outpatient care with no increase in total costs. Primary Funding Source: Veterans Health Administration Primary Care Services.

Identifying Latent Subgroups of High-Risk Patients Using Risk Score Trajectories.

OBJECTIVE: Many healthcare systems employ population-based risk scores to prospectively identify patients at high risk of poor outcomes, but it is unclear whether single point-in-time scores adequately represent future risk. We sought to identify and characterize latent subgroups of high-risk patients based on risk score trajectories. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study of 7289 patients discharged from Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals during a 1-week period in November 2012 and categorized in the top 5th percentile of risk for hospitalization. METHODS: Using VA administrative data, we calculated weekly risk scores using the validated Care Assessment Needs model, reflecting the predicted probability of hospitalization. We applied the non-parametric k-means algorithm to identify latent subgroups of patients based on the trajectory of patients' hospitalization probability over a 2-year period. We then compared baseline sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, health service use, and social instability markers between identified latent subgroups. RESULTS: The best-fitting model identified two subgroups: moderately high and persistently high risk. The moderately high subgroup included 65% of patients and was characterized by moderate subgroup-level hospitalization probability decreasing from 0.22 to 0.10 between weeks 1 and 66, then remaining constant through the study end. The persistently high subgroup, comprising the remaining 35% of patients, had a subgroup-level probability increasing from 0.38 to 0.41 between weeks 1 and 52, and declining to 0.30 at study end. Persistently high-risk patients were older, had higher prevalence of social instability and comorbidities, and used more health services. CONCLUSIONS: On average, one third of patients initially identified as high risk stayed at very high risk over a 2-year follow-up period, while risk for the other two thirds decreased to a moderately high level. This suggests that multiple approaches may be needed to address high-risk patient needs longitudinally or intermittently.

Impact of topical fluorouracil cream on costs of treating keratinocyte carcinoma (nonmelanoma skin cancer) and actinic keratosis.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether treatment costs for keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) and actinic keratosis (AK) can be lowered by spending more on chemoprevention. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of 1-course treatment with topical fluorouracil (5-FU) on the face and ears on KC and AK treatment costs over 3 years. METHODS: The Veterans Affairs Keratinocyte Carcinoma Chemoprevention trial compared the efficacy of topical 5-FU 5% with that of vehicle control cream for reducing KC risk. Trial data and administrative data on costs and utilization were analyzed to measure postrandomization encounters and treatment costs for KC and AK care. Adjusted models were used to test for statistically significant differences between treatment arms for number of treatment encounters and costs. RESULTS: One year after randomization, the control arm had a higher mean number of treatment encounters for squamous cell carcinoma (0.04) than the intervention arm (0.01) (P < .01). At 1 year, the intervention arm had lower treatment and dermatologic costs: $2106 (standard deviation, $2079) compared with $2444 (standard deviation, $2716) for the control patients (P = .02). After 3 years, the intervention arm incurred a cost of $771 less per patient. LIMITATIONS: Care not provided or paid for by the Department of Veterans Affairs was not included. Results may not be generalizable to other payers. CONCLUSION: We found significant cost savings for patients treated with 5-FU.

Population-Tailored Care for Homeless Veterans and Acute Care Use, Cost, and Satisfaction: A Prospective Quasi-Experimental Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Although traditional patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) are effective for patients with complex needs, it is unclear whether homeless-tailored PCMHs work better for homeless veterans. We examined the impact of enrollment in a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) homeless-tailored PCMH on health services use, cost, and satisfaction compared with enrollment in a traditional, nontailored PCMH. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, quasi-experimental, single-blinded study at 2 VHA medical centers to assess health services use, cost, and satisfaction during 12 months among 2 groups of homeless veterans: 1) veterans receiving VHA homeless-tailored primary care (Homeless-Patient Aligned Care Team [H-PACT]) and 2) veterans receiving traditional primary care services (PACT). A cohort of 266 homeless veterans enrolled from June 2012 through January 2014. RESULTS: Compared with PACT patients, H-PACT patients had more social work visits (4.6 vs 2.7 visits) and fewer emergency department (ED) visits for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (0 vs 0.2 visits); a significantly smaller percentage of veterans in H-PACT were hospitalized (23.1% vs 35.4%) or had mental health-related ED visits (34.1% vs 47.6%). We found significant differences in primary care provider-specific visits (H-PACT, 5.1 vs PACT, 3.6 visits), mental health care visits (H-PACT, 8.8 vs PACT, 13.4 visits), 30-day prescription drug fills (H-PACT, 40.5 vs PACT, 58.8 fills), and use of group therapy (H-PACT, 40.1% vs PACT, 53.7%). Annual costs per patient were significantly higher in the PACT group than the H-PACT group ($37,415 vs $28,036). In logistic regression model of acute care use, assignment to the H-PACT model was protective as was rating health "good" or better. CONCLUSION: Homeless veterans enrolled in the population-tailored primary care approach used less acute care and costs were lower. Tailored-care models have implications for care coordination in the US Department of Veterans Affairs VA and community health systems.

Team functioning as a predictor of patient outcomes in early medical home implementation.

BACKGROUND: New models of patient-centered primary care such as the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) depend on high levels of interdisciplinary primary care team functioning to achieve improved outcomes. A few studies have qualitatively assessed barriers and facilitators to optimal team functioning; however, we know of no prior study that assesses PCMH team functioning in relationship to patient health outcomes. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to assess the relationships between primary care team functioning, patients' use of acute care, and mortality. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Retrospective longitudinal cohort analysis of patient outcomes measured at two time points (2012 and 2013) after PCMH implementation began in Veterans Health Administration practices. Multilevel models examined practice-level measures of team functioning in relationship to patient outcomes (all-cause and ambulatory care-sensitive condition-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and mortality). We controlled for practice-level factors likely to affect team functioning, including leadership support, provider and staff burnout, and staffing sufficiency, as well as for individual patient characteristics. We also tested the model among a subgroup of vulnerable patients (homeless, mentally ill, or with dementia). RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, higher team functioning was associated with lower mortality (OR = 0.92, p = .04) among all patients and with fewer all-cause admissions (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.90, p < 0.01), ambulatory care-sensitive condition-related admissions (IRR = 0.91, p = .04), and emergency department visits (IRR = 0.91, p = .03) in the vulnerable patient subgroup. CONCLUSION: These early findings give support for the importance of team functioning within PCMH models for achieving improved patient outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A focus on team functioning is important especially in the early implementation of team-based primary care models.

Comparing chronic condition rates using ICD-9 and ICD-10 in VA patients FY2014-2016.

BACKGROUND: Management of patients with chronic conditions relies on accurate measurement. It is unknown how transition to the ICD-10 coding system affected reporting of chronic condition rates over time. We measured chronic condition rates 2 years before and 1 year after the transition to ICD-10 to examine changes in prevalence rates and potential measurement issues in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. METHODS: We developed definitions for 34 chronic conditions using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and compared the prevalence rates of these conditions from FY2014 to 2016 in a 20% random sample (1.0 million) of all VA patients. In each year we estimated the total number of patients diagnosed with the conditions. We regressed each condition on an indicator of ICD-10 (versus ICD-9) measurement to obtain the odds ratio associated with ICD-10. RESULTS: Condition prevalence estimates were similar for most conditions before and after ICD-10 transition. We found significant changes in a few exceptions. Alzheimer's disease and spinal cord injury had more than twice the odds of being measured with ICD-10 compared to ICD-9. HIV/AIDS had one-third the odds, and arthritis had half the odds of being measured with ICD-10. Alcohol dependence and tobacco/nicotine dependence had half the odds of being measured in ICD-10. CONCLUSION: Many chronic condition rates were consistent from FY14-16, and there did not appear to be widespread undercoding of conditions after ICD-10 transition. It is unknown whether increased sensitivity or undercoding led to decreases in mental health conditions.

Effect of Antidepressant Switching vs Augmentation on Remission Among Patients With Major Depressive Disorder Unresponsive to Antidepressant Treatment: The VAST-D Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Less than one-third of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) achieve remission with their first antidepressant. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of 3 common alternate treatments for MDD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From December 2012 to May 2015, 1522 patients at 35 US Veterans Health Administration medical centers who were diagnosed with nonpsychotic MDD, unresponsive to at least 1 antidepressant course meeting minimal standards for treatment dose and duration, participated in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 1 of 3 treatments and evaluated for up to 36 weeks. INTERVENTIONS: Switch to a different antidepressant, bupropion (switch group, n = 511); augment current treatment with bupropion (augment-bupropion group, n = 506); or augment with an atypical antipsychotic, aripiprazole (augment-aripiprazole group, n = 505) for 12 weeks (acute treatment phase) and up to 36 weeks for longer-term follow-up (continuation phase). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was remission during the acute treatment phase (16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Rated [QIDS-C16] score ≤5 at 2 consecutive visits). Secondary outcomes included response (≥50% reduction in QIDS-C16 score or improvement on the Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale), relapse, and adverse effects. RESULTS: Among 1522 randomized patients (mean age, 54.4 years; men, 1296 [85.2%]), 1137 (74.7%) completed the acute treatment phase. Remission rates at 12 weeks were 22.3% (n = 114) for the switch group, 26.9% (n = 136)for the augment-bupropion group, and 28.9% (n = 146) for the augment-aripiprazole group. The augment-aripiprazole group exceeded the switch group in remission (relative risk [RR], 1.30 [95% CI, 1.05-1.60]; P = .02), but other remission comparisons were not significant. Response was greater for the augment-aripiprazole group (74.3%) than for either the switch group (62.4%; RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.09-1.29]) or the augment-bupropion group (65.6%; RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.04-1.23]). No significant treatment differences were observed for relapse. Anxiety was more frequent in the 2 bupropion groups (24.3% in the switch group [n = 124] vs 16.6% in the augment-aripiprazole group [n = 84]; and 22.5% in augment-bupropion group [n = 114]). Adverse effects more frequent in the augment-aripiprazole group included somnolence, akathisia, and weight gain. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among a predominantly male population with major depressive disorder unresponsive to antidepressant treatment, augmentation with aripiprazole resulted in a statistically significant but only modestly increased likelihood of remission during 12 weeks of treatment compared with switching to bupropion monotherapy. Given the small effect size and adverse effects associated with aripiprazole, further analysis including cost-effectiveness is needed to understand the net utility of this approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01421342.

Impact of Medical Home Implementation Through Evidence-based Quality Improvement on Utilization and Costs.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) methods may facilitate practice redesign for more effective implementation of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH). OBJECTIVE: We assessed changes in health care utilization and costs for patients receiving care from practices using an EBQI approach to implement PCMH and comparison practices over a 5-year period. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used longitudinal, electronic data from patients in 6 practices using EBQI and 28 comparison practices implementing standard PCMH for 1 year before and 4 years after PCMH implementation. We analyzed trends in utilization and costs using bivariate analyses and independent effects of EBQI status on outcomes using multivariate regressions adjusting for year, patient and clinic factors, and patient random effects for repeated measures. SUBJECTS: A total of 136,856 patients using Veterans Affairs primary care. MEASURES: Veterans Affairs ambulatory care encounters, emergency department visits, admissions, and total health care costs per patient. RESULTS: After PCMH implementation, overall utilization for primary care, specialty care, and mental health/substance abuse care decreased, whereas utilization for telephone care increased among all practices. Patients also had fewer hospitalizations and lower costs per patient. In adjusted analyses, EBQI practice was independently associated with fewer primary care (IRR=0.85), specialty care (IRR=0.83), and mental health care encounters (IRR=0.69); these effects attenuated over time (all P<0.01). There was no independent effect of EBQI on prescription drug use, acute care, health care costs, or mortality rate relative to comparison practices. CONCLUSION: EBQI methods enhanced the effects of PCMH implementation by reducing ambulatory care while increasing non-face-to-face care.

Costs of Keratinocyte Carcinoma (Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer) and Actinic Keratosis Treatment in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides health care to large numbers of veterans afflicted with keratinocyte carcinoma (KC). OBJECTIVE: To estimate the number of veterans treated for KCs and the related diagnosis, actinic keratosis (AK) and the costs of treating these conditions over a 1-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of veterans diagnosed with KC or AK during fiscal year 2012 using administrative data on outpatient encounters and prescription drugs provided or paid by VHA. Marginal costs of each condition were estimated from a regression model. The authors estimated counts of outpatient encounters, procedures, and costs related to KC and AK care. RESULTS: In 2012, there were 49,229 veterans with basal cell carcinoma, 26,310 veterans with squamous cell carcinoma, and 8,050 veterans with unspecified invasive KC. There were also 197,041 veterans with AK and 6,388 veterans with KC-related diagnoses. The VHA spent $356 million on KC and AK outpatient treatment for procedures, prescription drugs, and other dermatologic care during FY2012. CONCLUSION: There was high prevalence of KC and AK and considerable spending to treat these conditions in VHA. Treatment costs are not generalizable to care provided by non-VHA providers where a facility fee was not incurred.