Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Implementing a Digital Diabetes Prevention Program in a Large, Integrated Health System.

BackgroundThe Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) has been translated into digital formats. We report an economic evaluation of a digital DPP implemented in a large, integrated health care system. MethodsPatients (n = 4148) were invited to participate in digital DPP based on clinical characteristics (HbA1c 5.7%-6.4% and body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) assessed using electronic medical record data. Using a propensity score we matched (1:1) enrolled and not enrolled patients for a total of 784. We identified high-risk patients (ie, above the 50th percentile of risk; n = 202) by calculating each patient's 2-year of developing diabetes. We report the cost of the intervention and the costs of medical care over 12- and 24-month follow-up, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the cost per additional kilogram weight loss at 24 months. ResultsAt 12 months, enrolled patients had lower total costs ($6,926, 95% CI $5,681-$8,171) than not enrolled patients ($7,538, 95% CI $6,293-$8,783). This pattern attenuated slightly at 24 months (enrolled = $16,255, 95% CI $14,097-$18,412; not enrolled = $16,688, 95% CI $14,531-$18,846). We found an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $81.92 per additional kilogram weight loss. For high-risk patients, the digital DPP group had, on average, lower costs and greater weight loss. We found a 55% chance of the digital DPP program being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $150 per additional kilogram of weight loss; at the same willingness-to-pay, there is a 60% chance in the high-risk subgroup. Limitations include the nonrandomized design and potential volunteer bias. ConclusionDigital DPP had a favorable cost-effectiveness profile compared to other lifestyle interventions.

Challenges with implementing the Diabetes Prevention Program for Medicare beneficiaries in an integrated health system.

OBJECTIVES: In April 2018, CMS began reimbursing both clinical and community settings for providing the CDC-recognized Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) to eligible Medicare beneficiaries. To better understand the process of offering the program to Medicare beneficiaries, we interviewed relevant stakeholders in a large, integrated health care delivery system. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 12 delivery system stakeholders. Data were analyzed following a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Stakeholders described systemic challenges to the implementation of Medicare DPP (MDPP), including inadequate reimbursement for the health care system, low awareness of MDPP among patients and providers, and challenges with utilizing third-party vendors to connect patients to CDC-recognized MDPPs. CONCLUSIONS: Although the reimbursement of DPP for Medicare beneficiaries was a landmark decision, the current structure and requirements make it difficult for health systems and community-based providers to implement and promote this benefit. This study highlights the challenges that even integrated health systems are facing to implement MDPP, as well as potential strategies to overcome these barriers and expand the reach of the program. Medicare should seek ways to increase the financial incentives and decrease the barriers associated with implementing MDPP.

Patient Interest in Receiving Assistance with Self-Reported Social Risks.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated how often patients who reported social risk factors requested assistance with these risks in an integrated health system. METHODS: We examined how self-reports of risk related to stated desire for help with that risk reported during social risk screenings at Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW). We examined how patient characteristics were associated with desire for help with each social risk domain using logistic regression. RESULTS: Approximately 24% (n = 7,807) of the 32,865 KPNW members aged ≥ 18 years who were screened between June 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019, reported at least 1 social risk. More than half of patients who reported a risk were risk/help concordant (i.e., they also wanted help with that risk). The highest concordance (81.7%) was observed among patients reporting medical financial hardship. Several demographic, health, and other factors were associated with concordance across domains. CONCLUSIONS: Patients do not request assistance for all reported social needs. Our findings could help shape future work examining patients' reasons for not accepting assistance and developing interventions to help patients with high social risk more effectively.

Characterizing employment of colorectal cancer survivors using electronic health records.

OBJECTIVE: Although the value of collecting occupational data is well-established, these data are not systematically collected in clinical practice. We assessed the availability of electronic health record (EHR)-based occupation data within a large integrated health care system to determine the feasibility of its use in research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach to extract EHR data and define employment status, employer, and employment industry of 1107 colorectal cancer survivors. This was a secondary analysis of a subset of the Patient Outcomes Research to Advance Learning (PORTAL) colorectal cancer cohort. RESULTS: We categorized the employment industry for 46% of the cohort. Employment status was available for 58% of the cohort. The employer was missing for over 95% of the cohort. CONCLUSION: By combining data from structured and free-text EHR fields, we identified employment status and industry for approximately half of our sample. Findings demonstrate limitations of EHR data and underscore the need for systematic collection of occupation data in clinical practice.

Evaluating the Implementation of Digital and In-Person Diabetes Prevention Program in a Large, Integrated Health System: Natural Experiment Study Design.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of a Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) in both in-person and digital health-care settings has been increasing. The purpose of this article is to describe the protocol of a mixed-methods, natural experiment study designed to evaluate the implementation of DPP in a large, integrated health system. METHODS: Kaiser Permanente Northwest patients who were 19 to 75 years with prediabetes (hemoglobin A1c or glycated hemoglobin, 5.7-6.4) and obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) were invited, via the Kaiser Permanente Northwest patient portal, to participate in the digital (n = 4124) and in-person (n = 2669) DPP during 2016 through 2018. Primary (weight) and secondary (hemoglobin A1c or glycated hemoglobin level) outcome data will be obtained from electronic health records. A cost-effectiveness analysis as well as qualitative interviews with patients (enrolled and not enrolled in the DPP) and stakeholders will be conducted to examine further implementation, acceptability, and sustainability. CONCLUSION: The mixed-methods, natural experiment design we will use to evaluate Kaiser Permanente Northwest's implementation of the digital and in-person DPP builds on existing evidence related to the effectiveness of these two DPP delivery modes and will contribute new knowledge related to best practices for implementing and sustaining the DPP within large health systems over the long term.

Taking opioids in times of crisis: Institutional oversight, chronic pain and suffering in an integrated healthcare delivery system in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: Opioid treatment for chronic pain has garnered heightened public attention and political pressure to control a devastating public health crisis in the United States (U.S.). Resulting policy changes, together with ongoing public and political attention, have pushed health care systems and providers to lower doses or deprescribe and taper patients off opioids. However, little attention has been paid to the impact of such practice changes on patients who had relied on opioid treatment to manage their chronic pain. The aim of this article is to explore experiences with opioid-related care under aggressive tapering efforts and concomitant heightened monitoring and institutional oversight among patients with chronic pain in an integrated delivery system through in-depth interviews. METHODS: We interviewed 97 patients with chronic pain who were assigned to the usual care arm of the Pain Program for Active Coping and Training (PPACT) study. These patients had been prescribed opioids as part of their treatment regimens and taken opioids closely monitored by their health care providers. We followed the framework method for coding and analysing transcripts using NVivo 12. RESULTS: The experiences of these patients during this period of change can be understood through three interconnected themes: (1) many patients taking opioids experience debilitating physical side effects; (2) navigating opioid treatment contributes to significant emotional distress among many patients with chronic pain and; (3) the quality of patients' relationship with their primary care provider can be negatively affected by negotiations regarding long-term opioid treatment for chronic pain. CONCLUSION: We highlight the importance of utilizing communication approaches that are patient-centered and include shared decision making during the tapering and/or deprescribing processes of opioids and ensuring alternative pain treatments are available to patients with chronic pain.

Barriers to eliciting patient goals and values in shared decision-making breast cancer surgery consultations: An ethnographic and interview study.

OBJECTIVE: Previous research has demonstrated the importance of eliciting patients' goals and values during shared decision-making (SDM), but this does not occur in most SDM conversations. Understanding challenges to eliciting patients' goals and values is crucial. This study assessed how clinicians balanced sharing medical information and considering patients' goals and values during breast cancer surgery consultation in an integrated health care system. METHODS: We conducted interviews with clinicians (n = 6) and patients (n = 11) and conducted naturalistic, ethnographic observations of eight surgical consultations in a multidisciplinary breast cancer clinic. We analyzed the data following the template method using the qualitative software NVivo 10. RESULTS: Clinicians prioritized sharing medical information. We identified four patient factors necessary to integrate patients' values and goals into the conversation in addition to sharing medical information: ability to process large quantities of information quickly, willingness to embrace swift decision-making, ability to quickly formulate one's values, and prioritization of surgical choice as the goal of the conversation. CONCLUSIONS: We found that SDM implementation results in practices that emphasize information and choice, with less focus on patient goals and values. More research is needed to explore factors that may encourage the elicitation of patients' goals and values.