Does a Free Office Visit Affect Primary Care-Seeking Behavior? A Study of New Exchange Health Plan Enrollees in Mississippi.

BACKGROUND: Given the positive association between primary care and overall health, several health plans are offering doctors' visits without patient copay, with the intent to increase primary care use. However, the effectiveness of these offers has not been established in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a free primary care provider (PCP) office visit offered by a health plan on primary care-seeking behaviors. METHODS: This nonrandomized concurrent control study used event/trials logistic regression to compare the differences in primary care utilization between new exchange enrollees in Mississippi who were offered a free nonpreventive PCP visit and concurrent controls from Georgia and Tennessee who were not offered a free visit, between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, which was the first year of the exchange plans. Regression models adjusted for age, sex, plan type, rural-urban designation, and enrollment month. Visits to alternative sites of care were also assessed. RESULTS: The adjusted number of nonpreventive PCP visits did not differ between the states (odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.00). Mississippi residents were significantly more likely to go to the emergency department than the Georgia-Tennessee cohort (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.28-1.39), but they were less likely to visit an urgent care center (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.11) or a retail clinic (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.11-0.17) than their counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being eligible for a free nonpreventive visit, enrollees in Mississippi were no more likely than their counterparts in Georgia and Tennessee to visit a PCP. These findings suggest that removing the cost barrier alone may be insufficient to change primary care-seeking behaviors, and other barriers to care should be addressed.

Mortality Differences Between Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage: A Risk-Adjusted Assessment Using Claims Data.

Medicare Advantage (MA) has grown rapidly since the Affordable Care Act; nearly one-third of Medicare beneficiaries now choose MA. An assessment of the comparative value of the 2 options is confounded by an apparent selection bias favoring MA, as reflected in mortality differences. Previous assessments have been hampered by lack of access to claims diagnosis data for the MA population. An indirect comparison of mortality as an outcome variable was conducted by modeling mortality on a traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare data set, applying the model to an MA data set, and then evaluating the ratio of actual-to-predicted mortality in the MA data set. The mortality model adjusted for clinical conditions and demographic factors. Model development considered the effect of potentially greater coding intensity in the MA population. Further analysis calculated ratios for subpopulations. Predicted, risk-adjusted mortality was lower in the MA population than in FFS Medicare. However, the ratio of actual-to-predicted mortality (0.80) suggested that the individuals in the MA data set were less likely to die than would be predicted had those individuals been enrolled in FFS Medicare. Differences between actual and predicted mortality were particularly pronounced in low income (dual eligibility), nonwhite race, high morbidity, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) subgroups. After controlling for baseline clinical risk as represented by claims diagnosis data, mortality differences favoring MA over FFS Medicare persisted, particularly in vulnerable subgroups and HMO plans. These findings suggest that differences in morbidity do not fully explain differences in mortality between the 2 programs.

Family Physician Readiness for Value-Based Payments: Does Ownership Status Matter?

Value-based payments are rapidly replacing fee-for-service arrangements, necessitating advancements in physician practice capabilities and functions. The objective of this study was to examine potential differences among family physicians who are owners versus employed with respect to their readiness for value-based payment models. The authors surveyed more than 550 family physicians from the American Academy of Family Physician's membership; nearly 75% had made changes to participate in value-based payments. However, owners were significantly more likely to report that their practices had made no changes in value-based payment capabilities than employed physicians (owners 35.2% vs. employed 18.1%, P < 0.05). This study identified 3 key areas in which physician owners' value-based practice capabilities were not as advanced as the employed physician group: (1) quality improvement strategies, (2) human capital investment, and (3) identification of high-risk patients. Specifically, the employed physician group reported more quality improvement strategies, including quality measures, Plan-Do-Study-Act, root cause analysis, and Lean Six Sigma (P < 0.05 for all). More employed physicians reported that their practices had full-time care management staff (19.8% owners vs. 30.8% employed, P < 0.05), while owners were more likely to report that they had no resources/capacity to hire care managers or care coordinators (31.4% owners vs. 19.4% employed, P < 0.05). Owners were significantly more likely to respond that they do not have the resources/capacity to identify high-risk patients (23.1% owners vs. 19.3% employed, P < 0.05). As public and private payers transition to value-based payments, consideration of different population health management needs according to ownership status has the potential to support the adoption of value-based care delivery for family physicians.

2005 to 2014 CT and MRI Utilization Trends in the Context of a Nondenial Prior Authorization Program.

PURPOSE: Reducing unnecessary testing may benefit patients, as some computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) expose patients to contrast, and all CTs expose patients to radiation. This observational study with historical controls assessed shifts in CT and MRI utilization over a 9-year period after a private health insurer's implementation of a nondenial, consultative prior authorization program. METHODS/MATERIALS: Normalized rates of exams per 1000 person-years were plotted over 2005 to 2014 for people with commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans in the San Antonio market, with 2005 utilization set as the baseline. The program was implemented at the start of 2006. Computed tomography and MRI utilization changes were compared with contemporaneous changes in low-tech plain film and ultrasound utilization. RESULTS: Growth in high-tech imaging utilization decelerated or reversed during the period. In 2006, CT utilization dropped to between 76% and 90% of what it had been in 2005, depending on the plan. In 2014, it was between 52% and 88% of its initial level. MRI utilization declined to between 86% and 94% of its initial level in 2006, and then to between 50% and 75% in 2014. Ultrasound utilization was greater in 2014 than in 2005 for some plans. Plain film utilization declined between 2005 and 2014 for all plans. CONCLUSION: There was an immediate and sustained decline in CT and MRI utilization after the introduction of the program. While many factors may have impacted the long-term trends, the mixed trends in low-tech imaging suggest that a decline in low-tech imaging was not responsible for the decline in CT and MRI utilization.

The physician-insurer dynamic must shift to successfully implement value-based payments.

Decades of practice under a system that set the financial interests of physicians and insurers at odds, has resulted in physician distrust of insurers being cited a key obstacle to value-based arrangements. Insurers must work to shift the insurer-provider relationship from one that's transactional to a partnership built on trust. Even when physicians and insurers agree philosophically on quality over quantity, there are practical challenges. Insurers can provide the data, systems and analytical insights that help inform the physician's care strategy. Implementing value-based payments requires the two groups to build trust and work together to change long-established systems.

Achieving the Meaningful Use Standard: A Model for Implementing Change Within Medical Practices.

PURPOSE: Change management in medical practices is often an uphill battle. Lack of agreement on standards, ineffective leadership, inertia, inconsistent access to data, and inability to clearly define and communicate the benefits of change represent significant barriers to success. In 2009, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act created the meaningful use (MU) incentive program administered through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). To earn financial incentive payments, eligible physicians adopt certified electronic health record (EHR) technology and use it to meet specified objectives. In response, leadership of the US Oncology Network launched an MU initiative designed to create a comprehensive system of tools, education, performance feedback, and support that would facilitate successful achievement of the MU standards. METHODS: The EHR used by the majority of network physicians was modified according to the MU specifications, and EHR certification was obtained. Baseline compliance data were measured for each of the MU standards and for each of the eligible physicians. Physician and staff workflow processes necessary for consistent data input and compliance were outlined for each standard. Each practice identified one or more staff members who would act as MU leads. Training modules were developed for the MU leads as well as for physicians, mid-level providers, nurses, medical assistants, and office staff. An MU measurement tool was created, designed to target areas for MU process improvement and automate reporting. Data were updated and verified weekly to provide timely feedback to practices, including individual physician detail and links to individual patient records. RESULTS: A total of 943 practitioners within the US Oncology Network met eligibility criteria for the MU program. At baseline, compliance with each MU standard ranged from 0% (clinical summaries) to 100% (computerized order entry). In many cases, data were simply not being entered into the EHR. Time from program launch to first submission of MU attestation was 18 months. As of March 2013, 781 practitioners (83%) had achieved the MU standards. In comparison, CMS reported that 44% of all eligible physicians and 26% of hematologists and oncologists had successfully achieved Medicare MU standards and received payment. CONCLUSION: Successful change management in medical practices can be accomplished through a comprehensive system of leadership, education, support, timely feedback of data, and clearly defined incentives. Incentives alone may be far less effective.

Defining Value in Cancer Care: AVBCC 2012 Steering Committee Report.

Approximately 200 oncologists, payers, employers, managed care executives, pharmacy benefit managers, and other healthcare stakeholders convened in Houston, TX, on March 28-31, 2012, for the Second Annual Conference of the Association for Value-Based Cancer Care (AVBCC). The mission of the conference was to align the various perspectives around the growing need of defining value in cancer care and developing strategies to enhance patient outcomes. The AVBCC conference presented a forum for the various viewpoints from all the stakeholders across the cancer care continuum, featuring more than 20 sessions and symposia led by nearly 30 oncology leaders. The discussions focused on current trends and challenges in optimizing value in oncology by reducing or controlling cost while improving care quality and patient outcomes, introducing emerging approaches to management and tools that providers and payers are using to enhance cancer care collaboratively. The AVBCC Second Annual Conference was opened by a Steering Committee discussion of 11 panel members who attempted to define value in cancer care and articulated action steps that can help to implement value into cancer care delivery. The following summary represents highlights from the Steering Committee discussion, which was moderated by Gene Beed, MD, and Gary M. Owens, MD.

Pathways, outcomes, and costs in colon cancer: retrospective evaluations in two distinct databases.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to use two separate databases to evaluate the clinical outcomes and the economic impact of adherence to Level I Pathways, an evidence-based oncology treatment program in the treatment of colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The first study used clinical records from an electronic health record (EHR) database to evaluate survival according to pathway status in patients with colon cancer. Disease-free survival in patients receiving adjuvant treatment and overall survival in patients receiving first-line therapy for metastatic disease was calculated. The second study used claims data from a national administrative claims database to examine direct medical costs and use, including the cost of chemotherapy and of chemotherapy-related hospitalizations according to pathway status. RESULTS: Overall costs from the national claims database-including total cost per case and chemotherapy costs-were lower for patients treated according to Level I Pathways (on-Pathway) compared with patients not treated according to Level I Pathways. Use of pathways was also associated with a shorter duration of therapy and lower rate of chemotherapy-related hospital admissions. Survival for patients on-Pathway in the EHR database was comparable with those in the published literature. CONCLUSION: Results from two distinct databases suggest that treatment of patients with colon cancer on-Pathway costs less; use of these pathways demonstrates clinical outcomes consistent with published evidence.

Pathways, outcomes, and costs in colon cancer: retrospective evaluations in 2 distinct databases.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to use 2 separate databases to evaluate the clinical outcomes and the economic impact of adherence to Level I Pathways, an evidence-based oncology treatment program in the treatment of colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The first study used clinical records from an electronic health record (EHR) database to evaluate survival according to pathway status in patients with colon cancer. Disease-free survival in patients receiving adjuvant treatment and overall survival in patients receiving first-line therapy for metastatic disease was calculated. The second study used claims data from a national administrative claims database to examine direct medical costs and use, including the cost of chemotherapy and of chemotherapy-related hospitalizations according to pathway status. RESULTS: Overall costs from the national claims database-including total cost per case and chemotherapy costs-were lower for patients treated according to Level I Pathways (on- Pathway) compared with patients not treated according to Level I Pathways. Use of pathways was also associated with a shorter duration of therapy and lower rate of chemotherapy-related hospital admissions. Survival for patients on- Pathways in the EHR database was comparable with that in the published literature. CONCLUSION: Results from 2 distinct databases suggest that treatment of patients with colon cancer on-Pathways costs less; use of these pathways demonstrates clinical outcomes consistent with published evidence.

Cost effectiveness of evidence-based treatment guidelines for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer in the community setting.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Level I Pathways, a program designed to ensure the delivery of evidence-based care, among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated in the outpatient community setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included patients with NSCLC initiating a chemotherapy regimen between July 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007, at eight practices in the US Oncology network. Patients were characterized with respect to age, sex, stage, performance status, and line of therapy and were classified by whether they were treated according to Level I Pathways guidelines. Twelve-month cost of care and overall survival were compared between patients treated on Pathway and off Pathway. A net monetary benefit approach and corresponding cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Level I Pathways. RESULTS: Overall, outpatient costs were 35% lower for on-Pathway versus off-Pathway patients (average 12-month cost, $18,042 v $27,737, respectively). Costs remained significantly less for patients treated on Pathway versus off Pathway in the adjuvant and first-line settings, whereas no difference in overall cost was observed in patients in the second-line setting. No difference in overall survival was observed overall or by line of therapy. In the net monetary benefit analysis, after adjusting for potential confounders, we found that treating patients on Pathway was cost effective across a plausible range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study suggest that treating patients according to evidence-based guidelines is a cost-effective strategy for delivering care to those with NSCLC.

An observational, retrospective analysis of retreatment with bortezomib for multiple myeloma.

PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective chart review of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) was to describe patterns of retreatment with bortezomib-based therapy and responses to retreatment in a community-based setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were retrospectively extracted from the medical records of patients treated in US Oncology-affiliated community oncology clinics who received 2 separate treatments with bortezomib-based therapy. Eligible patients had > or = 60 days between treatments and > or = 4 bortezomib doses during initial treatment. Responses were determined primarily by laboratory values. Response categories included (1) very good partial response (VGPR), > or = 90% M-protein decrease; (2) partial response (PR), 50%-89% decrease; and (3) less than PR (< PR), < 50% decrease, excluding progressive disease (PD). RESULTS: Retreatment response data were available for 82 patients; 5 (6%) had VGPR, 12 (15%) had PR, 52 (63%) had < PR, 5 (6%) had PD, and 8 (10%) died. Among 62 patients with response assessments for initial treatment and retreatment, VGPR/PR rates to retreatment were 44%, 23%, and 13% among patients with VGPR, PR, and < PR to initial treatment, respectively. Median time between bortezomib treatments was 9.7 months; 29% of patients received non-bortezomib therapy between treatments. The most common treatment pattern (58% of patients) was single-agent bortezomib at initial treatment and retreatment. Toxicity contributed to discontinuation in 38% of patients during initial treatment and 22% during retreatment; rates of neuropathy contributing to discontinuation were 18% and 6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Retreatment with bortezomib-based therapy is feasible, with predictable toxicities. This observational analysis supports bortezomib alone or in combination as a retreatment option after initial bortezomib treatment in patients with relapsed MM.

A phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, study of iseganan for the reduction of stomatitis in patients receiving stomatotoxic chemotherapy.

The invasion and colonization of oral cavity mucosal tissues by microflora may contribute to the pathophysiology of ulcerative oral mucositis (UOM). Iseganan is an analog of protegrin-1, a naturally occurring peptide with broad-spectrum microbicidal activity. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of iseganan in preventing UOM after stomatotoxic therapy. Patients received an oral rinse, consisting of iseganan 9mg or placebo, to be swished/swallowed six times daily, starting with stomatotoxic therapy and continuing up to 21 days. Patients were assessed for stomatitis and UOM, and administered a questionnaire evaluating mouth pain and difficulty swallowing thrice weekly. The primary study efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who did not have peak stomatitis NCI-CTC grade >or=2. Between November 2001 and June 2002, 502 patients were randomized to receive iseganan (251) or placebo (251). Equivalent numbers of patients in both cohorts received bone marrow or peripheral blood allogeneic or autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT). Forty-three percent and 37% of iseganan and placebo patients, respectively, did not have peak stomatitis grade =2 (P = 0.182). There was no significant difference between the cohorts in stomatitis severity, incidence of UOM, peak mouth pain, peak difficulty swallowing, amount of opiate analgesics used, or adverse event type or incidence. A major impact of Iseganan on reducing stomatitis, UOM, or its clinical sequelae in patients receiving stomatotoxic therapy was not detected on this study.

Impact of long-acting growth factors on practice dynamics and patient satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify time expended, patient satisfaction, and econometrics associated with short-acting (sargramostim, epoetin alfa) and long-acting (darbepoetin alfa, pegfilgrastim) growth factors. DESIGN: Retrospective resource utilization and prospective two-phase observational study. METHODS: During week 1, time-motion measurements related to patient treatment and drug preparation were collected for scheduling; check-in; phlebotomy; laboratory; and drug preparation, administration, and recording. Drug utilization for one chemotherapy cycle during weeks 2 and 3 was assessed for sargramostim, pegfilgrastim, epoetin alfa, darbepoetin alfa, sargramostim plus epoetin alfa, and pegfilgrastim plus darbepoetin alfa. Patients completed a satisfaction survey. RESULTS: Among 140 patients (mean age 58 yrs), mean chemotherapy cycle duration was 19 days. A total of 268 events were observed. Mean total staff time/patient visit for drug administration was 22.1 minutes, with most time spent on scheduling (5.5 min) and drug preparation, administration, recording (5.2 min). For sargramostim only versus pegfilgrastim only, pegfilgrastim resulted in a 37% reduction (p < 0.01) in all visits and an 85% reduction (p < 0.01) in mean number of doses. For epoetin alfa only versus darbepoetin alfa only, darbepoetin alfa resulted in a 48% reduction (p < 0.01) in mean number of doses. The most common dosage of epoetin alfa was 40,000 U/week (63.6%) and that of darbepoetin alfa was 200 microg every other week (92%), but complete blood counts were obtained weekly. For pegfilgrastim plus darbepoetin alfa versus sargramostim plus epoetin alfa, a 45% reduction (p < 0.01) in total visits and a 77% reduction (p < 0.01) in mean number of doses were noted in the former group. In 69 patients converted to long-acting drugs, 65 actual hours for a single treatment cycle were saved. For patients receiving pegfilgrastim plus darbepoetin alfa, there was a 45% reduction in total clinic visits, 77% reduction in doses, and staff time savings of 1.9 hours/patient/cycle of chemotherapy. Fifty-four patients completed the survey and trended toward neutral in their responses, with moderate disagreement that receiving injections is painful. CONCLUSION: Long-acting growth factors resulted in significant time savings for staff and providers by reducing the number of necessary office visits for drug administration. These time savings can significantly improve the quality of life for patients, as well as nurses, physicians, and caregivers.

A phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational trial of iseganan for the prevention of oral mucositis in patients receiving stomatotoxic chemotherapy (PROMPT-CT trial).

Microfloral invasion and colonization of oral cavity mucosal tissues contribute to the pathophysiology of ulcerative oral mucositis (UOM). Iseganan is an analog of Protegrin-1, a naturally occurring peptide with broad-spectrum microbicidal activity. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to evaluate iseganan in preventing UOM after stomatotoxic therapy. Patients received an oral rinse of iseganan 9 mg or placebo, swished/swallowed 6 times daily, starting with stomatotoxic therapy and continuing for 21-28 days. One hundred sixty three and 160 patients, respectively, were randomized to receive iseganan or placebo. One hundred and two patients (32%) were affected by a drug dispensing error, caused by a flawed computerized allocation system. Among all 323 patients, analyzed according to randomization assignment, 43% and 33% of iseganan and placebo patients, respectively, did not develop UOM (P = 0.067). On an 11-point scale, iseganan patients experienced less mouth pain (3.0 and 3.8 (P = 0.041), throat pain (3.8 and 4.6 (P = 0.048)), and difficulty swallowing (3.9 and 4.7 (P = 0.074)), compared to placebo patients. On the 5-point NCI CTC scale, iseganan patients experienced lower stomatitis scores (1.6 and 2.0 (P = 0.0131). Iseganan was well tolerated; no systemic absorption was detected. Iseganan is safe and may be effective in reducing UOM and its clinical sequelae.