Costs and Health Care Utilization Analysis of Medical Group Visits for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in Community Health Centers.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the economic impact of group visits (GVs) in adults with uncontrolled diabetes in community health centers (CHCs) in the United States. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this prospective controlled trial, we implemented 6 monthly GV sessions in 5 CHCs and compared intervention patients (n=49) to control patients (n=72) receiving usual care within the same CHCs. We conducted patient chart reviews to obtain health care utilization data for the prior 6 months at baseline, 6 months (during the GV implementation), and 12 months (after the implementation). We also collected monthly logs of CHC expenses and staff time spent on activities related to GVs. Per-patient total costs included CHCs' expenses and costs associated with staff time and patients' health care use. For group comparison, we used the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the bootstrapping method that was to bootstrap generalized estimating equation models. RESULTS: The GV group had fewer 6-month hospitalizations (mean: GV: 0.06 vs. control: 0.24, rate: 6.1% vs. 19.4%) ( P ≤ 0.04) and similar emergency department visits at 12 months than the control group. Implementing GV incurred $1770 per-patient. The intervention cost $1597 more than the control at 6 months ($3021 vs. $1424) but saved $1855 at 12 months ($857 vs. $2712) ( P =0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The diabetes GV care model reduced hospitalizations and had cost savings at 12 months, while it improved patients' diabetes-related quality of life and glucose control. Future studies should assess its lifetime cost-effectiveness through a randomized controlled trial.

Factors related to recruitment and retention of patients into diabetes group visits in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To examine factors related to recruitment of eligible patients and retention of enrolled patients in diabetes group visits (GVs). METHOD: As part of a cluster randomized trial, 272 eligible patients were contacted and 75 patients were eventually enrolled in GVs at six community health centers (CHC). Fisher's exact tests and χ2 tests were used to compare enrolled and nonenrolled patients by patient recruitment method, gender and preferred language. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate characteristics associated with GV attendance such as diabetes self-empowerment and diabetes-associated distress. Content analysis was used to analyse patients' open-ended survey responses, and template analysis was used to analyse CHC staff interviews. RESULTS: In terms of recruitment and enrollment analysis, patients who received in-person contact only and both phone and in-person contact comprised a greater fraction of the enrolled than unenrolled group, while those who received phone only and both phone and mail comprised a smaller fraction of the enrolled than unenrolled group (p = 0.004). In terms of retention analysis, 70 of the 75 enrolled patients attended at least one GV (93%). The average number of GVs was 3.2 out of 6 visits. Higher GV attendance was associated with lower baseline diabetes empowerment (p = 0.03). Patients' most common self-reported motivating factors to attend GVs were to learn more about diabetes, gain improved blood glucose control and find support from peers. CONCLUSION: In-person recruitment for GVs at CHCs was more effective than recruitment by telephone/mail. Patients who felt less empowered to manage their diabetes were most motivated to attend GVs. These findings could help clinicians implement targeted recruitment of patient populations who are more likely to attend diabetes GVs and tailor self-management education interventions to their patient populations, particularly for underserved patients who face disparate clinical outcomes.

Assessing the effectiveness of a diabetes group visit training for health center staff: a pilot study of five Midwestern community health centers.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes group visits are shared appointments that include diabetes education in a group setting and individual visits with a medical provider. An 18-month pilot study was designed to evaluate organizational capacity and staff preparedness in implementing and sustaining diabetes group visits. RESULTS: Data were collected and analyzed from pre-post assessments and key informant interviews with community health center (CHC) staff (N = 26) from teams across five Midwestern states. Overall, participants demonstrated high baseline knowledge and awareness about diabetes group visit implementation. Changes in attitudes and practices did occur pertaining to familiarity with billing and increased awareness about potential barriers to diabetes group visit implementation. Key assets to diabetes group visit implementation were access to pre-designed resources and materials, a highly motivated team, and supportive leadership. Key obstacles were socioeconomic challenges experienced by patients, constraints on staff time dedicated to group visit implementation, and staff turnover. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the study provide a framework for implementation of diabetes group visit trainings for CHC staff. Future research is needed to assess the training program in a larger sample of CHCs.

Patient and Clinician Satisfaction With Diabetes Group Visits in Community Health Centers.

Diabetes group visits (GVs) have been shown to improve glycemic control and quality of care. However, little is known about the patient and clinician experience. We trained staff to conduct a 6-month GV intervention at six community health centers (CHCs) for adults with uncontrolled diabetes. Patient satisfaction was analyzed using postintervention surveys. Clinician satisfaction was analyzed through pre and posttraining surveys and 1:1 semistructured interviews. Twenty-seven staff and clinicians were trained. Fifty-one adult patients were enrolled and 90% reported high satisfaction with the program. Patients enjoyed longer visits with peer support and felt better equipped to manage barriers to diabetes control. 88% of staff reported that they enjoyed taking part in the program and noted improved team morale, professional development, and increased interdisciplinary collaboration. Perceived challenges of GVs included time investment for a new program, integration into workflow, and staff turnover. Patient and staff satisfaction was high across multiple domains. Staff noted many benefits but reported challenges with patient recruitment and retention as well as the time needed to implement GVs.

Evidence Supporting a Lymphatic Endothelium Origin for Angiomyolipoma, a TSC2(-) Tumor Related to Lymphangioleiomyomatosis.

Angiomyolipoma (AML) is a tumor closely related to lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM). Both entities are characterized by the proliferation of smooth muscle actin and melanocytic glycoprotein 100 (recognized by antibody HMB-45)-positive spindle-shaped and epithelioid cells. AML and LAM are etiologically linked to mutations in the tsc2 and tsc1 genes in the case of LAM. These genes encode the proteins tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC)-1 and TSC2, which are directly involved in suppressing the mechanistic target of rapamycin cell growth signaling pathway. Although significant progress has been made in characterizing and pharmacologically slowing the progression of AML and LAM with rapamycin, our understanding of their pathogenesis lacks an identified cell of origin. We used an AML-derived cell line to determine whether TSC2 restitution brings about the cell type from which AML arises. We found that AML cells express lymphatic endothelial cell markers consistent with lymphatic endothelial cell precursors in vivo and in vitro. Moreover, on TSC2 correction, AML cells mature into adult lymphatic endothelial cells and have functional attributes characteristic of this cell lineage, suggesting a lymphatic endothelial cell of origin for AML. These effects are dependent on TSC2-mediated mechanistic target of rapamycin inactivation. Finally, we demonstrate the in vitro effectiveness of norcantharidin, a lymphangiogenesis inhibitor, as a potential co-adjuvant therapy in the treatment of AML.