Intensive care management of a complex Medicaid population: a randomized evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Care management programs are employed by providers and payers to support high-risk patients and affect cost and utilization, with varied implementation. This study sought to evaluate the impact of an intensive care management program on utilization and cost among those with highest cost (top 5%) and highest utilization in a Medicaid accountable care organization (ACO) population. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled quality improvement trial of intensive care management, provided by a nonprofit care management vendor, for Medicaid ACO patients at 2 academic centers. METHODS: Patients were identified using claims, chart review, and primary care validation, then randomly assigned 2:1 to intervention and control groups. Among 131 patients included in intent-to-treat analysis, 87 and 44 were randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups, respectively. Patients in the intervention group were eligible to receive intensive care management in the community/home setting and, in some cases, home-based primary care. Patients in the control group received standard of care, including practice-based care management. Prespecified primary outcome measures included total medical expense (TME), emergency department (ED) visits, and inpatient utilization. RESULTS: Relative to controls, patients randomly assigned to receive intensive care management had a $1933 smaller increase per member per month in TME (P = .04) and directionally consistent but nonsignificant reductions in ED visits (17% fewer; P = .40) and inpatient admissions (34% fewer; P = .29) in the 12 months post randomization compared with the 12 months prerandomization. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results support that targeted, intensive care management can favorably affect TME in a health system-based high-cost, high-risk Medicaid population. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact on additional clinical outcomes.

Using claims for long-term services and support to predict mortality and hospital use.

BACKGROUND: Despite limitations in their clinical content, claims data from administering health plans can provide important insights about service use and outcomes across large populations. However, using claims data to investigate care and outcomes among persons with disability is challenging because standard diagnosis, procedure, and medication codes provide little information about functional impairments or disability. OBJECTIVE: To explore whether supportive services claims provide useful information for predicting health care outcomes among persons with chronic disease and disability. METHODS: We used administrative data from a nonprofit, Massachusetts health plan, including members who were 21 years of age and older and dually-eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. With procedure codes, we identified long-term services and supports and ventilator and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy supplies. Data from calendar year 2015 were used to predict deaths and hospitalizations in 2016. Hazards ratio analyses predicted these outcomes adjusting for age, sex, disease burden, and amount of personal assistance and homemaker services used (proxy functional status measure). RESULTS: In bivariate analyses, all four predictors were statistically significant for both outcomes. In the full model, the proxy functional status measure did not statistically significantly predict hospitalization or death. After eliminating disease burden from the model, the proxy functional status measure became statistically significant, with hazards ratios of 1.006 for hospitalization (p = 0.0011) and 1.014 (p = <0.0001) for death. CONCLUSIONS: Claims for supportive services could be proxies for disability in analyses using administrative data, but additional research must demonstrate their usefulness for predicting health care outcomes.

Meal Delivery Programs Reduce The Use Of Costly Health Care In Dually Eligible Medicare And Medicaid Beneficiaries.

Delivering food to nutritionally vulnerable patients is important for addressing these patients' social determinants of health. However, it is not known whether food delivery programs can reduce the use of costly health services and decrease medical spending among these patients. We sought to determine whether home delivery of either medically tailored meals or nontailored food reduces the use of selected health care services and medical spending in a sample of adults dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Compared with matched nonparticipants, participants had fewer emergency department visits in both the medically tailored meal program and the nontailored food program. Participants in the medically tailored meal program also had fewer inpatient admissions and lower medical spending. Participation in the nontailored food program was not associated with fewer inpatient admissions but was associated with lower medical spending. These findings suggest the potential for meal delivery programs to reduce the use of costly health care and decrease spending for vulnerable patients.

The critical components of an electronic care plan tool for primary care: an exploratory qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: A critical need exists for effective electronic tools that facilitate multidisciplinary care for complex patients in patient-centered medical homes.Objective To identify the essential components of a primary care (PC) based electronic care plan (ECP) tool that facilitates coordination of care for complex patients. METHOD: Three focus groups and nine semi-structured interviews were conducted at an academic PC practice in order to identify the ideal components of an ECP. RESULTS: Critical components of an ECP identified included: 1) patient background information, including patient demographics, care team member designation and key patient contacts, 2) user- and patient-centric task management functionalities, 3) a summary of a patient's care needs linked to the responsible member of the care team and 4) integration with the electronic medical record. We then designed an ECP mockup incorporating these components. CONCLUSION: Our investigation identified key principles that healthcare software developers can integrate into PC and patient-centered ECP tools.

A migraine management training program for primary care providers: An overview of a survey and pilot study findings, lessons learned, and considerations for further research.

BACKGROUND: There are five to nine million primary care office visits a year for migraine in the United States. However, migraine care is often suboptimal in the primary care setting. A prior study indicated that primary care physicians (PCPs) wanted direct contact with headache specialists to improve the migraine care they provide. OBJECTIVE: We sought to further examine PCPs' knowledge of migraine management and assess the feasibility of a multimodal migraine education program for PCPs. METHODS: We conducted a survey assessing PCPs' knowledge about migraine. We then held three live educational sessions and developed an email consultative service for PCPs to submit questions they had about migraine. We report both quantitative and qualitative findings. RESULTS: Twenty-one PCPs completed the survey. They were generally familiar with the epidemiology of migraine (mean prevalence of migraine reported was 12.6% ± 10.1), the psychiatric comorbidities (mean prevalence of comorbid depression was 24.5% ± 16.7, mean prevalence of comorbid anxiety was 24.6% ± 18.3), and evidence-based behavioral treatments. Fifty-six percent cited cognitive behavioral therapy, 78% cited biofeedback, and 61% cited relaxation therapy as evidence based treatments. Though most were aware of the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities, they did not routinely assess for them (43% did not routinely assess for anxiety, 29% did not routinely assess for depression). PCPs reported frequently referring patients for non-level A evidence based treatments: special diets (60%), acupuncture (50%), physical therapy (30%), and psychoanalysis (20%). Relaxation therapy was a therapy recommended by 40% of the PCPs. Only 10% reported referring for cognitive behavioral therapy or biofeedback. Nineteen percent made minimal or no use of migraine preventive medications. Seventy-two percent were unaware of or only slightly aware of the American Academy of Neurology guidelines for migraine. There was variable attendance at the educational sessions (N=22 at 1st session, 6 at 2nd session, 15 at 3rd session). Very few PCPs used the email consultative service (N=4). CONCLUSIONS: Though PCPs are familiar with many aspects of migraine care, there is a need and opportunity for improvement. The three live sessions were poorly attended and the email consultative service was rarely used. We provide an in depth discussion of targeted areas for educational intervention, of the challenges in developing a migraine educational program for PCPs, and areas for future study.

A population management system for improving colorectal cancer screening in a primary care setting.

RATIONALE: Provision of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in primary care is suboptimal; failure to observe screening guidelines poses unnecessary risks to patients and doctors. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Implement a population management system for CRC screening; evaluate impact on compliance with evidence-based guidelines. DESIGN: A quasi-experimental, prospective quality improvement study design using pre-post-analyses with concurrent controls. SETTING: Six suites within an academic primary care practice. PARTICIPANTS: 5320 adults eligible for CRC screening treated by 70 doctors. INTERVENTION: In three intervention suites, doctors reviewed real-time rosters of patients due for CRC screening and chose practice delegate outreach or default reminder letter. Delegates tracked overdue patients, made outreach calls, facilitated test ordering, obtained records and documented patient deferral, exclusion or decline. In three control suites, doctors followed usual preventive care practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CRC screening compliance (including documented decline, deferral or exclusion) and CRC screening completion rates over 5 months. RESULTS: At baseline, there was no significant difference in CRC screening compliance (I: 80.4% and C: 79.6%, P = 0.439) and CRC screening completion rates (I: 78.3% and C: 77.3%, P = 0.398) between intervention and control groups. Post-intervention, compliance rates (I: 88.1% and C: 80.5%, P < 0.01) and completion rates (I: 81.0% and C: 78.1%, P < 0.05) were significantly higher in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: A population management system using closed-loop communication may improve CRC screening compliance and completion rates within academic primary care practices. Team-based care using well-designed IT systems can enable sharing of patient care responsibilities and improve patient outcomes.

Migraine diagnosis and treatment: A knowledge and needs assessment among primary care providers.

BACKGROUND: Studies reveal that migraine is often under-recognized, misdiagnosed and inadequately treated in the primary care setting. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to assess primary care providers' (PCP) knowledge and needs regarding migraine diagnosis and management. METHODS: We held semi-structured group interviews and distributed a brief questionnaire to PCPs in our hospital network. Building on the information from the interviews, we developed a comprehensive survey assessing PCPs' knowledge about migraine. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: The initial interviews and brief questionnaires revealed that PCPs are aware of the prevalence of migraine but are uncertain about the details of management. Eighty-three of 120 physicians completed the comprehensive survey. Only 47% would order imaging for a new type of headache, 31% for worsening headache, and 35% for a headache unresponsive to treatment. Only 28% were familiar with the American Academy of Neurology guidelines on preventive treatment and 40% were familiar with the Choosing Wisely Campaign recommendations on migraine treatment. Just 34% were aware that opioids can cause medication-overuse headache. Non-pharmacologic treatment was not usually recommended. PCPs favored educational opportunities involving direct contact with headache physicians (56%). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs are not universally aware of the specific recommendations for managing migraine patients. Future work should focus on innovative ways to provide decision support and education for PCPs caring for migraineurs.

Implementation of a collaborative care management program with buprenorphine in primary care: a comparison between opioid-dependent patients and patients with chronic pain using opioids nonmedically.

OBJECTIVE: To implement a collaborative care management program with buprenorphine in a primary care clinic. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: A busy urban academic primary care clinic affiliated with a tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Opioid-dependent patients or patients with chronic pain using opioids nonmedically were recruited for the study. A total of 45 participants enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with buprenorphine and managed by a supervising psychiatrist, pharmacist care manager, and health coaches. The care manager conducted buprenorphine inductions and all follow-up visits. Health coaches offered telephonic support. The psychiatrist supervised both the care manager and health coaches. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were treatment retention at 6 months, and change in the proportion of aberrant toxicology results and opioid craving scores from baseline to 6 months. After data collection, clinical outcomes were compared between opioid-dependent patients and patients with chronic pain using opioids nonmedically. Overall, 55.0 percent of participants (25/45) remained in treatment at 6 months. Primary care physicians (PCPs)' attitudes about opioid dependence treatment were surveyed at baseline and at 18 months. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (95.6 percent) accepted treatment and 25 (55.0 percent) remained in treatment at 6 months. The proportion of aberrant urine toxicology results decreased significantly from baseline to 6 months (p < 0.01). Craving scores significantly decreased from baseline to 6 months (p < 0.01). Opioid-dependent patients, as opposed to patients with chronic pain using opioids nonmedically, were significantly more likely to complete 6 months of treatment (p < 0.05). PCPs' confidence in treating opioid dependence in primary care increased significantly from baseline to 18 months postimplementation (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Collaborative care management for opioid dependence with buprenorphine may be feasible in a primary care clinic. More research is needed to understand the role of buprenorphine in managing patients with chronic pain using opioids nonmedically.