Patient-Centered Innovation: Involving Patients in Open Social Innovation.

BACKGROUND: Involving patients in the health-care delivery innovation has many benefits. Open social innovation (OSI) presents a fitting lens to examine and advance patient engagement in innovation. OSI offers a participatory approach to innovation, in which diverse groups of participants collaboratively generate ideas and scale solutions on complex social challenges. PURPOSE: This study: (1) describes a pilot application of OSI, in which individuals serving on a hospital's patients and family advisory councils (PFACs) were invited to participate in an innovation contest; and (2) explores the extent to which patients' beliefs about their role in innovation relate to their participation in the contest. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We conducted an innovation contest that invited PFAC members to share ideas that would improve patient experiences and then vote on and select the ideas that they wanted to see move forward. We measured patients' beliefs about their role in innovation in a survey before the contest. RESULTS: Twenty individuals submitted 27 ideas. Patients who expressed preference for more involvement in innovation were more likely to participate. CONCLUSIONS: Using OSI may help expand patient engagement in innovation, particularly among those who want to be more involved but do not feel authorized to voice ideas in traditional advisory committees. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: OSI spurred collaboration among patients, clinicians, quality improvement staff, hospital administrators, and other stakeholders in idea generation, elaboration, and implementation. More experimentation and research are needed to understand how OSI can be leveraged to capture patients' voice and incorporate them in care delivery innovation.

Prior Authorization and Association With Delayed or Discontinued Prescription Fills.

PURPOSE: Prior authorization requirements are increasing but little is known about their effects on access to care. We examined the association of a new prior authorization policy with delayed or discontinued prescription fills for oral anticancer drugs among Medicare Part D beneficiaries. METHODS: Using Medicare part D claims data from 2010 to 2020, we studied beneficiaries regularly filling one of 11 oral anticancer drugs, defined as three 30-day fills in 120 days preceding the plan's prior authorization policy change on that drug and continuously enrolled in the same plan for 120 days before and after the policy change at the start of a new year. The control group consisted of beneficiaries meeting the same utilization criteria, but who were enrolled in plans at the same time that did not implement a prior authorization policy change. The outcomes of interest were discontinuation of the drug within 120 days (analyzed with regression analyses) and time (in days) to next fill after a prior authorization policy change (analyzed using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences event study). RESULTS: The introduction of a new prior authorization on an established drug increased the odds of discontinuation within 120 days (adjusted odds ratio, 7.1 [95% CI, 6.0 to 8.5]; P < .001) and increased time to next fill by 9.7 days (95% CI, 8.2 to 11.2; P < .001), relative to patients whose plans did not have a prior authorization policy change. CONCLUSION: Introduction of a new prior authorization policy on an established drug regimen is associated with increased probability of discontinued and delayed care. For some conditions, this may represent a clinically consequential barrier to access. Waiving prior authorization for patients already established on a drug may improve adherence.

Utilization Management Trends in Medicare Part D Oncology Drugs, 2010-2020.

This study examines the exposure of Medicare Part D beneficiaries to utilization management, such as prior authorization, for oral oncology drugs.

Inequities in Time Spent Coordinating Care for Children and Youth With Special Health Care Needs.

OBJECTIVE: In the United States, caregivers of children and youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN) must navigate complex, inefficient health care and insurance systems to access medical care. We assessed for sociodemographic inequities in time spent coordinating care for CYSHCN and examined the association between time spent coordinating care and forgone medical care. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used data from the 2018-2020 National Survey of Children's Health, which included 102,740 children across all 50 states. We described the time spent coordinating care for children with less complex special health care needs (SHCN) (managed through medications) and more complex SHCN (resulting in functional limitations or requiring specialized therapies). We examined race-, ethnicity-, income-, and insurance-based differences in time spent coordinating care among CYSHCN and used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between time spent coordinating care and forgone medical care. RESULTS: Over 40% of caregivers of children with more complex SHCN reported spending time coordinating their children's care each week. CYSHCN whose caregivers spent ≥ 5 h/wk on care coordination were disproportionately Hispanic, low-income, and publicly insured or uninsured. Increased time spent coordinating care was associated with an increasing probability of forgone medical care: 6.7% for children whose caregivers spent no weekly time coordinating care versus 9.4% for< 1 hour; 11.4% for 1 to 4 hours; and 15.8% for ≥ 5 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing time spent coordinating care and providing additional support to low-income and minoritized caregivers may be beneficial for pediatric payers, policymakers, and health systems aiming to promote equitable access to health care for CYSHCN.

Patient administrative burden in the US health care system.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of patient administrative tasks and whether they are associated with delayed and/or foregone care. DATA SOURCE: March 2019 Health Reform Monitoring Survey. STUDY DESIGN: We assess the prevalence of five common patient administrative tasks-scheduling, obtaining information, prior authorizations, resolving billing issues, and resolving premium problems-and associated administrative burden, defined as delayed and/or foregone care. Using multivariate logistic models, we examined the association of demographic characteristics with odds of doing tasks and experiencing burdens. Our outcome variables were five common types of administrative tasks as well as composite measures of any task, any delayed care, any foregone care, and any burden (combined delayed/foregone), respectively. DATA COLLECTION: We developed and administered survey questions to a nationally representative sample of insured, nonelderly adults (n = 4155). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The survey completion rate was 62%. Seventy-three percent of respondents reported performing at least one administrative task in the past year. About one in three task-doers, or 24.4% of respondents overall, reported delayed or foregone care due to an administrative task: Adjusted for demographics, disability status had the strongest association with administrative tasks (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.91, p < 0.001) and burden (adjusted OR 1.66, p < 0.001). Being a woman was associated with doing administrative tasks (adjusted OR 2.19, p < 0.001). Being a college graduate was associated with performing an administrative task (adjusted OR 2.79, p < 0.001), while higher income was associated with fewer subsequent burdens (adjusted OR 0.55, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients frequently do administrative tasks that can create burdens resulting in delayed/foregone care. The prevalence of delayed/foregone care due to administrative tasks is comparable to similar estimates of cost-related barriers to care. Demographic disparities in burden warrant further attention. Enhancing measurement of patient administrative work and associated burdens may identify opportunities for assessing quality, value, and patient experience.

Primary Care Access During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Simulated Patient Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care practices have experienced major strains during the COVID-19 pandemic, such that patients newly seeking care may face potential barriers to timely visits. OBJECTIVE: To quantify availability and wait times for new patient appointments in primary care and to describe how primary care practices are guiding patients with suspected COVID-19. DESIGN: Trained callers conducted simulated patient calls to 800 randomly sampled primary care practices between September 14, 2020, and September 28, 2020. PARTICIPANTS: We extracted complete primary care physician listings from large commercial insurance networks in four geographically dispersed states between September 10 and 14, 2020 (n=11,521). After excluding non-physician providers and removing duplicate phone numbers, we identified 2705 unique primary care physician practices from which we randomly sampled 200 practices in each region. MAIN MEASURES: Primary care appointment availability, median wait time in days, and practice guidance to patients suspecting COVID-19 infection. KEY RESULTS: Among 56% of listed practices that had accurate contact information listed in the directory, 84% offered a new patient in-person or virtual appointment. Median wait time was 10 days (IQR 3-26 days). The most common guidance in case of suspected COVID-19 was clinician consultation, which was offered in 41% of completed calls. Callers were otherwise directed to on-site testing (14%), off-site testing (24%), a COVID-19 hotline (8%), or an urgent care/emergency department (12%), while 2% of practices had no guidance to offer. CONCLUSIONS: Despite resource constraints, most reachable primary care practices offered timely new patient appointments as well as direct COVID-19 care. Pandemic mitigation strategies should account for and support the central role of primary care practices in the community-based pandemic response.

A Mixed Methods Study of Change Processes Enabling Effective Transition to Team-Based Care.

Team-based care is considered central to achieving value in primary care, yet results of large-scale primary care transformation initiatives have been mixed. We explore how underlying change processes influence the effectiveness of transition to team-based care. We studied 12 academically affiliated primary care practices participating in a learning collaborative, using longitudinal staff survey data to measure progress toward team-based care and qualitative interviews with practice staff to understand practice transformation. Transformation efforts focused on team formation and capacity building for quality improvement. Using thematic analysis, we explored types of change processes undertaken and the relationship between change processes and effective team-based care. We identified three prototypical approaches to change: pursuing functional and cultural change processes, functional only, and cultural only. Practice sites prioritizing both change processes formed the most effective teams: simultaneous functional and cultural change spurred a mutually reinforcing virtuous cycle. We describe implications for research, practice, and policy.

Spending variation among ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program.

OBJECTIVES: Understanding variation in spending across organizations, rather than across geographic areas, is important because care is delivered by organizations and interventions increasingly focus on organizations. Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are particularly important to study given their incentives to reduce spending. Analyzing spending differences across ACOs may help identify cost savings opportunities. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of Medicare claims. METHODS: We stratified ACOs into quartiles based on the deviation between each ACO's risk-adjusted spending and average risk-adjusted fee-for-service spending in the same market (hospital referral region). We compared spending between top- and bottom-quartile ACOs on each of 7 major service categories and 10 clinical condition groups to identify areas of potential savings. We simulated spending reductions if ACOs with high adjusted spending reduced spending to the levels of lower-spending ACOs. RESULTS: In 2016, geographically adjusted and risk-adjusted total per-beneficiary spending for the highest-spending quartile of ACOs was 14% higher than for ACOs in the lowest quartile. Variation between high- and low-spending ACOs was greatest, at 27%, in the use of skilled nursing facilities-a service category in which ACOs have reduced spending by the greatest percentage. Inpatient care was the largest driver of absolute dollar differences in spending, however, accounting for 37% of the total spread. If spending in ACOs above median adjusted spending were brought down to the median, savings would be 3% to 4%. CONCLUSIONS: By extending the variations literature to focus on ACOs, we illustrated that meaningful further savings opportunities exist both within and across markets.

Financial Hardships Of Medicare Beneficiaries With Serious Illness.

In a national survey, seriously ill Medicare beneficiaries described financial hardships resulting from their illness-despite high beneficiary satisfaction with Medicare overall and the fact that many have supplemental insurance. About half reported a serious problem paying medical bills, with prescription drugs proving most onerous.

Toward a Corporate Culture of Health: Results of a National Survey.

Policy Points The private sector has large potential influence over social determinants of health, but we have limited information about how businesses perceive or engage in actions to promote health and well-being. We conducted a national survey of more than 1,000 businesses of varying sizes and industries to benchmark private sector engagement in employee, environmental, consumer, and community health, which we collectively refer to as a corporate culture of health. Overall, the private sector is taking steps to foster health and well-being but still has substantial opportunity for growth. CONTEXT: The private sector has a large potential role in advancing health and well-being, but attention to corporate practices around health tends to focus on a narrow range of issues and on large businesses. Systematically describing private sector engagement in health and well-being is a necessary step toward understanding the current state of the field and developing an agenda for businesses going forward. METHODS: We conducted a national survey of 1,017 private sector organizations to assess current levels of engagement in what we term a culture of health (CoH). We measured corporate CoH along four dimensions, which assess the extent to which businesses promote employee, environmental, consumer, and community health and well-being. We also explored potential explanations for the number of health-related actions taken in each dimension. FINDINGS: On average, businesses took 38% of health-related actions included in our survey. For each dimension, we found variation among businesses in the number of actions taken (on average, there were almost fourfold differences between the bottom and top quartiles of businesses in terms of actions taken). Mentioning health and well-being in the corporate mission, having a strategic plan for CoH, and perceiving a positive return on CoH investments were all associated with businesses' actions taken. Fewer than half of businesses, however, perceived a positive return on their CoH investments. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the private sector is taking steps to foster health and well-being. However, there remains substantial variation among businesses and opportunity for growth, even among those currently taking the most action. Strengthening the business case for a corporate CoH may increase private sector investments in health and well-being. Actions taken by individual businesses, business groups, industries, and regulators have the potential to improve corporate engagement and impact.

Establishing Teams: How Does It Change Practice Configuration, Size, and Composition?

Little is known about how practices reorganize when transitioning from traditional practice organization to team-based care. We compared practice-level (1) configuration as well as practice- and team-level (2) size and (3) composition, before and after establishing teams. We employed a pre-/poststudy using personnel lists of 1571 to 1711 staff (eg, job licenses, titles, and team assignment) and practice manager surveys. All personnel (physician and nonphysician) worked within 18 Massachusetts academic primary care practices participating in a 2-year learning collaborative aimed at establishing team-based care. We found that establishing team-based care can involve changing practice configurations and composition without substantially changing practice size.