Spending patterns among commercially insured individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To describe trends in US health care spending in a large, national, and commercially insured population during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of commercially insured members enrolled between May 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021. METHODS: The study utilized a population-based sample of continuously enrolled members in a geographically diverse federation of Blue Cross Blue Shield plans across the United States. Our sample excluded Medicare and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. The COVID-19 exposure period was defined as 2020-2021; 2018-2019 were pre-COVID-19 years. We defined 4 post-COVID-19 periods: March 1 to April 30, 2020; May 1 to December 31, 2020; January 1 to March 31, 2021; and April 1 to December 31, 2021. The primary outcome was inflation-adjusted overall per-member per-month (PMPM) medical spending adjusted for age, sex, Elixhauser comorbidities, area-level racial composition, income, and education. RESULTS: Our sample included 97,319,130 individuals. Mean PMPM medical spending decreased from $370.92 in January-February 2020 to $281.00 in March-April 2020. Between May and December 2020, mean PMPM medical spending recovered to-but did not exceed-prepandemic levels. Mean PMPM medical spending stayed below prepandemic levels between January and March 2021, rose above prepandemic baselines between April and June 2021, and decreased below baseline between July and December 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic induced a spending shock in 2020, and health care spending did not recover to near baseline until mid-2021, with some emerging evidence of pent-up demand. The observed spending below baseline through the end of 2021 will pose challenges to setting spending benchmarks for alternative payment and shared savings models.

Disparities in emergency department and urgent care opioid prescribing before and after randomized clinician feedback interventions.

OBJECTIVES: Racial and ethnic minorities receive opioid prescriptions at lower rates and dosages than White patients. Though opioid stewardship interventions can improve or exacerbate these disparities, there is little evidence about these effects. We conducted a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial conducted among 438 clinicians from 21 emergency departments and 27 urgent care clinics. Our objective was to determine whether randomly allocated opioid stewardship clinician feedback interventions that were designed to reduce opioid prescriptions had unintended effects on disparities in prescribing by patient race and ethnicity. METHODS: The primary outcome was likelihood of receiving a low-pill prescription (low ≤10 pills, medium 11-19 pills, high ≥20 pills). Generalized mixed-effects models were used to determine patient characteristics associated with low-pill prescriptions during the baseline period. These models were then used to determine whether receipt of a low-pill prescription varied by patient race or ethnicity during the intervention period between usual care and three opioid stewardship interventions: (1) individual audit feedback, (2) peer comparison feedback, and (3) combined (individual audit + peer comparison) feedback. RESULTS: Compared with White patients, Black patients were more likely to receive a low-pill prescription during the baseline (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.31, p = 0.002) and intervention (adjusted OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.07-1.91, p = 0.015). While combined feedback was associated with an overall increase in low-pill prescriptions as intended (adjusted OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.28-2.78, p = 0.001), there were no significant differences in treatment effects of any of the interventions by patient race and ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Combined individual audit and peer comparison feedback was associated with fewer opioid pills per prescription equally by patient race and ethnicity. However, the intervention did not significantly close the baseline disparity in prescribing by race.

Clinician Perceptions of Receiving Different Forms of Feedback on their Opioid Prescribing.

Opioid misuse represents a major public health issue in the United States. One driver is overprescription for acute pain, with the size of initial prescription associated with subsequent long-term use. However, little work has been done to elicit clinician feedback about interventions to reduce opioid prescribing. To address this knowledge gap, qualitative analyses were conducted with clinicians who participated in a randomized controlled trial in which clinicians received monthly emailed feedback notifications about their opioid prescribing behaviors. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted (N = 12) with urgent care (N = 7) and emergency department (N = 5) clinicians who participated in the trial between November 2020 and April 2021. Clinicians appreciated feedback about their prescribing behavior and found comparative data with peer clinicians to be most useful. Sharing opioid prescribing feedback data with clinicians can be an acceptable way to address opioid prescribing among emergency and urgent care clinicians.

Trends in Enrollment in Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance in the US Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic, January 2019 to June 2021.

This cross-sectional study compares trends in employer-sponsored health insurance coverage in the US before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Effect of Financial Incentives for Process, Outcomes, or Both on Cholesterol Level Change: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Financial incentives may improve health behaviors. It is unknown whether incentives are more effective if they target a key process (eg, medication adherence), an outcome (eg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] levels), or both. Objective: To determine whether financial incentives awarded daily for process (adherence to statins), awarded quarterly for outcomes (personalized LDL-C level targets), or awarded for process plus outcomes induce reductions in LDL-C levels compared with control. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 12, 2015, to October 3, 2018; data analysis was performed from October 4, 2018, to May 27, 2021, at the University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia. Participants included 764 adults with an active statin prescription, elevated risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, suboptimal LDL-C level, and evidence of imperfect adherence to statin medication. Interventions: Interventions lasted 12 months. All participants received a smart pill bottle to measure adherence and underwent LDL-C measurement every 3 months. In the process group, daily financial incentives were awarded for statin adherence. In the outcomes group, participants received incentives for achieving or sustaining at least a quarterly 10-mg/dL LDL-C level reduction. The process plus outcomes group participants were eligible for incentives split between statin adherence and quarterly LDL-C level targets. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in LDL-C level from baseline to 12 months, determined using intention-to-treat analysis. Results: Of the 764 participants, 390 were women (51.2%); mean (SD) age was 62.4 (10.0) years, 310 (40.6%) had diabetes, 298 (39.0%) had hypertension, and mean (SD) baseline LDL-C level was 138.8 (37.6) mg/dL. Mean LDL-C level reductions from baseline to 12 months were -36.9 mg/dL (95% CI, -42.0 to -31.9 mg/dL) among control participants, -40.0 mg/dL (95% CI, -44.7 to -35.4 mg/dL) among process participants, -41.6 mg/dL (95% CI, -46.3 to -37.0 mg/dL) among outcomes participants, and -42.8 mg/dL (95% CI, -47.4 to -38.1 mg/dL) among process plus outcomes participants. In exploratory analysis among participants with diabetes and hypertension, no spillover effects of incentives were detected compared with the control group on hemoglobin A1c level and blood pressure over 12 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, process-, outcomes-, or process plus outcomes-based financial incentives did not improve LDL-C levels vs control. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02246959.

Qualitative Exploration of Barriers to Statin Adherence and Lipid Control: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Financial incentives may improve health by rewarding patients for focusing on present actions-such as medication regimen adherence-that provide longer-term health benefits. Objective: To identify barriers to improving statin therapy adherence and control of cholesterol levels with financial incentives and insights for the design of future interventions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study involved retrospective interviews with participants in a preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of financial incentives for statin therapy adherence. A total of 636 trial participants from several US insurer or employer populations and an academic health system were rank ordered by change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) levels. Participants with the most LDLC level improvement (high-improvement group) and those with LDLC levels that did not improve (nonimprovement group) were purposively targeted, stratified across all trial groups, for semistructured telephone interviews that were performed from April 1 to June 30, 2018. Interviews were coded using a team-based, iterative approach. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2018, to October 31, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mean change in LDLC level from baseline to 12 months; the secondary outcome, statin therapy adherence during the first 6 months. Results: A total of 54 patients were interviewed, divided equally between high-improvement and nonimprovement groups, with a mean (SD) age of 43.5 (10.3) years; 36 (66.7%) were women, 28 (51.9%) had diabetes, and 18 (33.3%) had cardiovascular disease. Compared with the high-improvement group, the nonimprovement group had fewer interviewees with an annual income of greater than $50 000 (11 [40.7%] vs 22 [81.5%]), worse self-reported health (fair to poor, 13 [48.1%] vs 3 [11.1%]), more Black interviewees (16 [59.3%] vs 4 [14.8%]), and lower baseline LDLC levels (>160 mg/dL, 2 [7.4%] vs 25 [92.6%]). Participants in the nonimprovement group had a greater burden of chronic illness (≥2 chronic conditions, 13 [48.1%] vs 6 [22.2%]) and were less frequently employed (full-time, 6 [22.2%] vs 12 [44.4%]). In interviews, the nonimprovement group was less focused on risks of high LDLC levels, described less engagement in LDLC level management, articulated fewer specific nutritional choices for optimizing health, and recounted greater difficulty obtaining healthy food. Participants in both groups had difficulty describing the structure of the financial incentives but did recall features of the electronic pill containers used to track adherence and how those containers affected medication routines. Conclusions and Relevance: Participants in a statin adherence trial whose LDLC levels did not improve found it more difficult to create medication routines and respond to financial incentives in the context of complex living conditions and a high burden of chronic illness. These findings suggest that future studies should be more attentive to socioeconomic circumstances of trial participants. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01798784.

Using Clinical Trial Data to Estimate the Costs of Behavioral Interventions for Potential Adopters: A Guide for Trialists.

Behavioral interventions involving electronic devices, financial incentives, gamification, and specially trained staff to encourage healthy behaviors are becoming increasingly prevalent and important in health innovation and improvement efforts. Although considerations of cost are key to their wider adoption, cost information is lacking because the resources required cannot be costed using standard administrative billing data. Pragmatic clinical trials that test behavioral interventions are potentially the best and often only source of cost information but rarely incorporate costing studies. This article provides a guide for researchers to help them collect and analyze, during the trial and with little additional effort, the information needed to inform potential adopters of the costs of adopting a behavioral intervention. A key challenge in using trial data is the separation of implementation costs, the costs an adopter would incur, from research costs. Based on experience with 3 randomized clinical trials of behavioral interventions, this article explains how to frame the costing problem, including how to think about costs associated with the control group, and describes methods for collecting data on individual costs: specifications for costing a technology platform that supports the specialized functions required, how to set up a time log to collect data on the time staff spend on implementation, and issues in getting data on device, overhead, and financial incentive costs.

Effect of Patient Financial Incentives on Statin Adherence and Lipid Control: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Financial incentives can improve medication adherence and cardiovascular disease risk, but the optimal design to promote sustained adherence after incentives are discontinued is unknown. Objective: To determine whether 6-month interventions involving different financial incentives to encourage statin adherence reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels from baseline to 12 months. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 4-group, randomized clinical trial was conducted from August 2013 to July 2018 among several large US insurer or employer populations and the University of Pennsylvania Health System. The study population included adults with elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, suboptimal LDL-C control, and evidence of imperfect adherence to statin medication. Data analysis was performed from July 2017 to June 2019. Interventions: The interventions lasted 6 months during which all participants received daily medication reminders and an electronic pill bottle. Statin adherence was measured by opening the bottle. For participants randomized to the 3 intervention groups, adherence was rewarded with financial incentives. The sweepstakes group involved incentives for daily adherence. In the deadline sweepstakes group, incentives were reduced if participants were adherent only after a reminder. The sweepstakes plus deposit contract group split incentives between daily adherence and a monthly deposit reduced for each day of nonadherence. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in LDL-C level from baseline to 12 months. Results: Among 805 participants randomized (199 in the simple daily sweepstakes group, 204 in the deadline sweepstakes group, 201 in the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group, and 201 in the control group), the mean (SD) age was 58.5 (10.3) years; 519 participants (64.5%) were women, 514 (63.9%) had diabetes, and 273 (33.9%) had cardiovascular disease. The mean (SD) baseline LDL-C level was 143.2 (42.5) mg/dL. Measured adherence at 6 months (defined as the proportion of 180 days with electronic pill bottle opening) in the control group (0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.72) was lower than that in the simple sweepstakes group (0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.87), the deadline sweepstakes group (0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89), and the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group (0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90) (P < .001 for each incentive group vs control). LDL-C levels were measured for 636 participants at 12 months. Mean LDL-C level reductions from baseline to 12 months were 33.6 mg/dL (95% CI, 28.4-38.8 mg/dL) in the control group, 32.4 mg/dL (95% CI, 27.3-37.6 mg/dL) in the sweepstakes group, 33.2 mg/dL (95% CI, 28.1-38.3 mg/dL) in the deadline sweepstakes group, and 36.5 mg/dL (95% CI, 31.3-41.7 mg/dL) in the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group (adjusted P > .99 for each incentive group vs control). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with the control group, different financial incentives improved measured statin adherence but not LDL-C levels. This result points to the importance of directly measuring health outcomes, rather than simply adherence, in trials aimed at improving health behaviors. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01798784.

The Habit Formation trial of behavioral economic interventions to improve statin use and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease: Rationale, design and methodologies.

BACKGROUND: Low adherence to statin (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors) medication is common. Here, we report on the design and implementation of the Habit Formation trial. This clinical trial assessed whether the interventions, based on principles from behavioral economics, might improve statin adherence and lipid control in at-risk populations. We describe the rationale and methods for the trial, recruitment, conduct and follow-up. We also report on several barriers we encountered with recruitment and conduct of the trial, solutions we devised and efforts we will make to assess their impact on our study. METHODS: Habit Formation is a four-arm randomized controlled trial. Recruitment of 805 participants at elevated risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease with evidence of sub-optimal statin adherence and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) control is complete. Initially, we recruited from large employers (Employers) and a national health insurance company (Insurers) using mailed letters; individuals with a statin Medication Possession Ratio less than 80% were invited to participate. Respondents were enrolled if a laboratory measurement of low-density lipoprotein was >130 mg/dL. Subsequently, we recruited participants from the Penn Medicine Health System; individuals with usual-care low-density lipoprotein of >100 mg/dL in the electronic medical record were recruited using phone, text, email, and regular mail. Eligible participants self-reported incomplete medication adherence. During a 6-month intervention period, all participants received a wireless-enabled pill bottle for their statins and daily reminder messages to take their medication. Principles of behavioral economics were used to design three financial incentives, specifically a Simple Daily Sweepstakes rewarding daily medication adherence, a Deadline Sweepstakes where participants received either a full or reduced incentive depending on whether they took their medication before or after a daily reminder or Sweepstakes Plus Deposit Contract with incentives divided between daily sweepstakes and a monthly deposit. Six months post-incentives, we compared the primary outcome, mean change from baseline low-density lipoprotein, across arms. RESULTS AND LESSONS LEARNED: Health system recruitment yielded substantially better enrollment and was cost-efficient. Despite unexpected systematic failure and/or poor availability of two wireless pill bottles, we achieved enrollment targets and implemented the interventions. For new trials, we will routinely monitor device function and have contingency plans in the event of systemic failure. CONCLUSION: Interventions used in the Habit Formation trial could be translated into clinical practice. Within a large health system, successful recruitment depended on identification of eligible individuals through their electronic medical record, along with flexible ways of contacting these individuals. Challenges with device failure were manageable. The study will add to our understanding of optimally structuring and implementing incentives to motivate durable behavior change.