Improving value for underserved populations with a community-based intervention: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare inequity drives high costs, worse outcomes and is heavily influenced by social determinants of health (SDOH). Addressing health behaviors and SDOH through a culturally competent community-based exposure may be effective in improving value for Medicaid enrollees. This study aims to evaluate whether such an exposure lowers costs at equal or improved quality. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study leveraging claims data was conducted in Detroit, Michigan from April 2021 to April 2022 to examine the impact of a community-based peer support program on clinical, utilization and financial outcomes. A one-to-one propensity matching of 738 pairs of African American Medicaid enrollees was generated, and compared the difference of differences between inpatient, emergency department, prescription and outpatient paid amounts, utilization, and available claims-based quality metrics. RESULTS: Compared to controls, peer support recipients generated significantly lower per member per month costs ($115, (95% CI $20.2 to $210)). Recipients showed a significant increase in the Adult Access to Preventative/Ambulatory Health Services 20-44 year old quality metric (8.31% (95% CI 0.35-16.3%)). Member retention in the health insurance plan was significantly higher for peer support recipients vs. the control group by 3.62% (p < 0.05). Peer support recipients displayed non-significant improvement on all other utilization and actuarial measures. No significant difference was found for any of the other examined quality metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Among a population of African American Medicaid enrollees, a culturally competent community-based intervention was associated with lower cost and better member retention with preserved or improved quality.

International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM): Standardized Patient-Centered Outcomes Measurement Set for Heart Failure Patients.

Whereas multiple national, international, and trial registries for heart failure have been created, international standards for clinical assessment and outcome measurement do not currently exist. The working group's objective was to facilitate international comparison in heart failure care, using standardized parameters and meaningful patient-centered outcomes for research and quality of care assessments. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement recruited an international working group of clinical heart failure experts, researchers, and patient representatives to define a standard set of outcomes and risk-adjustment variables. This was designed to document, compare, and ultimately improve patient care outcomes in the heart failure population, with a focus on global feasibility and relevance. The working group employed a Delphi process, patient focus groups, online patient surveys, and multiple systematic publications searches. The process occurred over 10 months, employing 7 international teleconferences. A 17-item set has been established, addressing selected functional, psychosocial, burden of care, and survival outcome domains. These measures were designed to include all patients with heart failure, whether entered at first presentation or subsequent decompensation, excluding cardiogenic shock. Sources include clinician report, administrative data, and validated patient-reported outcome measurement tools: the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; the Patient Health Questionnaire-2; and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. Recommended data included those to support risk adjustment and benchmarking across providers and regions. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement developed a dataset designed to capture, compare, and improve care for heart failure, with feasibility and relevance for patients and clinicians worldwide.

Topical Beta-Blockers and Cardiovascular Mortality: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Data from the EPIC-Norfolk Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: To determine if topical beta-blocker use is associated with increased cardiovascular mortality, particularly among people with self-reported glaucoma. METHODS: All participants who participated in the first health check (N = 25,639) of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC) Norfolk cohort (1993-2013) were included in this prospective cohort study, with a median follow-up of 17.0 years. We determined use of topical beta-blockers at baseline through a self-reported questionnaire and prescription check at the first clinical visit. Cardiovascular mortality was ascertained through data linkage with the Office for National Statistics mortality database. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using multivariable Cox regression models. Meta-analysis of the present study's results together with other identified literature was performed using a random effects model. RESULTS: We did not find an association between the use of topical beta-blockers and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.93, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.67-1.30). In the 514 participants with self-reported glaucoma, no association was found between the use of topical beta-blockers and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56-1.40). In the primary meta-analysis of four publications, there was no evidence of an association between the use of topical beta-blockers and cardiovascular mortality (pooled HR estimate 1.10, 95% CI 0.84-1.36). CONCLUSION: Topical beta-blockers do not appear to be associated with excess cardiovascular mortality. This evidence does not indicate that a change in current practice is warranted, although clinicians should continue to assess individual patients and their cardiovascular risk prior to commencing topical beta-blockers.