Joseph R Carver, Andrea Ng, Anna T Meadows, David J Vaughn
{"title":"Cardiovascular late effects and the ongoing care of adult cancer survivors.","authors":"Joseph R Carver, Andrea Ng, Anna T Meadows, David J Vaughn","doi":"10.1089/dis.2008.111714","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dis.2008.111714","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51235,"journal":{"name":"Disease Management : Dm","volume":"11 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/dis.2008.111714","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"27268925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As financial, social, and quality-of-life challenges associated with chronic disease in the United States continue to proliferate, disease management (DM) has been identified as a viable and positive approach that serves all areas of impact. Using an "in-house" model, Physician Health Partners, LLC, designed, developed, and implemented a DM program for the frail and elderly population. Given the special needs of this population the typical DM intervention was modified to include elements of physician involvement. The Frail and Elderly Program, as the DM program is called, produced statistically significant improvements in functional, behavioral, and clinical status and health-related quality of life. This model can help result in program success with potential benefits for individuals, practices, communities, and all whose lives are touched, directly or indirectly, by chronic disease.
{"title":"Disease management in the frail and elderly population: integration of physicians in the intervention.","authors":"Jay Want, Gregg Kamas, Thanh-Nghia Nguyen","doi":"10.1089/dis.2008.111720","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dis.2008.111720","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As financial, social, and quality-of-life challenges associated with chronic disease in the United States continue to proliferate, disease management (DM) has been identified as a viable and positive approach that serves all areas of impact. Using an \"in-house\" model, Physician Health Partners, LLC, designed, developed, and implemented a DM program for the frail and elderly population. Given the special needs of this population the typical DM intervention was modified to include elements of physician involvement. The Frail and Elderly Program, as the DM program is called, produced statistically significant improvements in functional, behavioral, and clinical status and health-related quality of life. This model can help result in program success with potential benefits for individuals, practices, communities, and all whose lives are touched, directly or indirectly, by chronic disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":51235,"journal":{"name":"Disease Management : Dm","volume":"11 1","pages":"23-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/dis.2008.111720","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"27268928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Martha L Sylvia, Michael Griswold, Linda Dunbar, Cynthia M Boyd, Margaret Park, Chad Boult
Guided Care (GC) is an enhancement to primary care that incorporates the operative principles of disease management and chronic care innovations. In a 6-month quasi-experimental study, we compared the cost and utilization patterns of patients assigned to GC and Usual Care (UC). The setting was a community-based general internal medicine practice. The participants were patients of 4 general internists. They were older, chronically ill, community-dwelling patients, members of a capitated health plan, and identified as high risk. Using the Adjusted Clinical Groups Predictive Model (ACG-PM), we identified those at highest risk of future health care utilization. We selected the 75 highest-risk older patients of 2 internists at a primary care practice to receive GC and the 75 highest-risk older patients of 2 other internists in the same practice to receive UC. Insurance data were used to describe the groups' demographics, chronic conditions, insurance expenditures, and utilization. Among our results, at baseline, the GC (all targeted patients) and UC groups were similar in demographics and prevalence of chronic conditions, but the GC group had a higher mean ACG-PM risk score (0.34 vs. 0.20, p < 0.0001). During the following 6 months, the GC group had lower unadjusted mean insurance expenditures, hospital admissions, hospital days, and emergency department visits (p > 0.05). There were larger differences in insurance expenditures between the GC and UC groups at lower risk levels (at ACG-PM = 0.10, mean difference = $4340; at ACG-PM = 0.6, mean difference = $1304). Thirty-one of the 75 patients assigned to receive GC actually enrolled in the intervention. These results suggest that GC may reduce insurance expenditures for high-risk older adults. If these results are confirmed in larger, randomized studies, GC may help to increase the efficiency of health care for the aging American population.
{"title":"Guided care: cost and utilization outcomes in a pilot study.","authors":"Martha L Sylvia, Michael Griswold, Linda Dunbar, Cynthia M Boyd, Margaret Park, Chad Boult","doi":"10.1089/dis.2008.111723","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dis.2008.111723","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Guided Care (GC) is an enhancement to primary care that incorporates the operative principles of disease management and chronic care innovations. In a 6-month quasi-experimental study, we compared the cost and utilization patterns of patients assigned to GC and Usual Care (UC). The setting was a community-based general internal medicine practice. The participants were patients of 4 general internists. They were older, chronically ill, community-dwelling patients, members of a capitated health plan, and identified as high risk. Using the Adjusted Clinical Groups Predictive Model (ACG-PM), we identified those at highest risk of future health care utilization. We selected the 75 highest-risk older patients of 2 internists at a primary care practice to receive GC and the 75 highest-risk older patients of 2 other internists in the same practice to receive UC. Insurance data were used to describe the groups' demographics, chronic conditions, insurance expenditures, and utilization. Among our results, at baseline, the GC (all targeted patients) and UC groups were similar in demographics and prevalence of chronic conditions, but the GC group had a higher mean ACG-PM risk score (0.34 vs. 0.20, p < 0.0001). During the following 6 months, the GC group had lower unadjusted mean insurance expenditures, hospital admissions, hospital days, and emergency department visits (p > 0.05). There were larger differences in insurance expenditures between the GC and UC groups at lower risk levels (at ACG-PM = 0.10, mean difference = $4340; at ACG-PM = 0.6, mean difference = $1304). Thirty-one of the 75 patients assigned to receive GC actually enrolled in the intervention. These results suggest that GC may reduce insurance expenditures for high-risk older adults. If these results are confirmed in larger, randomized studies, GC may help to increase the efficiency of health care for the aging American population.</p>","PeriodicalId":51235,"journal":{"name":"Disease Management : Dm","volume":"11 1","pages":"29-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/dis.2008.111723","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"27268929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Historically, health plans and disease management companies have employed "opt-out" strategies for evaluating medical management outcomes across larger populations, targeting the entire population of eligible individuals and allowing those not interested to opt out. Recent observations that the predominant effort of these programs is on high-risk patients has lead some managers to suggest that the focus be on only those individuals with an anticipated higher effectiveness and lower cost to the payers of such services. They believe such "opt-in" models, in which only higher risk participants are targeted and enrolled, will deliver higher value. The use of common opt-in models, however, is not only methodologically unsound, but experience in the field suggests there may be less overall effect as well. Calculation methods for developing impact remain extremely sensitive to methodology
{"title":"Opt-in medical management strategies.","authors":"Donald Fetterolf, Marty Olson","doi":"10.1089/dis.2008.111721","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dis.2008.111721","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Historically, health plans and disease management companies have employed \"opt-out\" strategies for evaluating medical management outcomes across larger populations, targeting the entire population of eligible individuals and allowing those not interested to opt out. Recent observations that the predominant effort of these programs is on high-risk patients has lead some managers to suggest that the focus be on only those individuals with an anticipated higher effectiveness and lower cost to the payers of such services. They believe such \"opt-in\" models, in which only higher risk participants are targeted and enrolled, will deliver higher value. The use of common opt-in models, however, is not only methodologically unsound, but experience in the field suggests there may be less overall effect as well. Calculation methods for developing impact remain extremely sensitive to methodology</p>","PeriodicalId":51235,"journal":{"name":"Disease Management : Dm","volume":"11 1","pages":"37-46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/dis.2008.111721","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"27268930","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
THE IDEA IS BOTH SIMPLE and logical, but there has been a good deal of controversy over the use of “Number Needed to Decrease” (NND) analysis (which here I label as “Number Needed to Succeed” [NNS] analysis) as a tool in considering proposed disease management (DM) investments. This analysis method first considers the costs of DM interventions compared to the cost savings potential for each one, then determines how many “cases” of cost-generating episodes of care (eg, inpatient admissions, emergency room [ER] visits) would have to be eliminated from future utilization in order to cover the costs of DM (“breakeven”) or yield a desired return on investment (ROI) ratio and net savings. In his first published article on this model, its creator described the NND approach and illustrated its use relative to 4 different chronic diseases: asthma, coronary heart disease, diabetes, and congestive heart failure.1 He based his analysis of savings on hospital admissions and ER visits and concluded that because of the low rates of these events among patients with these conditions, significant reductions would be needed to generate significant savings. He based his cost of the DM intervention on fees per plan member, not per DM prospect or participant, and because of the low incidence of these conditions in most populations, this created a high cost per person with the conditions. [Note: While charging a fee for every member of a population makes costs more predictable for payors and vendors, it is likely to increase the costs compared to the benefits of DM interventions. If vendors charge $2.00 per member per month for a given DM program, while only 2% of the members have the disease it addresses, then the cost per individual who has any likelihood of having reduced health care costs is $2.00 divided by 2% or $100 per person affected per month. This makes it necessary that each person affected generate savings of at least $1200 per year just to break even. If only half of those affected actually participate in the DM program, each participant will have to generate savings of $2400 per year to break even. By contrast, if vendors were to charge based on the number of people in the population with a given disease, and charge enough to cover the costs to the vendor of that number of participants, even if that meant raising fees to $200 per year per participant, each participant would have to generate only $200 to break even, or $400 to achieve an ROI of $2.00:1. Even if vendors charged per person affected, and only half those affected participated, this would still require savings of only $400 per participant to break even and $800 each to achieve a $2.00:1 ROI.] The combination of the limited cost focus and high imputed costs per person affected yielded projected requirements for between 10% and 20% decreases in utilization of hospi-
{"title":"Number needed to succeed in disease management.","authors":"Scott MacStravic","doi":"10.1089/dis.2007.106703","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dis.2007.106703","url":null,"abstract":"THE IDEA IS BOTH SIMPLE and logical, but there has been a good deal of controversy over the use of “Number Needed to Decrease” (NND) analysis (which here I label as “Number Needed to Succeed” [NNS] analysis) as a tool in considering proposed disease management (DM) investments. This analysis method first considers the costs of DM interventions compared to the cost savings potential for each one, then determines how many “cases” of cost-generating episodes of care (eg, inpatient admissions, emergency room [ER] visits) would have to be eliminated from future utilization in order to cover the costs of DM (“breakeven”) or yield a desired return on investment (ROI) ratio and net savings. In his first published article on this model, its creator described the NND approach and illustrated its use relative to 4 different chronic diseases: asthma, coronary heart disease, diabetes, and congestive heart failure.1 He based his analysis of savings on hospital admissions and ER visits and concluded that because of the low rates of these events among patients with these conditions, significant reductions would be needed to generate significant savings. He based his cost of the DM intervention on fees per plan member, not per DM prospect or participant, and because of the low incidence of these conditions in most populations, this created a high cost per person with the conditions. [Note: While charging a fee for every member of a population makes costs more predictable for payors and vendors, it is likely to increase the costs compared to the benefits of DM interventions. If vendors charge $2.00 per member per month for a given DM program, while only 2% of the members have the disease it addresses, then the cost per individual who has any likelihood of having reduced health care costs is $2.00 divided by 2% or $100 per person affected per month. This makes it necessary that each person affected generate savings of at least $1200 per year just to break even. If only half of those affected actually participate in the DM program, each participant will have to generate savings of $2400 per year to break even. By contrast, if vendors were to charge based on the number of people in the population with a given disease, and charge enough to cover the costs to the vendor of that number of participants, even if that meant raising fees to $200 per year per participant, each participant would have to generate only $200 to break even, or $400 to achieve an ROI of $2.00:1. Even if vendors charged per person affected, and only half those affected participated, this would still require savings of only $400 per participant to break even and $800 each to achieve a $2.00:1 ROI.] The combination of the limited cost focus and high imputed costs per person affected yielded projected requirements for between 10% and 20% decreases in utilization of hospi-","PeriodicalId":51235,"journal":{"name":"Disease Management : Dm","volume":"10 6","pages":"311-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/dis.2007.106703","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"27195377","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Disease Management (DM) programs have advanced to address costly chronic disease patterns in populations. This is in part due to the programs' significant clinical and economical value, coupled with interest by pharmaceutical manufacturers, managed care organizations, and pharmacy benefit management firms. While cost containment realizations for many such interventions have been less than anticipated, this article explores potentials in marrying Medication Error Risk Reduction into DM programs within managed care environments. Medication errors are an emergent serious problem now gaining attention in US health policy. They represent a failure within population-based health programs because they remain significant cost drivers. Therefore, medication errors should be addressed in an organized fashion, with DM being a worthy candidate for piggybacking such programs to achieve the best synergistic effects.
{"title":"Iatrogenic disease management: moderating medication errors and risks in a pharmacy benefit management environment.","authors":"Vinit Nair, J Warren Salmon, Alan F Kaul","doi":"10.1089/dis.2007.106617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dis.2007.106617","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Disease Management (DM) programs have advanced to address costly chronic disease patterns in populations. This is in part due to the programs' significant clinical and economical value, coupled with interest by pharmaceutical manufacturers, managed care organizations, and pharmacy benefit management firms. While cost containment realizations for many such interventions have been less than anticipated, this article explores potentials in marrying Medication Error Risk Reduction into DM programs within managed care environments. Medication errors are an emergent serious problem now gaining attention in US health policy. They represent a failure within population-based health programs because they remain significant cost drivers. Therefore, medication errors should be addressed in an organized fashion, with DM being a worthy candidate for piggybacking such programs to achieve the best synergistic effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":51235,"journal":{"name":"Disease Management : Dm","volume":"10 6","pages":"337-46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/dis.2007.106617","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"27196281","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Healing the health care system.","authors":"David B Nash, Raymond C Grandon, Doris N Grandon","doi":"10.1089/dis.2007.106731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dis.2007.106731","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51235,"journal":{"name":"Disease Management : Dm","volume":"10 6","pages":"315-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/dis.2007.106731","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"27196279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study examined the risk for avoidable diabetes hospitalizations associated with comorbid conditions and other risk variables. A retrospective analysis was conducted of hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of diabetes in a 2004 sample of short stay general hospitals in the United States (N = 97,526.) Data were drawn from the Health Care Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample. Avoidable hospitalizations were defined using criteria from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to analyze 2 types of ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs): short-term complications and uncontrolled diabetes. Maternal cases, patients younger than age 18, and transfers from other hospitals were excluded. Avoidable hospitalization was estimated using maximum likelihood logistic regression analysis, where independent variables included patient age, gender, comorbidities, uninsurance status, patient's rural-urban residence and income estimate, and hospital variables. Models were identified using multiple runs on 3 random quartiles and validated using the fourth quartile. Costs were estimated from charge data using cost-to-charge ratios. Results indicated that these 2 ACSCs accounted for 35,312 or 36% of all diabetes hospitalizations. Multiple types of comorbid conditions were related to risk for avoidable diabetes hospitalizations. Estimated costs and length of stay were lower among these types of avoidable hospitalizations compared to other diabetes hospitalizations; however, total estimated nationwide costs for 2004 short-term complications and uncontrolled diabetes hospitalizations totaled over $1.3 billion. Recommendations are made for how disease management programs for diabetes could incorporate treatment for comorbid conditions to reduce hospitalization risk.
{"title":"Avoidable hospitalizations for diabetes: comorbidity risks.","authors":"Melissa M Ahern, Michael Hendryx","doi":"10.1089/dis.2007.106709","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dis.2007.106709","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study examined the risk for avoidable diabetes hospitalizations associated with comorbid conditions and other risk variables. A retrospective analysis was conducted of hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of diabetes in a 2004 sample of short stay general hospitals in the United States (N = 97,526.) Data were drawn from the Health Care Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample. Avoidable hospitalizations were defined using criteria from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to analyze 2 types of ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs): short-term complications and uncontrolled diabetes. Maternal cases, patients younger than age 18, and transfers from other hospitals were excluded. Avoidable hospitalization was estimated using maximum likelihood logistic regression analysis, where independent variables included patient age, gender, comorbidities, uninsurance status, patient's rural-urban residence and income estimate, and hospital variables. Models were identified using multiple runs on 3 random quartiles and validated using the fourth quartile. Costs were estimated from charge data using cost-to-charge ratios. Results indicated that these 2 ACSCs accounted for 35,312 or 36% of all diabetes hospitalizations. Multiple types of comorbid conditions were related to risk for avoidable diabetes hospitalizations. Estimated costs and length of stay were lower among these types of avoidable hospitalizations compared to other diabetes hospitalizations; however, total estimated nationwide costs for 2004 short-term complications and uncontrolled diabetes hospitalizations totaled over $1.3 billion. Recommendations are made for how disease management programs for diabetes could incorporate treatment for comorbid conditions to reduce hospitalization risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":51235,"journal":{"name":"Disease Management : Dm","volume":"10 6","pages":"347-55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/dis.2007.106709","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"27196282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Robin S Turpin, Pamela B Blumberg, Claire E Sharda, Lucille A C Salvucci, Brian Haggert, Jeffrey B Simmons
{"title":"Patient adherence: present state and future directions.","authors":"Robin S Turpin, Pamela B Blumberg, Claire E Sharda, Lucille A C Salvucci, Brian Haggert, Jeffrey B Simmons","doi":"10.1089/dis.2007.106650","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dis.2007.106650","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51235,"journal":{"name":"Disease Management : Dm","volume":"10 6","pages":"305-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/dis.2007.106650","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"27195375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}