A simulation model approach to analysis of the business case for eliminating health care disparities

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Purchasers can play an important role in eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in health care. A need exists to develop a compelling "business case" from the employer perspective to put, and keep, the issue of racial/ethnic disparities in health care on the quality improvement agenda for health plans and providers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>To illustrate a method for calculating an employer business case for disparity reduction and to compare the business case in two clinical areas, we conducted analyses of the direct (medical care costs paid by employers) and indirect (absenteeism, productivity) effects of eliminating known racial/ethnic disparities in mammography screening and appropriate medication use for patients with asthma. We used Markov simulation models to estimate the consequences, for defined populations of African-American employees or health plan members, of a 10% increase in HEDIS mammography rates or a 10% increase in appropriate medication use among either adults or children/adolescents with asthma.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The savings per employed African-American woman aged 50-65 associated with a 10% increase in HEDIS mammography rate, from direct medical expenses and indirect costs (absenteeism, productivity) combined, was $50. The findings for asthma were more favorable from an employer point of view at approximately$1,660 per person if raising medication adherence rates in African-American employees or dependents by 10%.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>For the employer business case, both clinical scenarios modeled showed positive results. There is a greater potential financial gain related to eliminating a disparity in asthma medications than there is for eliminating a disparity in mammography rates.</p

Quasi-experimental trial of diabetes Self-Management Automated and Real-Time Telephonic Support (SMARTSteps) in a Medicaid managed care plan: study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health information technology can enhance self-management and quality of life for patients with chronic disease and overcome healthcare barriers for patients with limited English proficiency. After a randomized controlled trial of a multilingual automated telephone self-management support program (ATSM) improved patient-centered dimensions of diabetes care in safety net clinics, we collaborated with a nonprofit Medicaid managed care plan to translate research into practice, offering ATSM as a covered benefit and augmenting ATSM to promote medication activation. This paper describes the protocol of the Self-Management Automated and Real-Time Telephonic Support Project (SMARTSteps).</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This controlled quasi-experimental trial used a wait-list variant of a stepped wedge design to enroll 362 adult health plan members with diabetes who speak English, Cantonese, or Spanish and receive care at 4 publicly-funded clinics. Through language-stratified randomization, participants were assigned to four intervention statuses: SMARTSteps-ONLY, SMARTSteps-PLUS, or wait-list for either intervention. In addition to usual primary care, intervention participants received 27 weekly calls in their preferred language with rotating queries and response-triggered education about self-care, medication adherence, safety concerns, psychological issues, and preventive services. Health coaches from the health plan called patients with out-of-range responses for collaborative goal setting and action planning. SMARTSteps-PLUS also included health coach calls to promote medication activation, adherence and intensification, if triggered by ATSM-reported non-adherence, refill non-adherence from pharmacy claims, or suboptimal cardiometabolic indicators. Wait-list patients crossed-over to SMARTSteps-ONLY or -PLUS at 6 months. For participants who agreed to structured telephone interviews at baseline and 6 months (n = 252), primary outcomes will be changes in quality of life and functional status with secondary outcomes of 6-month changes in self-management behaviors/efficacy and patient-centered processes of care. We will also evaluate 6-month changes in cardiometabolic (HbA1c, blood pressure, and LDL) and utilization indicators for all participants.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Outcomes will provide evidence regarding real-world implementation of ATSM within a Medicaid managed care plan serving safety net settings. The evaluation trial will provide insight into translating and scaling up health information technology interventions for linguistically and culturally diverse vulnerable populations with chronic disease.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00683020">NCT00683020</a></p

Fundamental Reform of Payment for Adult Primary Care: Comprehensive Payment for Comprehensive Care

Primary care is essential to the effective and efficient functioning of health care delivery systems, yet there is an impending crisis in the field due in part to a dysfunctional payment system. We present a fundamentally new model of payment for primary care, replacing encounter-based imbursement with comprehensive payment for comprehensive care. Unlike former iterations of primary care capitation (which simply bundled inadequate fee-for-service payments), our comprehensive payment model represents new investment in adult primary care, with substantial increases in payment over current levels. The comprehensive payment is directed to practices to include support for the modern systems and teams essential to the delivery of comprehensive, coordinated care. Income to primary physicians is increased commensurate with the high level of responsibility expected. To ensure optimal allocation of resources and the rewarding of desired outcomes, the comprehensive payment is needs/risk-adjusted and performance-based. Our model establishes a new social contract with the primary care community, substantially increasing payment in return for achieving important societal health system goals, including improved accessibility, quality, safety, and efficiency. Attainment of these goals should help offset and justify the costs of the investment. Field tests of this and other new models of payment for primary care are urgently needed

Beyond the Evidence of the New Hypertension Guidelines. Blood pressure measurement – is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I)

Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations. The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors. To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin. The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic. Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as: - accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability, - diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician, - individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences, - difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders, - pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless, - the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs. The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II)