Search

Aim: Analyze the impact of nationwide implementation of teledermatological care for psoriasis. Methods: Develop a Markov model that estimates the impact of telehealth technology for treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis on health and healthcare expenditures compared with in-person clinical care. Results: Lower medical costs by US$1.5 billion and total social costs of US$4.3 billion over 5 years. Patients save more than 67 million hours in work absenteeism and travel time, valued at US$598 million. Employers save US$1.2 billion over 5 years due to decreased employee absenteeism. Conclusion: National implementation of telehealth for psoriasis care has the potential to substantially reduce both formal healthcare costs and informal costs for families and patients, while maintaining equivalent clinical outcomes as traditional in-person care.

Aim: To estimate the impact of universal anti-TNF therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. Materials & methods: Developed a population-level Markov model to estimate the impact on health outcomes and medical expenditures of expanding anti-TNF therapy use versus current treatment practices. Results: Reductions in deaths (2600), hip fractures (980), major adverse cardiac events (2700) and patient out-of-pocket medical spending (2%) over 5 years. Total societal costs would be US$22,100 higher per patient per year, primarily due to the high cost of anti-TNF therapy. Conclusion: Expanding anti-TNF therapy use among US adult patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease would reduce morbidity and mortality, decrease disease-related medical costs and increase treatment costs compared with current practice. Despite the higher costs, this approach could substantially benefit patients.

Aim: Analyze the impact of national implementation of ‘low intensity’ post-treatment colorectal cancer surveillance compared with current practices. Materials & methods: Create a population-level Markov model to estimate impacts of expansion of low versus high intensity surveillance post-treatment on healthcare utilization, costs and caregiver time loss. Results: Shifting to low intensity colorectal cancer surveillance would reduce patient burden by 301,830 h per patient annually over 5 years. Cost reductions over 5 years were US$43.5 million for Medicare and US$4.2 million for Medicaid. Total societal cost savings equaled US$104.2 million. Conclusion: National implementation of low intensity post-treatment colorectal cancer surveillance has the potential to significantly reduce burden and costs on patients and their caregivers with no added risks to health.

There have been critical improvements in dialysis care and mortality in the last decade. These improvements track with the implementation of the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) Quality Incentive Program (QIP) beginning in 2012, which aligns Medicare payments to dialysis facilities with performance on quality measures. This study explores whether the improvements in dialysis care and patient outcomes under the ESRD QIP have been shared equally among patient groups.Our analyses focus on 4 social risk factors: Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid, and rurality. We estimated multivariable regressions using longitudinal Medicare and Consolidated Renal Operations in a Web-Enabled Network data.ESRD QIP payment reductions were more common at dialysis facilities with higher proportions of Black and dual-eligible ESRD patients. Patients with dual eligibility and Black race had persistently worse relative outcomes as the ESRD QIP was implemented. This finding was true for differences in outcomes when comparing patients within and across facilities and was not affected by the addition of specific quality measures to the ESRD QIP measure set. Hispanic patients and patients at rural facilities have generally not had worse outcomes since the start of the ESRD QIP.There is no evidence of widening disparities in dialysis care or patient outcomes across patient groups under the ESRD QIP, which is a longstanding and well-publicized concern with value-based purchasing programs. Relative changes between patient groups since the start of ESRD QIP have not favored any patient group. Many disparities in dialysis quality measures and assessment of dialysis facility payment reductions persist.

Aim: To estimate the economic impacts of increased use of specialty care infusion centers for treating adults experiencing vaso-occlusive crises. Methods: A Markov model is developed to estimate the impact of expanding use of specialty care infusion centers to treat vaso-occlusive crises compared to emergency department care. Results: Access to infusion centers for sickle cell disease could result in savings over US$1.9 billion in formal medical costs and over US$2 billion in societal costs, based on uptake assumptions over 10 years. Conclusion: Expansion of adult sickle cell disease centers across the nation could lead to considerably better economic outcomes in the form of reduced costs and hospital length of stay in addition to improved clinical outcomes as reported in the existing literature.

Aim: Estimate the impacts treating acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) in children aged 6 months through 12 years with narrow-spectrum antibiotics. Materials & methods: Decision-tree model to estimate children’s health, healthcare utilization and costs, and caregiver’s time and costs for using narrow-spectrum antibiotics in eligible children with an ARTI, compared with current use of narrow- and broad-spectrum antibiotics. Results: Reduced adverse drug reactions by 35,750 (14%) cases) and 4750 (12%) fewer emergency department visits, 300 (12%) fewer hospitalizations, and 50,500 (10%) avoided outpatient visits. Annual healthcare costs fell by US$120 million (22%). Total societal costs declined by US$131 million (20%). Conclusion: National implementation of narrow-spectrum antibiotics to treat ARTIs in children improves patient outcomes and reduces caregiver burden and annual healthcare costs.

Objective: To measure the return on investment (ROI) for a pediatric asthma pay-for-reporting intervention initiated by a Medicaid managed care plan in New York State. Design: Practice-level, randomized prospective evaluation. Setting: Twenty-five primary care practices providing care to children enrolled in the Monroe Plan for Medical Care (the Monroe Plan). Participants: Practices were randomized to either treatment (13 practices, 11 participated) or control (12 practices). Intervention: For each of its eligible members assigned to a treatment group practice, the Monroe plan paid a low monthly incentive fee to the practice. To receive the incentive, treatment group practices were required to conduct, and report to the Monroe Plan, the results of chart audits on eligible members. Chart audits were conducted by practices every 6 months. Aftereach chart audit, the Monroe Plan provided performance feedback to each practice comparing its adherence to asthma care guidelines with averages from all other treatment group practices. Control practices continued with usual care. Main Outcome Measures: Intervention implementation and operating costs and per member, per month claims costs. ROI was measured by net present value (discounted cash flow analysis). Results: The ROI to the Monroe Plan was negative, primarily due to high intervention costs and lack of reductions in spending on emergency department and hospital utilization forchildren in treatment relative to control practices. Conclusions: A pay-for-reporting, chart audit intervention is unlikely to achieve the meaningful reductions in utilization of high-cost services that would be necessary to produce a financial ROI in 2.5 years.

Objective Policies supporting value-based care and alternative payment models, notably in the Affordable Care Act and the Medicare Access & CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, offer hope to advance care integration for individuals with behavioral and chronic physical health conditions. The potential for integration to improve quality while managing costs for individuals with high needs, coupled with the remaining financial, operational, and policy challenges, underscores a need for continued discussion of integration programs' preliminary outcomes and lessons. The authors describe the early efforts of the HealthChoices HealthConnections pilot program for adult Medicaid beneficiaries with serious mental illness and co-occurring chronic conditions, which used a navigator model in 3 southeastern Pennsylvania counties. Method The authors conducted a difference-in-differences analysis of emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and readmissions using Medicaid claims data and collected data about program implementation. Results ED visits decreased 4% among study group members (n = 4,788) while increasing almost 6% in the comparison group (n = 7,039) during the intervention period (p = .036); there were no statistically significant differences in hospitalizations or readmissions. This pilot demonstrated the promise of nurse navigators (care managers) to bridge gaps between the physical and mental health care systems, and the success of a private-public partnership developing a member profile to share behavioral and physical health information in the absence of an interoperable health information technology system. Conclusions and implications for practice The implementation lessons can inform state Medicaid Health Home models as well as accountable care organizations considering incorporation of behavioral health care. (PsycINFO Database Record

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) Framework and Toolkit focus on effective approaches to planning and conducting D&I activities. The D&I Framework describes the concepts and best practices that are central to effective D&I while the Toolkit is designed to assist PCORI and its partners in planning and conducting D&I activities. It is intended as an interactive resource for teams of PCORI staff, partners, and other stakeholders who may use it to plan meetings, motivate and focus discussions, and inform work plans.

The Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) Framework connects goals for these activities with evidence and best practices, as well as core components of D&I planning and execution.

Multidisciplinary, multi-institutional collaboration has become a key feature of comparative effectiveness research (CER), and CER funders have made promotion of these types of collaboration an implicit, and sometimes explicit, goal of funding. An important challenge in evaluating CER programs is understanding if and how different forms of collaboration are associated with successful CER projects. This article explores the potential use of social network analysis to address research questions about the associations between collaboration and the success of CER projects.

Aim: To describe the evaluation design of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 comparative effectiveness research (CER) investment, how funds were allocated and how CER priorities were addressed. Materials & methods: Primary and secondary data included information from redacted project proposals, an investigator survey and federal project officers, investigators and expert panel discussions. Results: More than 420 projects (US$1.1 billion) were awarded. Those generating new or synthesizing existing CER made up the plurality (194, or US$524 million). Data infrastructure projects were the second-largest area (28%, US$302 million). More than three-fourths addressed at least one priority population, condition category or intervention category. Conclusion: These investments expanded the nation's CER activities and its future capacity to conduct CER.

Aims: This study elaborates on the public's understanding of comparative effectiveness research (CER) or patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR), attitudes toward CER/PCOR and use of evidence in healthcare decision-making. Materials & methods: We conducted six focus groups with the general public – three with individuals actively engaged in healthcare decision-making and three with individuals more passive in their approach. Results: The general public has little knowledge of CER/PCOR, and its perceptions of certain CER/PCOR concepts are inconsistent with those of researchers and policy-makers. Active healthcare consumers value information more than passive consumers and are likely to use evidence in decision-making. Conclusion: Providers are an important source for disseminating and communicating CER/PCOR evidence to active and passive consumers.

To improve health outcomes, clinicians and patients must have evidence-based information available to help them make informed decisions, the knowledge and skills to use this information, and positive attitudes about the value of using comparative effectiveness research (CER) in decision making. As a part of the midstream evaluation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act CER portfolio, we collected information from a variety of sources regarding perspectives on CER and engagement of clinicians and patients in CER.

Background: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) directed nearly US$29.2 million to comparative effectiveness research (CER) methods development. Aim: To help inform future CER methods investments, we describe the ARRA CER methods projects, identify barriers to this research and discuss the alignment of topics with published methods development priorities. Methods: We used several existing resources and held discussions with ARRA CER methods investigators. Results & conclusion: Although funded projects explored many identified priority topics, investigators noted that much work remains. For example, given the considerable investments in CER data infrastructure, the methods development field can benefit from additional efforts to educate researchers about the availability of new data sources and about how best to apply methods to match their research questions and data.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 directed US$1.1 billion to the US Department of Health and Human Services for support of comparative effectiveness research (CER). As part of this investment, US Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a midstream evaluation of the ARRA CER portfolio. One goal of the evaluation was to identify issues to consider for a future evaluation of the long-term impact of this portfolio and other CER investments. In planning the ARRA CER evaluation, we developed and revised a conceptual framework and related policy research questions that may be useful to future efforts to assess the impact of CER or patient-centered outcomes research investments. In addition, we explored methodological challenges related to designing an evaluation to assess investments in CER that may be informative to any future plans to evaluate the long-term impact of ARRA CER as well subsequent investments made from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund.

Aim : We conducted a midstream assessment of the comparative effectiveness research (CER) training programs funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) by examining program characteristics, planned curriculum development activities and core competencies. Materials & methods : We examined all 43 training projects funded by the US$46 million ARRA CER investment, collecting data from key informant discussions and a technical expert panel. Results : The majority of projects leveraged institutional resources to provide an individualized combination of didactic and experiential learning supported by strong mentorship. Core competencies included skills in statistical modeling, evidence synthesis (systematic reviews and meta-analysis) and general research design skills. Conclusion : ARRA-supported CER training programs enhanced workforce capacity by developing curricula and preparing CER researchers to apply emerging methods and utilize new CER infrastructure.