Outpatient Complex Case Management: Health System-Tailored Risk Stratification Taxonomy to Identify High-Cost, High-Need Patients

Does Interdisciplinary Care Team Care Management Improve Health Quality and Demonstrate Cost-Effectiveness?

This study evaluated the impact of an interdisciplinary care teams (IDCT) care management program on cost and quality outcomes using a novel algorithm to identify 400 high-risk patients out of 48,235 Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries. Of the 400, 252 were enrolled in the IDCT care management intervention program, while the remaining 148 were not enrolled. A second comparison group consisted of 660 who were referred to the IDCT program but not selected by the algorithm. The program's effectiveness was evaluated 1-year postintervention. Analyses found that health care costs for members enrolled in the IDCT program were reduced by US$1,121.76 and US$1,625.61 per member per month, respectively, relative to those not enrolled and those enrolled by referral. The cost reduction from the program generated a net savings of US$1.9MM, covering the program's cost. Findings suggest IDCTs can cost-effectively manage populations of high-risk patients with better selection and fostering greater interdependence.

Caring for high-need patients

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore the construct of "high need" and identify common need domains among high-need patients, their care professionals, and healthcare organizations; and to describe the interventions that health care systems use to address these needs, including exploring the potential unintended consequences of interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a modified Delphi panel informed by an environmental scan. Expert stakeholders included patients, interdisciplinary healthcare practitioners (physicians, social workers, peer navigators), implementation scientists, and policy makers. The environmental scan used a rapid literature review and semi-structured interviews with key informants who provide healthcare for high-need patients. We convened a day-long virtual panel meeting, preceded and followed by online surveys to establish consensus.

RESULTS

The environmental scan identified 46 systematic reviews on high-need patients, 19 empirical studies documenting needs, 14 intervention taxonomies, and 9 studies providing construct validity for the concept "high need." Panelists explored the construct and terminology and established that individual patients' needs are unique, but areas of commonality exist across all high-need patients. Panelists agreed on 11 domains describing patient (e.g., social circumstances), 5 care professional (e.g., communication), and 8 organizational (e.g., staffing arrangements) needs. Panelists developed a taxonomy of interventions with 15 categories (e.g., care navigation, care coordination, identification and monitoring) directed at patients, care professionals, or the organization. The project identified potentially unintended consequences of interventions for high-need patients, including high costs incurred for patients, increased time and effort for care professionals, and identification of needs without resources to respond appropriately.

CONCLUSIONS

Care for high-need patients requires a thoughtful approach; differentiating need domains provides multiple entry points for interventions directed at patients, care professionals, and organizations. Implementation efforts should consider outlined intended and unintended downstream effects on patients, care professionals, and organizations.

Differential Impact of a Plan-Led Standardized Complex Care Management Intervention on Subgroups of High-Cost High-Need Medicaid Patients

Interventions to better coordinate care for high-need high-cost (HNHC) Medicaid patients frequently fail to demonstrate changes in hospitalizations or emergency department (ED) use. Many of these interventions are modeled after practice-level complex care management (CCM) programs. The authors hypothesized that a national CCM program may be effective for some subgroups of HNHC patients, and the overall null effect may obfuscate subgroup-level impact. They used a previously published typology defining 6 subgroups of high-cost Medicaid patients and evaluated program impact by subgroup. The analysis used an individual-level interrupted time series with a comparison group. Intervention subjects were high-cost adult Medicaid patients who enrolled in 1 of 2 national CCM programs implemented by UnitedHealthcare (UHC) (n = 39,687). The comparators were patients who met CCM program criteria but were ineligible due to current enrollment in another UHC/Optum led program (N = 26,359). The intervention was a CCM program developed by UHC/Optum to provide "whole person care" delivering standardized interventions to address medical, behavioral, and social needs for HNHC Medicaid patients, and the outcome was probability of hospitalization or ED use in a given month, estimated at 12 months postenrollment. A reduction in risk of ED utilization for 4 of 6 subgroups was found. A reduction in risk of hospitalization for 1 of 6 subgroups was also found. The authors conclude that standardized health plan led CCM programs demonstrate effectiveness for certain subgroups of HNHC patients in Medicaid. This effectiveness is principally in reducing ED risk and may extend to the risk of hospitalization for a small number of patients.

Impactability Modeling for Reducing Medicare Accountable Care Organization Payments and Hospital Events in High-Need High-Cost Patients: Longitudinal Cohort Study

Background

Impactability modeling promises to help solve the nationwide crisis in caring for high-need high-cost patients by matching specific case management programs with patients using a “benefit” or “impactability” score, but there are limitations in tailoring each model to a specific program and population.

Objective

We evaluated the impact on Medicare accountable care organization savings from developing a benefit score for patients enrolled in a historic case management program, prospectively implementing the score, and evaluating the results in a new case management program.

Methods

We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 76,140 patients in a Medicare accountable care organization with multiple before-and-after measures of the outcome, using linked electronic health records and Medicare claims data from 2012 to 2019. There were 489 patients in the historic case management program, with 1550 matched comparison patients, and 830 patients in the new program, with 2368 matched comparison patients. The historic program targeted high-risk patients and assigned a centrally located registered nurse and social worker to each patient. The new program targeted high- and moderate-risk patients and assigned a nurse physically located in a primary care clinic. Our primary outcomes were any unplanned hospital events (admissions, observation stays, and emergency department visits), count of event-days, and Medicare payments.

Results

In the historic program, as expected, high-benefit patients enrolled in case management had fewer events, fewer event-days, and an average US $1.15 million reduction in Medicare payments per 100 patients over the subsequent year when compared with the findings in matched comparison patients. For the new program, high-benefit high-risk patients enrolled in case management had fewer events, while high-benefit moderate-risk patients enrolled in case management did not differ from matched comparison patients.

Conclusions

Although there was evidence that a benefit score could be extended to a new case management program for similar (ie, high-risk) patients, there was no evidence that it could be extended to a moderate-risk population. Extending a score to a new program and population should include evaluation of program outcomes within key subgroups. With increased attention on value-based care, policy makers and measure developers should consider ways to incorporate impactability modeling into program design and evaluation.

Identifying Populations with Complex Needs: Variation in Approaches Used to Select Complex Patient Populations

Interventions to support patients with complex needs are proliferating. However, little attention has been paid to methods for identifying complex patients. This study aims to summarize approaches used to define populations with complex needs in practice, by cataloging specific population criteria and organizing them into a taxonomy. The authors conducted a pragmatic review of literature published January 2000-December 2018 using PubMed. Search results were limited to English-language studies of adults that specified a set of objective criteria to identify a population with complex needs. The authors abstracted data from each article on population parameters, and conducted thematic analysis guided by deductive coding. The review identified 70 studies reflecting 90 unique complex population definitions. Complex populations criteria reflected 3 approaches: stratification, segmentation, and targeting. Six domains of population criteria were found within, including age-based criteria (59 populations); income (12); health care costs (45); health care utilization (39); health conditions (35); and subjective criteria (15). Criteria from multiple domains were frequently used in combination, and exact specifications were highly variable within each domain. Overall, 83% of the 90 population definitions included at least 1 cost- or utilization-based criterion. Nearly every study in the review presented a unique approach to identifying patients with complex needs but a limited number of "schools of thought" were found. Variability in definitions and inconsistent terminology are potential sources of ambiguity between stakeholders. Greater specificity and transparency in complex population definition would be a substantial contribution to the emerging field of complex care.

Implementation of interventions to reduce preventable hospital admissions for cardiovascular or respiratory conditions: an evidence map and realist synthesis

Background

In 2012, a series of systematic reviews summarised the evidence regarding interventions to reduce preventable hospital admissions. Although intervention effects were dependent on context, the reviews revealed a consistent picture of reduction across different interventions targeting cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. The research reported here sought to provide an in-depth understanding of how interventions that have been shown to reduce admissions for these conditions may work, with a view to supporting their effective implementation in practice.

Objectives

To map the available evidence on interventions used in the UK NHS to reduce preventable admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions and to conduct a realist synthesis of implementation evidence related to these interventions.

Methods

For the mapping review, six databases were searched for studies published between 2010 and October 2017. Studies were included if they were conducted in the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand; recruited adults with a cardiovascular or respiratory condition; and evaluated or described an intervention that could reduce preventable admissions or re-admissions. A descriptive summary of key characteristics of the included studies was produced. The studies included in the mapping review helped to inform the sampling frame for the subsequent realist synthesis. The wider evidence base was also engaged through supplementary searching. Data extraction forms were developed using appropriate frameworks (an implementation framework, an intervention template and a realist logic template). Following identification of initial programme theories (from the theoretical literature, empirical studies and insights from the patient and public involvement group), the review team extracted data into evidence tables. Programme theories were examined against the individual intervention types and collectively as a set. The resultant hypotheses functioned as synthesised statements around which an explanatory narrative referenced to the underpinning evidence base was developed. Additional searches for mid-range and overarching theories were carried out using Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA).

Results

A total of 569 publications were included in the mapping review. The largest group originated from the USA. The included studies from the UK showed a similar distribution to that of the map as a whole, but there was evidence of some country-specific features, such as the prominence of studies of telehealth. In the realist synthesis, it was found that interventions with strong evidence of effectiveness overall had not necessarily demonstrated effectiveness in UK settings. This could be a barrier to using these interventions in the NHS. Facilitation of the implementation of interventions was often not reported or inadequately reported. Many of the interventions were diverse in the ways in which they were delivered. There was also considerable overlap in the content of interventions. The role of specialist nurses was highlighted in several studies. The five programme theories identified were supported to varying degrees by empirical literature, but all provided valuable insights.

Limitations

The research was conducted by a small team; time and resources limited the team’s ability to consult with a full range of stakeholders.

Conclusions

Overall, implementation appears to be favoured by support for self-management by patients and their families/carers, support for services that signpost patients to consider alternatives to seeing their general practitioner when appropriate, recognition of possible reasons why patients seek admission, support for health-care professionals to diagnose and refer patients appropriately and support for workforce roles that promote continuity of care and co-ordination between services.

Future work

Research should focus on understanding discrepancies between national and international evidence and the transferability of findings between different contexts; the design and evaluation of implementation strategies informed by theories about how the intervention being implemented might work; and qualitative research on decision-making around hospital referrals and admissions.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.