Do HEDIS measures reflect cost-effective practices?

The Paradigm Shift From Patient to Health Consumer: 20 Years of Value Assessment in Health

Health care is undergoing a "revolution," where patients are becoming consumers and armed with apps, consumer review scores, and, in some countries, high out-of-pocket costs. Although economic analyses and health technology assessment (HTA) have come a long way in their evaluation of the clinical, economic, ethical, legal, and societal perspectives that may be impacted by new technologies and procedures, these approaches do not reflect underlying patient preferences that may be important in the assessment of "value" in the current value-based health care transition. The major challenges that come with the transformation to a value-based health care system lead to questions such as "How are economic analyses, often the basis for policy and reimbursement decisions, going to switch from a societal to an individual perspective?" and "How do we then assess (economic) value, considering individual preference heterogeneity, as well as varying heuristics and decision rules?" These challenges, related to including the individual perspective in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), have been widely debated. Cost-effectiveness measures treatments in terms of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), where QALYs assume that a health state that is more desirable is more valuable, and therefore, value is equated with preference or desirability. QALYs have long been criticized for empirical and conceptual shortcomings. However, policy makers in many countries have used QALY measures to make health coverage decisions, although now, patients, and patient advocates, are questioning the valuation methodologies. This has led to the development of new approaches to valuing health, which are already starting to be used in the United States. This paper reviews 20-25 years of value assessment approaches in health and concludes with challenges and opportunities for value assessment methods in health in the years to come.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Sleep Apnea Management: A Critical Evaluation of the Impact of Therapy on Health Care Costs

TOPIC IMPORTANCE

OSA is a widespread condition that significantly affects both health and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). If left untreated, OSA can lead to accidents, decreased productivity, and medical complications, resulting in significant economic burdens including the direct costs of managing the disorder. Given the constraints on health care resources, understanding the cost-effectiveness of OSA management is crucial. A key factor in cost-effectiveness is whether OSA therapies reduce medical costs associated with OSA-related complications.

REVIEW FINDINGS

Treatments for OSA have been shown to enhance HRQoL, particularly for symptomatic patients with moderate or severe disease. Economic studies also have demonstrated that these treatments are highly cost-effective. However, although substantial empirical evidence shows that untreated OSA is associated with increased medical costs, uncertainty remains about the impact of OSA treatment on these costs. Randomized controlled trials of positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy have failed to demonstrate cost reductions, but the studies have had important limitations. Observational studies suggest that PAP therapy may temper increases in costs, but only among patients who are highly adherent to treatment. However, the healthy adherer effect is an important potential source of bias in these studies.

SUMMARY

OSA management is cost-effective, although uncertainties persist regarding the therapy's impact on medical costs. Future studies should focus on reducing bias, particularly the healthy adherer effect, and addressing other confounding factors to clarify potential medical cost savings. Promising avenues to further understanding include using quasiexperimental designs, incorporating more sophisticated characterization of OSA severity and symptoms, and leveraging newer technologies (eg, big data, wearables, and artificial intelligence).

Do Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Quality Measures Reflect Cost-Effectiveness Evidence?

OBJECTIVES

Despite its importance of quality measures used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the underlying cost-effectiveness evidence has not been examined. This study aimed to analyze cost-effectiveness evidence associated with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services quality measures.

METHODS

After classifying 23 quality measures with the Donabedian's structure-process-outcome quality of care model, we identified cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) relevant to these measures from the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry based on the PICOTS (population, intervention, comparator, outcome, time horizon, and setting) framework. We then summarized available incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to determine the cost-effectiveness of the quality measures.

RESULTS

The 23 quality measures were categorized into 14 process, 7 outcome, and 2 structure measures. Cost-effectiveness evidence was only available for 8 of 14 process measures. Two measures (Tobacco Screening and Hemoglobin bA1c Control) were cost-saving and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) improving, and 5 (Depression Screening, Influenza Immunization, Colon Cancer Screening, Breast Cancer Screening, and Statin Therapy) were highly cost-effective (median ICER ≤ $50 000/QALY). The remaining measure (Fall Screening) had a median ICER of $120 000/QALY. No CEAs were available for 15 measures: 10 defined by subjective patient ratings and 5 employed outcome measures without specifying an intervention or process.

CONCLUSIONS

When relevant CEAs were available, cost-effectiveness evidence was consistent with quality measures (measures were cost-effective). Nevertheless, most quality measures were based on subjective ratings or outcome measures, posing a challenge in identifying supporting economic evidence. Refining and aligning quality measures with cost-effectiveness evidence can help further improve healthcare efficiency by demonstrating that they are good indicators of both quality and cost-effectiveness of care.

Modelling the value of innovative treatments for Alzheimer's disease in the United States

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the predominant cause of dementia and a leading cause of death globally. With no cure or treatment to slow disease progression, AD-related healthcare costs are substantial and increase as the severity of the disease progresses. Given the complexity of this disease, including initial pathophysiological damage occurring decades before clinical manifestation, finding new impactful treatments for AD relies on highly innovative research and development. However, such sizable and sustained investments bring into question whether conventional value assessment models are fit for this purpose. In this article, we examine the importance and challenges of assimilating the perspectives of varied stakeholders, including patients, caregivers, health systems, payers, and society at large, into a comprehensive value assessment model that may be well suited for a breakthrough treatment for AD.

Can We Better Prioritize Resources for Cost-Utility Research?

Purpose. We examined 512 published cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in the U.S. and other developed countries from 1976 through 2001 to determine: 1) the types of interventions studied; 2) whether they cover diseases and conditions with the highest burden; and, 3) to what extent they have covered leading health concerns defined by the Healthy People 2010 report. Data and Methods. We compared rankings of the most common diseases covered by the CUAs to rankings of U.S. disease burden. We also examined the extent to which CUAs covered key Healthy People 2010 priorites. Results. CUAs have focused mostly on pharmaceuticals (40%) and surgical procedures (16%). When compared to leading causes of DALYs, the data show overrepresentation of CUAs in cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, breast cancer, and HIV/AIDS, and underrepresentation in depression and bipolar disorder, injuries, and substance abuse disorders. Few CUAs have targeted Healthy People 2010 areas, such as physical activity. Conclusions. Published CUAs are associated with burden measures, but have not covered certain important health problems. These discrepancies do not alone indicate that society has been targeting resources for research inefficiently, but they do suggest the need to formalize the question of where each CUA research dollar might do the most good.

Evaluation of a diabetes management program using selected HEDIS measures

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of a community-based, pharmacist-directed diabetes management program among managed care organization enrollees using National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA)-Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) performance measures.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Regional community pharmacy chain in Tulsa, OK, from November 2005 to July 2007.

PATIENTS

52 participants with diabetes and hypertension who were enrolled in a managed care organization.

INTERVENTION

Diabetes management versus standard care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Comprehensive diabetes care measures of glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C <7.0%), blood pressure (<130/80 mm Hg), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (<100 mg/dL). A composite research outcome of success was created by determining whether a participant achieved two of the three HEDIS goals at the end of 9 months.

RESULTS

46.7% of intervention group participants achieved the A1C goal, while 9.1% of control group participants achieved the goal ( P < 0.002). More than one-half (53.3%) of intervention participants achieved the blood pressure goal compared with 22.7% of control participants ( P < 0.02). Among control group participants, 50% achieved the LDL cholesterol goal compared with 46.67% of intervention group participants. The odds of the intervention group attaining the composite goal were 5.87 times greater than the control group.

CONCLUSION

A community pharmacy-based diabetes management program was effective in achieving A1C and blood pressure goals measured by NCQA-HEDIS performance standards. Program participants were statistically significantly more likely to achieve two of three HEDIS standards during a 9-month period.

Effect of cost sharing on screening mammography in Medicare health plans

BACKGROUND

Policies that increase patients' share of health care expenses decrease the use of discretionary health services but also may reduce the use of important preventive care such as mammography.

METHODS

We reviewed coverage for mammography within 174 Medicare managed-care plans from 2001 through 2004. Among 550,082 individual-level observations for 366,475 women between the ages of 65 and 69 years, we compared rates of biennial breast-cancer screening in plans requiring cost sharing for mammography with screening rates in plans with full coverage. We also performed a longitudinal analysis of screening rates in plans that changed from full coverage to cost sharing for mammography as compared with rates in matched control plans that did not institute cost sharing.

RESULTS

The number of plans with cost sharing for mammography, which we defined as requiring a copayment of more than $10 or coinsurance of more than 10% for screening mammography, increased from 3 in 2001 (representing 0.5% of women) to 21 in 2004 (11.4% of women). Biennial screening rates were 8.3 percentage points lower in cost-sharing plans than in plans with full coverage, a difference that persisted in adjusted analyses (P<0.001). The effect of cost sharing was magnified among women residing in areas of lower income or educational levels (P<0.001 for each interaction). Screening rates decreased by 5.5 percentage points in plans that instituted cost sharing and increased by 3.4 percentage points in matched control plans that retained full coverage (P<0.001 for the adjusted analysis).

CONCLUSIONS

Relatively small copayments were associated with significantly lower mammography rates among women who should undergo screening mammography according to accepted clinical guidelines. For effective preventive services such as mammography, exempting elderly adults from cost sharing may be warranted.

Strategies for improving pneumococcal vaccination in eligible patients

Despite the fact that invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae remains a leading cause of death, current levels of immunization in the at risk population remain low and well below the 90% goal for Healthy People 2010. A number of intervention strategies to increase immunization rates (for influenza and pneumonia) have been demonstrated to be effective in increasing these rates when used alone or in combination. A summary of this literature is presented including recent data on the effectiveness of pay-for-performance approaches for increasing preventive care. Data are also presented on intervention strategies judged to be most effective in a large health care system, the Veterans Health Administration, which has essentially reached the Healthy People 2010 goal for pneumococcal immunization.

The utility of the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) asthma measure to predict asthma-related outcomes

BACKGROUND

The Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures are used extensively to measure quality of care.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate selected aspects of the HEDIS measure of appropriate use of asthma medications.

METHODS

Claims data were analyzed for commercial health plan members who met HEDIS criteria for persistent asthma in 1999. The use of asthma medications was evaluated in the subsequent year with stratification by controller medication and a measure of adherence (days' supply). Multivariate logistic regressions were used to evaluate the association among long-term controller therapy for persistent asthma, adherence to therapy, and asthma-related hospitalizations or emergency department (ED) visits, controlling for demographic, preindex utilization, and other confounding characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 49,637 persistent asthma patients, approximately 35.7% were using 1 class of long-term controller medications, 18.4% were using more than 1 class, and 45.9% were not using such medication. More than 25% of the persistent asthma patients did not use any asthma medication in the subsequent year. Patients with low adherence to controller medication had a significantly higher risk (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-2.08) of ED visit or hospitalization relative to patients not using any controllers compared with persons with moderate (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.57-1.23) or high (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.34-1.44) adherence. Patients receiving a high days' supply of inhaled corticosteroids had the lowest risk of ED visit or hospitalization (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.05-2.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that refinements to the HEDIS measure method for identifying patients with persistent asthma may be needed.

Quality-of-care review of optometric records: inter-rater reliability

As managed care organizations (MCOs) move into the realm of vision care, the issue of quality measurement has grown in relevance. This article assesses the inter-rater reliability of a medical record review instrument of a managed vision care plan. This study attempts to duplicate the continuous quality improvement initiative set forth by these MCOs. Twenty examiners, using the review instrument developed by the respective MCO, independently rated the records of 29 patients. Although the reviewers rated more than 86% of all records similarly, statistical analysis and further investigation deemed the instrument inconsistent and thus unreliable in its measurement.

Screening for depression in primary care: what do we still need to know?

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently issued the recommendation that primary care physicians screen adult patients for depression. A policy to screen primary care patients for depression has appeal as a strategy to reduce the personal and societal costs of undiagnosed and untreated depression. Such appeal may be justified if the evidence supports the screening policy in three areas: effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and feasibility. The USPSTF recommendation leaves many issues in each of these areas unresolved and physicians are left the choice of two important program characteristics: screening instrument and screening interval. We discuss how uncertainties in the screening protocol and treatment process affect whether screening is an effective and cost-effective use of resources with respect to other health interventions. We suggest that targeting screening to groups at a higher risk for depression may lead to a more effective use of health care resources. A screening program may not be feasible even if effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are optimized. We discuss uncertainties in the USPSTF recommendation that affect the feasibility of implementing such a program in physicians' practices.

The Prevention Index: using technology to improve quality assessment

OBJECTIVE

To improve quality of care assessment for preventive medical services and reduce assessment costs through development of a comprehensive prevention quality assessment methodology based on electronic medical records (EMRs).

DATA SOURCES

Random sample of 775 adult and 201 child members of a large nonprofit managed care system.

STUDY DESIGN

Problems with current, labor-intensive quality measures were identified and remedied using EMR capabilities. The Prevention Index (PI) was modeled by assessing five-year patterns of delivery of 24 prevention services to adult and child health maintenance organization (HMO) members and comparing those services to consensus recommendations and to selected Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) scores for the HMO.

DATA COLLECTION

Comprehensive chart reviews of 976 randomly selected members of a large managed care system were used to model the Prevention Index.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Current approaches to prevention quality assessment have serious limitations. The PI eliminates these limitations and can summarize care in a single comprehensive index that can be readily updated. The PI prioritizes services based on benefit, using a person-time approach, and separates preventive from diagnostic and therapeutic services.

CONCLUSIONS

Current methods for assessing quality are expensive, cannot be applied at all system levels, and have several methodological limitations. The PI, derived from EMRs, allows comprehensive assessment of prevention quality at every level of the system and at lower cost. Standardization of quality assessment capacities of EMRs will permit accurate cross-institutional comparisons.