Development of diabetes complications within coordinated and structured primary healthcare (2011-2020): a 10 year retrospective cohort study of over 200,000 patients in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a growing, costly, and potentially preventable public health issue. In 2004, Germany introduced the GP-centred healthcare programme to strengthen primary care. AIM: To assess the hazards of the most common diabetes-related complications in patients enrolled in GP-centred healthcare in comparison to usual primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: A retrospective cohort study based on German claims data (4 million members) from 2011 to 2020. METHOD: 217,964 patients with diabetes were monitored from 2011-2020. Endpoints were blindness, amputation, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary heart disease, dialysis, hypoglycaemia and all-case-mortality. Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used for multivariable analysis and adjusted for socio-demographic, practice- and disease-specific characteristics. RESULTS: Compared to usual care (n=98,609 patients), GP-centred healthcare (n=119,355 patients) showed a relative risk reduction of blindness of 12 %, and amputation of 20% over 10 years. The estimated impact of GP-centred healthcare on myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery disease, dialysis and mortality is significantly favourable in comparison to usual care. However, the proportional risk of hypoglycaemia (+1.2 %) in the interventional group is higher than in the usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Enrolment in GP-centred healthcare appears to result in a consistent reduction of the relative risk of diabetes-related complications over 10 years. The significant difference in contrast to usual care may be explained by robust, structured primary care provision, including the diabetes disease management programme and improved coordination and networking of care within primary and secondary care.

Overview article: Impact of primary and secondary care collaboration on hospitalization for chronic heart failure: Two comparative studies.

INTRODUCTION: In the past decade, a legal framework was created in Germany that promotes intense collaboration at the interface between primary and secondary care. This overview article distinguishes between the effects of two complementary programs aimed at improving ambulatory care in Baden-Wuerttemberg: (1) general practitioner-centered care (GPCC), which strengthens the role of general practitioners, and (2) collaborative cardiology care (CCC), which coordinates primary and cardiology care. METHODS: The overview article presents two already published studies that assess the impact of the programs on hospitalizations in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) based on claims data from 2016. The hospitalization rate of patients enrolled in GPCC (N=75,096) and CCC (N=13,404) were compared with corresponding control groups (N=65,618 and N=8,776 respectively). RESULTS: The hospitalization rate in GPCC was lower than in the control group (risk ratio 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.99, P=0.0024). GPCC patients with CHF that received specialist cardiology care as part of CCC had significantly lower hospitalization rates than those receiving standard cardiology care (risk ratio 0.92; 0.88-0.97, P=0.0014). DISCUSSION: This overwiew study shows that reforming medical care and compensation at the interface between general practice and specialist care can lead to fewer hospital admissions in patients with CHF. CONCLUSION: Overall, this article underlines the importance of collaboration between primary care physicians and specialists for patients with CHF that are receiving ambulatory care.

Collaborative Ambulatory Orthopaedic Care in Patients with Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study on Health Utilisation and Economic Outcomes.

Objective: To evaluate a novel healthcare programme for the treatment of patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis in southern Germany in terms of clinical and health economic outcomes. The study is based on claims data from 2014 to 2017. Methods: We conducted a retrospective comparative cohort study of 9768 patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis, of whom 9231 were enrolled in a collaborative ambulatory orthopaedic care programme (intervention group), and 537 patients received usual orthopaedic care (control group). Key features of the programme are coordinated care, morbidity-adapted reimbursement and extended consultation times. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine effects on health utilisation outcomes. The economic analysis considered annual costs per patient from a healthcare payer perspective, stratified by healthcare service sector. Besides multivariable regression analyses, bootstrapping was used to estimate confidence intervals for predicted mean costs by group. Results: Musculoskeletal-disease-related hospitalisation was much less likely among intervention group patients than control group patients [odds ratio (OR): 0.079; 95% CI: 0.062-0.099]. The number of physiotherapy prescriptions per patient was significantly lower in the intervention group (RR: 0.814; 95% CI: 0.721-0.919), while the likelihood of participation in exercise programmes over one year was significantly higher (OR: 3.126; 95% CI: 1.604-6.094). Enrolment in the programme was associated with significantly higher ambulatory costs (€1048 vs. €925), but costs for inpatient care, including hospital stays, were significantly lower (€1003 vs. €1497 and €928 vs. €1300 respectively). Overall annual cost-savings were €195 per patient. Conclusions: Collaborative ambulatory orthopaedic care was associated with reduced hospitalisation in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis. Health costs for programme participants were lower overall, despite higher costs for ambulatory care.

Evaluation of a collaborative ambulatory orthopedic care program for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis: a comparative observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, the novel orthopedic care program was established by the AOK health insurance fund in southern Germany to improve ambulatory care for patients with musculoskeletal disorders. The program offers extended consultation times, structured collaboration between general practitioners and specialists, as well as a renewed focus on guideline-recommended therapies and patient empowerment. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the program on health service utilization in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study, which is based on claims data, evaluated health service utilization in patients with hip and knee OA from 2014 to 2017. The intervention group comprised OA patients enrolled in collaborative ambulatory orthopedic care, and the control group received usual care. The outcomes were participation in exercise interventions, prescription of physical therapy, OA-related hospitalization, and endoprosthetic surgery rates. Generalized linear regression models were used to analyze the effect of the intervention. RESULTS: Claims data for 24,170 patients were analyzed. Data for the 23,042 patients in the intervention group were compared with data for the 1,128 patients in the control group. Participation in exercise interventions (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.781; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.230-2.577; p = 0.0022), and overall prescriptions of physical therapy (Rate Ratio (RR): 1.126; 95% CI: 1.025-1.236; p = 0.0128) were significantly higher in the intervention group. The intervention group had a significantly lower risk of OA -related hospitalization (OR: 0.375; 95% CI: 0.290-0.485; p < 0.0001). Endoprosthetic surgery of the knee was performed in 53.8% of hospitalized patients in the intervention group vs. 57.5% in the control group; 27.7% of hospitalized patients underwent endoprosthetic surgery of the hip in the intervention group versus 37.0% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with hip and knee OA, collaborative ambulatory orthopedic care is associated with a lower risk of OA-related hospitalization, higher participation in exercise interventions, and more frequently prescribed physical therapy.

Differences in opioid prescription rates between patients with musculoskeletal disorders enrolled in coordinated ambulatory healthcare and patients receiving usual care: a retrospective observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare opioid prescription rates between patients enrolled in coordinated ambulatory care and patients receiving usual care. DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we analysed claims data for insured patients with non-specific/specific back pain or osteoarthritis of hip or knee from 2014 to 2017. SETTING: The study was based on administrative data provided by the statutory health insurance fund 'Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse', in the state of Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: The intervention group consisted of patients enrolled in a coordinated ambulatory healthcare model; the control group included patients receiving usual care. Outcomes were overall strong and weak opioid prescriptions. Generalised linear regression models were used to analyse the effect of the intervention. RESULTS: Overall, 46 001 (non-specific 18 787/specific 27 214) patients with back pain and 19 366 patients with osteoarthritis belonged to the intervention group, and 7038 (2803/4235) and 963 patients to the control group, respectively. No significant difference in opioid prescriptions existed between the groups. However, the chance of being prescribed strong opioids was significantly lower in the intervention group (non-specific back pain: Odds Ratio (OR) 0.735, 95% Confidential Interval (CI) 0.563 to 0.960; specific back pain: OR 0.702, 95% CI 0.577 to 0.852; osteoarthritis: OR 0.644, 95% CI 0.464 to 0.892). The chance of being prescribed weak opioids was significantly higher in patients with specific back pain (OR 1.243, 95% CI 1.032 to 1.497) and osteoarthritis (OR 1.493, 95% CI 1.037 to 2.149) in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: Coordinated ambulatory healthcare appears to be associated with a lower prescription rate for strong opioids in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00017548).

General practitioner-centred paediatric primary care reduces risk of hospitalisation for mental disorders in children and adolescents with ADHD: findings from a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) play an essential role in the sustainable management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). To our knowledge, the healthcare programme described here is the first integrated care programme for paediatric ambulatory care embedded in GP-centred-healthcare in Germany. OBJECTIVES: To compare the health-service-utilisation of patients with ADHD enrolled in a GP-centred-paediatric-primary-care-programme with usual care in terms of disease-related hospitalisation, pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy. METHODS: In 2018, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of 3- to 18-year-old patients with ADHD in Baden-Wuerttemberg, southern Germany. The intervention group (IG) comprised patients enrolled in a GP-centred-paediatric-primary-healthcare-programme and consulted a participating GP for ADHD at least once. GP-centred-paediatric-primary-care provides high continuity of care, facilitated access to specialist care, extended routine examinations and enhanced transition to adult healthcare. Patients in the control group (CG) received usual care, meaning they consulted a non-participating GP for ADHD at least once. Main outcomes were disease-related hospitalisation, pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to compare groups. RESULTS: A total of 2317 patients were included in IG and 4177 patients in CG. Mean age was 8.9 ± 4.4. The risk of mental-disorder-related hospitalisations was lower in IG than CG (odds ratio (OR): 0.666, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.509-0.871). The prescription rate for stimulants was lower in IG (OR: 0.817; 95% CI: 0.732-0.912). There was no statistically significant difference in the participation rate of patients in cognitive behavioural therapy between groups (OR: 0.752; 95% CI: 0.523-1.080). CONCLUSION: Children and adolescents with ADHD enrolled in GP-centred-paediatric-primary-care are at lower risk of mental-disorder-related hospitalisation and less likely to receive stimulants.

[Secondary Data-based Trend Analysis of How Quality Differences in Two Forms of Healthcare Develop Over Time]. / Eine Trendanalyse zur zeitlichen Entwicklung von Qualitätsunterschieden zweier Versorgungsformen auf Basis von Sekundärdaten.

AIM OF THE STUDY: The evaluation of complex interventions such as different forms of healthcare are methodologically challenging. The aim of this study was to use generalized estimating equations (GEE) to investigate how quality differences between family practitioner-based healthcare (HZV) and standard care develop over time. METHODS: A longitudinal secondary data analysis for 2011-2018 was conducted using routine data from the AOK Baden Wuerttemberg health insurer. A dynamic cohort of insured persons that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis at the beginning of each year of observation, so the size and composition of the cohorts varied from year to year. Quality differences between HZV and standard care were investigated, whereby an autoregressive covariance structure (AR1) was assumed for multiple measurements. Under observation were a group variable for healthcare type, a variable for year of observation, and any interaction between the two. The resulting estimates provided information on the relationship between the two groups at the beginning of the observation period, and on how the groups developed both individually and in relation to one another over time. RESULTS: The GEE were used exemplarily on the quality indicator prescription of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) in elderly insured patients. At the beginning of the observation period, the chance of PIM in those over 65 years of age (year 2018; N=628,523) was significantly lower in the HZV group than in the group receiving standard care (odds ratio 0.978; 95% confidence interval: 0.968-0.987). The chance of a PIM in the following seven years declined in both groups, but faster in the HZV group than the group receiving standard care. CONCLUSION: A secondary data-based trend analysis with GEE of quality differences in comparison groups over time has considerable potential in the evaluation of new and existing forms of healthcare.

Clinical and economic outcomes of a collaborative cardiology care program.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated a collaborative care program aimed at improving cooperation among general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists in Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. The program focused on improving care for patients with chronic cardiac conditions. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study. The observation period was 2 years. METHODS: The study was based on claims data and compared groups of patients who participated in the collaborative care program (GP-centered care and the cardiology contract) with patients receiving usual care. The evaluation focused on care coordination, quality, health service utilization, and costs in patients with heart failure, coronary heart disease, heart rhythm disorders, and/or valvular heart disease (disease cohorts). Multivariable regression models were used to adjust for differences in patient characteristics between the groups. RESULTS: Across all disease cohorts, participation in the collaborative care program was associated with better care coordination and improved quality in a broad range of indicators (pharmacotherapy and vaccination). Results showed lower emergency service utilization and hospitalizations, lower consultation frequencies with GPs and specialists, and a shift from inpatient to outpatient procedures. Program participation resulted in higher costs for outpatient cardiologist treatment, but disease-specific costs were lower overall. CONCLUSIONS: The results underline evidence that health care service programs that strengthen collaboration between GPs and cardiologists can substantially improve the care of patients with chronic cardiac conditions while simultaneously reducing costs.

Strong and sustainable primary healthcare is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization in high risk patients.

In 2004, Germany introduced a program based on voluntary contracting to strengthen the role of general practice care in the healthcare system. Key components include structured management of chronic diseases, coordinated access to secondary care, data-driven quality improvement, computerized clinical decision-support, and capitation-based reimbursement. Our aim was to determine the long-term effects of this program on the risk of hospitalization of specific categories of high-risk patients. Based on insurance claims data, we conducted a longitudinal observational study from 2011 to 2018 in Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. Patients were assigned to one or more of four open cohorts (in 2011, elderly, n = 575,363; diabetes mellitus, n = 163,709; chronic heart failure, n = 82,513; coronary heart disease, n = 125,758). Adjusted for key patient characteristics, logistic regression models were used to compare the hospitalization risk of the enrolled patients (intervention group) with patients receiving usual primary care (control group). At the start of the study and throughout long-term follow-up, enrolled patients in the four cohorts had a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization and ambulatory, care-sensitive hospitalization. Among patients with chronic heart failure and coronary heart disease, the program was associated with significantly reduced risk of cardiovascular-related hospitalizations across the eight observed years. The effect of the program also increased over time. Over the longer term, the results indicate that strengthening primary care could be associated with a substantial reduction in hospital utilization among high-risk patients.

Intensified ambulatory cardiology care: effects on mortality and hospitalisation-a comparative observational study.

Since 2010, an intensified ambulatory cardiology care programme has been implemented in southern Germany. To improve patient management, the structure of cardiac disease management was improved, guideline-recommended care was supported, new ambulatory medical services and a morbidity-adapted reimbursement system were set up. Our aim was to determine the effects of this programme on the mortality and hospitalisation of enrolled patients with cardiac disorders. We conducted a comparative observational study in 2015 and 2016, based on insurance claims data. Overall, 13,404 enrolled patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and 19,537 with coronary artery disease (CAD) were compared, respectively, to 8,776 and 16,696 patients that were receiving usual ambulatory cardiology care. Compared to the control group, patients enrolled in the programme had lower mortality (Hazard Ratio: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.77-0.91) and fewer all-cause hospitalisations (Rate Ratio: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.90-0.97). CHF-related hospitalisations in patients with CHF were also reduced (Rate Ratio: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69-0.84). CAD patients showed a similar reduction in mortality rates (Hazard Ratio: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.76-0.88) and all-cause hospitalisation (Rate Ratio: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.91-0.97), but there was no effect on CAD-related hospitalisation. We conclude that intensified ambulatory care reduced mortality and hospitalisation in cardiology patients.

Performance of the adapted Diabetes Complications Severity Index translated to ICD-10.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of the adapted Diabetes Complications Severity Index (aDCSI) translated to International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) in predicting hospitalizations, mortality, and healthcare-associated costs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective closed cohort study based on secondary data analysis. METHODS: We translated the aDCSI to ICD-10 and calculated aDCSI scores based on health insurance claims data. To assess predictive performance, we used multivariate regression models to calculate risk ratios (RRs) of hospitalizations and mortality and linear predictors of cost. RESULTS: We analyzed a sample of 157,115 patients with diabetes mellitus. RRs of hospitalizations (total and cause specific) rose with increasing aDCSI scores. Predicting total hospitalizations over a 4-year period, unadjusted RRs were 1.22 for an aDCSI score of 1 (compared with a score of 0), 1.55 for a score of 2, 1.77 for a score of 3, 2.11 for a score of 4, and 2.72 for scores of 5 and higher. Cause-specific hospitalizations and mortality showed similar results. Costs clearly increased in each successive score category. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the validity of the aDCSI as a severity measure for complications of diabetes, as it correlates to and predicts total and cause-specific hospitalizations, mortality, and costs. The aDCSI's performance in ICD-10-coded data is comparable with that in International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision-coded data.