Long term cost outcomes among commercially insured patients undergoing bariatric surgical procedures.

Objective: Bariatric procedures have become safer in recent years, warranting new data on long-term costs. This study examined the impact of bariatric procedures on a person's long-term healthcare costs up to 10 years and if it differed by socio-economic status (SES). Methods: This retrospective observational study compared the downstream health care cost of patients with obesity who had undergone bariatric surgery (BS) between 2009 and 2018 to a 1:1 matched group of members with obesity but no surgery. Results: 167,764 individuals from administrative claims data with an obesity diagnosis were included; 83,882 in the BS group and 83,882 in the non-surgical group. In follow-up years 2-10, the BS group was associated with lower total medical healthcare cost compared to the non-surgical group (cost ratios ranged 0.85-0.93, p values < 0.05). When stratifying the BS group by SES quartiles, there were no significant cost differences by SES (cost ratios ranged from 0.96 to 1.05, most p values > 0.05). Conclusions: BS was associated with lower long-term follow-up medical cost and cost savings appeared similar among the SES quartiles in the BS group. The study results may help policy makers and employers in designing benefits and extending coverage for bariatric surgical procedures.

Clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes during the 6 months following COVID infection in children.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to identify the impact of COVID infection in children in the US prior to vaccine availability on clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes within 6 months of infection. METHODS: Using claims data from a large national insurer, we identified 223,842 children with a COVID diagnosis in May 2020-March 2021 and matched them to 223,842 children with a COVID test and no diagnosis. We compared the two cohorts' outcomes during the 6 months after infection/test. RESULTS: Uncommon acute adverse events occurring in <0.5% of cases, including MIS-C (relative risk (RR) = 45.2), myocarditis (RR = 10.3), acute heart failure (RR = 2.14), sepsis (RR = 2.02), and viral pneumonia (RR = 2.43) were more frequent in the COVID cohort (all p < 0.001). Development of arrhythmias (RR = 1.24, p < 0.001) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (RR = 1.41, p = 0.007) were more common in the COVID group, while behavioral health disorders were less common (RR = 0.94, p < 0.001). Lab testing and imaging were slightly higher in the COVID group (RR ranging 1.05-1.11 depending on the service and timeframe), though medical costs did not increase. CONCLUSION: Severe disease and diagnoses of new conditions are rare in children following COVID infection. We observed an increase in cardiac complications, though they may not last long term. IMPACT: Few studies have analyzed the association between COVID infection and medium-term outcomes in children. Our study of >447,000 geographically and socioeconomically diverse children in the US found that uncommon acute adverse events, including myocarditis, MIS-C, and acute heart failure, were more frequent in children with COVID than matched controls, and development of arrhythmias and cardiovascular disease were 1.2 and 1.4 times more common, respectively. Six-month healthcare utilization was similar between cohorts. We provide data on the risks of COVID in children, particularly with respect to cardiac complications, that decision makers may find useful when weighing the benefits and harms of preventive measures.

Immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy vs. immunotherapy alone for advanced non-small cell lung cancer and programmed death ligand 1 score <50.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the effectiveness of immunotherapy alone or with chemotherapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression <50 %. We examined the outcomes of PD-L1 therapy vs. PD-L1 therapy in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment among NSCLC patients with PD-L1 score <50 %. METHODS: We used administrative claims and prior authorization data of a national insurer from November 2015 to July 2021. We selected patients with Stage IIIb/IV NSCLC and PD-L1 expression <50 %. Each patient was required to have ≥1 claim of a PD-L1 or PD-1 inhibitor. Treatment groups were propensity-score matched 1:1 on baseline characteristics. We measured PD-L1 therapy duration, incident immune-related adverse events (irAEs), healthcare utilization, costs, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In the matched sample totaling 176 patients, mean duration of PD-L1 therapy was similar (4.1 [SD 3.3] months combination vs. 4.0 [SD 4.9] months monotherapy, p = 0.800). IrAEs were similar, both for FDA-recognized irAEs (48.9 % combination, 48.9 % monotherapy, p = 0.710) and other types (34.1 % combination, 39.8 % monotherapy, p = 0.473). The combination group had more all-cause inpatient stays, ER visits, and outpatient visits (all p < 0.001). Total adjusted all-cause medical cost was $112,833 (95 % CI $5,548-$251,973) higher for combination therapy. We saw no difference in OS (adjusted hazard ratio 1.09 [95 % CI 0.72-1.65]). CONCLUSION: This study found no difference in adverse drug effects or survival between PD-L1 monotherapy compared to combination therapy for patients with Stage IIIb/IV NSCLC and PD-L1 expression <50 %, though the combination therapy cohort had higher healthcare utilization and costs. MICROABSTRACT: Use of immunotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer and programmed death ligand 1 expression <50 % is understudied. Our observational study using claims and authorization data from a matched sample of 176 patients found no difference in survival or the rate of adverse drug effects between groups, although the chemo-immunotherapy cohort generated higher overall healthcare costs.

The association between hypertensive disorders during pregnancy and maternal and neonatal outcomes: a retrospective claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hypertensive disorders during pregnancy continue to increase in prevalence and are associated with several adverse outcomes and future cardiovascular risk for mothers. This study evaluated the association of hypertensive disorders compared to no hypertension during pregnancy with neonatal and maternal outcomes. We then evaluated risk factors associated with progression from a less to more severe hypertensive disorder during pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a propensity-matched retrospective cohort study utilizing Medicaid claims data from a national insurer. The study population consisted of mothers with and without hypertensive disorders who delivered between 7/1/2016-12/31/2018 and their infants. Hypertensive disorders included gestational hypertension, chronic hypertension, preeclampsia, and superimposed preeclampsia. Propensity score matching was used to match mothers without to those with hypertensive disorders. Regression models were used to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes. Stepwise logistic regression was used to determine characteristics associated with the progression of gestational hypertension to preeclampsia or chronic hypertension to superimposed preeclampsia. RESULTS: We observed the highest risk of cesarean delivery (odds ratio [OR]:1.61 and 1.99) in mothers and preterm delivery (OR:2.22 and 5.37), respiratory distress syndrome (OR:2.39 and 4.19), and low birthweight (OR:3.64 and 9.61) in babies born to mothers with preeclampsia or superimposed preeclampsia compared to no hypertension, respectively (p < 0.05 for all outcomes). These outcomes were slightly higher among chronic or gestational hypertension compared to no hypertension, however, most were not statistically significant. Risk of neonatal intensive care unit utilization was higher among more severe hypertensive disorders (OR:2.41 for preeclampsia, OR:4.87 for superimposed preeclampsia). Obesity/overweight and having a history of preeclampsia during a prior pregnancy were most likely to predict progression from gestational/chronic hypertension to preeclampsia/superimposed preeclampsia. CONCLUSION: Mothers and neonates born to mothers with preeclampsia or superimposed preeclampsia experienced more adverse outcomes compared to those without hypertension. Mothers and neonates born to mothers with gestational hypertension had outcomes similar to those without hypertension. Outcomes for those with chronic hypertension fell in between gestational hypertension and preeclampsia. Obesity/overweight and having a history of preeclampsia during a prior pregnancy were strong risk factors for hypertension progression.

Association Between Oncology Clinical Pathway Utilization and Toxicity and Cost Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: This retrospective observational study compared cancer care toxicity and cost outcomes for patients with metastatic cancer with nine different cancer types prescribed on- versus off-pathway regimens. METHODS: This study used claims and authorization data from a national insurer between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2021. Participants included adults with metastatic breast, lung, colorectal, pancreatic, melanoma, kidney, bladder, gastric, or uterine cancer, who were prescribed first-line anticancer regimens. Multivariable regressions were used to assess outcomes including counts of emergency room visits or hospitalizations, use of supportive care medications, immune-related adverse events (IRAEs), and health care costs. RESULTS: Of the 8,357 patients in the study, 5,453 (65.3%) were prescribed on-pathway regimens. The on-pathway proportion trended downward, from 74.3% in 2018 to 59.8% in 2021. The on- and off-pathway groups had a similar proportion of patients with treatment-related hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.080; P = .201) and IRAEs (aOR, 0.961; P = .497). More all-cause hospitalizations (aOR, 1.679; P = .013) were observed among patients with melanoma treated on-pathway. The on-pathway group had higher use of supportive care drugs in bladder cancer (aOR, 4.602; P < .001) and colorectal cancer (aOR, 4.465; P < .001), and lower use in breast (aOR, 0.668; P = .001) and lung cancer (aOR, 0.550; P < .001). On average, on-pathway patients incurred $17,589 less total health care cost (P < .001), and $22,543 lower chemotherapy cost (P < .001) than those from the off-pathway group. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that use of on-pathway regimens was associated with significant cost savings. Toxicity outcomes were variable by disease, but overall, there were similar numbers of treatment-related hospitalizations and IRAEs compared to off-pathway regimens. This cross-institutional study provides evidence to support the use of clinical pathway regimens for patients with metastatic cancer.

Association of Patient, Physician, and Practice-Level Factors with Uptake of Payer-Led Oncology Clinical Pathways.

Importance: Payers use oncology clinical pathways programs to increase evidence-based drug prescribing and control drug spending. However, compliance with these programs has been low, which may decrease their efficacy, and factors associated with pathway compliance are unknown. Objective: To determine extent of pathway compliance and identify factors associated with pathway compliance using characteristics of patients, practices, and the companies that develop cancer treatment pathways. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study comprised patients with claims and administrative data from a national insurer and a pathways health care professional between July 1, 2018, and October 31, 2021. Adult patients with metastatic breast, lung, colorectal, pancreatic, melanoma, kidney, bladder, gastric, and uterine cancer being treated in the first line were included. Six months of continuous insurance coverage prior to the date of treatment initiation was required for determination of baseline characteristics. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with pathway compliance. Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of a pathway program-endorsed treatment regimen in the first-line setting for metastatic cancer. Results: Among 17 293 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.7 [11.2] years; 9183 [53.1%] women; mean [SD] Black patients per census block, 0.10 [0.20]), 11 071 patients (64.0%) were on-pathway, and 6222 (36.0%) were off-pathway. Factors associated with increased pathway compliance were higher health care utilization during the 6-month baseline period (measured in inpatient visits and emergency department visits) (5220 on-pathway inpatient visits [47.2%] vs 2797 off-pathway [45.0%]; emergency department visits, 3304 [27.1%] vs 1503 [24.2%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for inpatient visits, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.22-1.43; P < .001), volume of patients with this insurance provider per physician (mean [SD] visits: on-pathway, 128.0 [258.3] vs off-pathway, 121.8 [161.4]; aOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20; P = .002), and practice participation in the Oncology Care Model (on-pathway participation, 2601 [23.5%] vs 1305 [21.0%]; aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.23; P = .004). Higher total medical cost during the 6-month baseline period were associated with decreased pathway compliance (mean [SD] costs: on-pathway, $55 990 [$69 706] vs $65 955 [$74 678]; aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88; P < .001). There was heterogeneity in odds of pathway compliance between different malignancies. Pathway compliance rates trended down from the reference year of 2018. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, despite generous financial incentives, compliance with payer-led pathways remained at historically reported low rates. Factors such as increasing exposure to the program due to the number of patients impacted and participation in other value-based payment programs, such as the Oncology Care Model, were positively associated with compliance; factors such as the type of cancer and patient complexity may have played a role, but the directionality of potential effects was unclear.

Observational Analysis of a Generalized, Health Plan-led Community Health Worker Intervention in Medicaid.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: In 2018, a Medicaid managed care plan launched a new community health worker (CHW) initiative in several counties within a state, designed to improve the health and quality of life of members who could benefit from additional services. The CHW program involved telephonic and face-to-face visits from CHWs who provided support, empowerment, and education to members, while identifying and addressing health and social issues. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a generalized (not disease-specific), health plan-led CHW program on overall healthcare use and spending. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from adult members who received the CHW intervention (N = 538 participants) compared to those who were identified for participation but were unable to be reached (N = 435 nonparticipants). Outcomes measures included healthcare utilization, including scheduled and emergency inpatient admissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient visits; and healthcare spending. The follow-up period for all outcome measures was 6 months. Using generalized linear models, 6-month change scores were regressed on baseline characteristics to adjust for between-group differences (eg, age, sex, comorbidities) and an indicator for group. RESULTS: Program participants experienced a greater increase in outpatient evaluation and management visits (0.09 per member per month [PMPM]) than the comparison group during the first 6 months of the program. This greater increase was observed across in-person (0.07 PMPM), telehealth (0.03 PMPM), and primary care (0.06 PMPM) visits. There was no observed difference in inpatient admissions, ED utilization or allowed medical spending and pharmacy spending. CONCLUSIONS: A health plan-led CHW program successfully increased multiple forms of outpatient utilization in a historically disadvantaged population of patients. Health plans may be particularly well positioned to finance, sustain, and scale programs that address social drivers of health.

Telehealth and Outpatient Visits Among Individuals with Chronic Conditions by Socioeconomic Status in the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Cohort Study.

Objective: We investigated telehealth usage for individuals with chronic conditions by neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES) during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We split the population of 2.3 million commercially insured adults in the United States with at least one chronic condition in claims into four quartiles of SES using address of residence. After balancing groups on baseline characteristics, we examined telehealth and total outpatient evaluation and management (E&M) visits from March 2020 to February 2021. Results: Quartile 4 (highest SES) had more telehealth visits per person (0.054-0.100 more visits over each 3-month period) and a higher percentage of visits that were telehealth (1.8-5.9 percentage points higher) than other quartiles. Quartile 4 had higher levels of total outpatient E&M use throughout the year. Differences in telehealth between Quartiles 1 and 3 were small. Conclusions: Commercially insured individuals in the highest SES quartile had higher use of telehealth and total E&M visits than other quartiles.

The Association Between Mammography Screening Frequency and Breast Cancer Treatment and Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for optimal frequency of screening mammography vary by professional society. Sparse evidence exists on the association between screening frequency and breast cancer treatment options. The main objective was to examine differences in cancer treatment rendered for U.S. women with different numbers of screenings prior to breast cancer diagnosis. Cancer stage at diagnosis and health care cost were assessed in secondary analyses. METHODS: This IRB-exempt retrospective study used administrative claims data to identify women aged 44 or older with various numbers of mammographic screenings ≥11 months apart, during the four years prior to incident breast cancer diagnosis from January 2010 to December 2018. Outcomes were assessed over the six months following diagnosis. Generalized linear regression models were used to compare women with differing numbers of mammograms, adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Claims data review identified 25 492 women who met inclusion criteria. There was a stepwise improvement in each of these screening categories such that women with four screenings, compared to women with only one screening, experienced higher rates of lumpectomy (70% vs 55%) and radiation therapy (48% vs 36%), lower rates of mastectomy (27% vs 34%) and chemotherapy (28% vs 36%), less stage 3 or 4 cancer at diagnosis (15% vs 29%), and lower health care costs within six months postdiagnosis (P < 0.001). Results were similar in a subgroup limited to women aged 44 to 49 at diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Potential benefits of more frequent screening include less aggressive treatment and lower health care costs among women who develop breast cancer.

Provider Charges And State Surprise Billing Laws: Evidence From New York And California.

Surprise billing laws that allow dispute arbitration relying on provider charges may incentivize out-of-network providers to increase their charges to increase upcoming or future out-of-network payments. Although the federal No Surprises Act forbids arbitrators from considering charges during payment disputes over surprise bills covered by the act, states with existing laws can continue to use the specified state laws, which may allow the consideration of charges. This analysis examined provider charges in two such states, using claims data to compare trends in billed charges for out-of-network care during surprise bill scenarios involving nonemergency inpatient hospitalizations. The analysis considered New York, where state law uses arbitration tied to charges; California, where state law uses a payment standard rather than charges; and a comparison group of states without a law regarding surprise billing. We estimated that provider out-of-network charges for the nonemergency out-of-network bills we studied increased by $1,157 (24 percent) in New York after the passage of New York's surprise billing law and decreased by $752 (25 percent) in California compared to states without surprise billing laws. Assistant surgeons and surgical assistants had a large increase in charges in New York from before to after the law's passage, which may have driven the overall increase in charges.

Disconnected: a survey of users and nonusers of telehealth and their use of primary care.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to assess awareness, perceptions, and value of telehealth in primary care from the perspective of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, Web-based survey of adults with access to telehealth services who visited healthcare providers for any of the 20 most-commonly seen diagnoses during telehealth visits. Three groups were studied: registered users (RUs) of telehealth had completed a LiveHealth Online (a health plan telehealth service provider) visit, registered nonusers (RNUs) registered for LiveHealth Online but had not conducted a visit, and nonregistered nonusers (NRNUs) completed neither step. RESULTS: Of 32 831 patients invited, 3219 (9.8%) responded and 766 met eligibility criteria and completed surveys: 390 (51%) RUs, 117 (15%) RNUs, and 259 (34%) NRNUs. RUs were least likely to have a primary care usual source of care (65.6% vs 78.6% for RNUs vs 80.0% for NRNUs; P < .001). Nearly half (46.8%) of RUs were unable to get an appointment with their doctor, and 34.8% indicated that their doctor's office was closed. Among the 3 groups, RUs were most likely to be employed (89.5% vs 88.9% vs 82.2%; P = .007), have post-high school education (94.4% vs 93.2% vs 86.5%; P = .003), and live in urban areas (81.0% vs 69.2% vs 76.0%; P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth users reported that they relied on live video for enhanced access and were less connected to primary care than nonusers were. Telehealth may expand service access but risks further fragmentation of care and undermining of the primary care function absent better coordination and information sharing with usual sources of patients' care.

Virtual Visits for Acute, Nonurgent Care: A Claims Analysis of Episode-Level Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Expansion of virtual health care-real-time video consultation with a physician via the Internet-will continue as use of mobile devices and patient demand for immediate, convenient access to care grow. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to analyze the care provided and the cost of virtual visits over a 3-week episode compared with in-person visits to retail health clinics (RHC), urgent care centers (UCC), emergency departments (ED), or primary care physicians (PCP) for acute, nonurgent conditions. METHODS: A cross-sectional, retrospective analysis of claims from a large commercial health insurer was performed to compare care and cost of patients receiving care via virtual visits for a condition of interest (sinusitis, upper respiratory infection, urinary tract infection, conjunctivitis, bronchitis, pharyngitis, influenza, cough, dermatitis, digestive symptom, or ear pain) matched to those receiving care for similar conditions in other settings. An episode was defined as the index visit plus 3 weeks following. Patients were children and adults younger than 65 years of age without serious chronic conditions. Visits were classified according to the setting where the visit occurred. Care provided was assessed by follow-up outpatient visits, ED visits, or hospitalizations; laboratory tests or imaging performed; and antibiotic use after the initial visit. Episode costs included the cost of the initial visit, subsequent medical care, and pharmacy. RESULTS: A total of 59,945 visits were included in the analysis (4635 virtual visits and 55,310 nonvirtual visits). Virtual visit episodes had similar follow-up outpatient visit rates (28.09%) as PCP (28.10%, P=.99) and RHC visits (28.59%, P=.51). During the episode, lab rates for virtual visits (12.56%) were lower than in-person locations (RHC: 36.79%, P<.001; UCC: 39.01%, P<.001; ED: 53.15%, P<.001; PCP: 37.40%, P<.001), and imaging rates for virtual visits (6.62%) were typically lower than in-person locations (RHC: 5.97%, P=.11; UCC: 8.77%, P<.001; ED: 43.06%, P<.001; PCP: 11.26%, P<.001). RHC, UCC, ED, and PCP were estimated to be $36, $153, $1735, and $162 more expensive than virtual visit episodes, respectively, including medical and pharmacy costs. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual care appears to be a low-cost alternative to care administered in other settings with lower testing rates. The similar follow-up rate suggests adequate clinical resolution and that patients are not using virtual visits as a first step before seeking in-person care.