Socioeconomic Background and Commercial Health Plan Spending.

BACKGROUND: Risk-adjustment algorithms typically incorporate demographic and clinical variables to equalize compensation to insurers for enrollees who vary in expected cost, but including information about enrollees' socioeconomic background is controversial. METHODS: We studied 1 182 847 continuously insured 0 to 19-year-olds using 2008-2012 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts and American Community Survey data. We characterized enrollees' socioeconomic background using the validated area-based socioeconomic measure and calculated annual plan payments using paid claims. We evaluated the relationship between annual plan payments and geocoded socioeconomic background using generalized estimating equations (γ distribution and log link). We expressed outcomes as the percentage difference in spending and utilization between enrollees with high and low socioeconomic backgrounds. RESULTS: Geocoded socioeconomic background had a significant, positive association with annual plan payments after applying standard adjusters. Every 1 SD increase in socioeconomic background was associated with a 7.8% (95% confidence interval, 7.2% to 8.3%; P < .001) increase in spending. High socioeconomic background enrollees used higher-priced outpatient and pharmacy services more frequently than their counterparts from low socioeconomic backgrounds (eg, 25% more outpatient encounters annually; 8% higher price per encounter; P < .001), which outweighed greater emergency department spending among low socioeconomic background enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: Higher socioeconomic background is associated with greater levels of pediatric health care spending in commercially insured children. Including socioeconomic information in risk-adjustment algorithms may address concerns about adverse selection from an economic perspective, but it would direct funds away from those caring for children and adolescents from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who are at greater risk of poor health.

Access of Patients With Lumbar Disc Herniations to Spine Surgeons: The Effect of Insurance Type Under the Affordable Care Act.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of insurance type (Medicaid vs. a specific private insurance) on patient access to spine surgeons for lumbar disc herniation as measured by (A) acceptance of insurance, (B) need for a referral, and (C) wait time for appointment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Limited studies have been conducted to examine the issue of patient access to spine surgeons based on different insurance types (Medicaid vs. a specific private insurance), especially in relation to the Medicaid expansion that resulted from the Affordable Care Act. METHODS: Appointment success rates, the need for a referral, and waiting periods were compared between Medicaid and a specific private insurance for patients needing an evaluation for a herniated lumbar disc. The waiting period was studied in the context of comparing states that have expanded Medicaid eligibility to ones that have not, and the surgical training of the spine surgeon (orthopaedic surgeons vs. neurosurgeons). RESULTS: Appointment success rate for patients seeking access to lumbar spine care was significantly higher for patients with BlueCross insurance (95.0%) versus patients with Medicaid insurance (0.8%) (P <0.001). The need for referrals was significantly higher for patients with Medicaid insurance (93.3%) versus patients with BlueCross insurance (4.2%) (P <0.001). Among BlueCross patients, wait times were longer in Medicaid-expanded states. However, the same trend was not seen among patients with Medicaid insurance. CONCLUSION: Patients with Medicaid were less successful at scheduling an appointment and faced more barriers to care, such as the need for a referral, compared with the private insurance studied. In the states with expanded Medicaid, wait times for appointments were longer for BlueCross patients, but were not longer for patients with Medicaid insurance. Overall, this study suggests that increased coverage resulting from Medicaid expansion does not necessarily equate to increased access to care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Trends in insulin initiation and treatment intensification among patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with type 2 diabetes eventually require insulin, yet little is known about the patterns and quality of pharmacologic care received following insulin initiation. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend that insulin secretagogues such as sulfonylureas be discontinued at the time of insulin initiation to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia, and that treatment be intensified if HbA1c levels remain above-target 3 months after insulin initiation. OBJECTIVE: To describe pharmacologic treatment patterns over time among adults initiating insulin and/or intensifying insulin treatment. DESIGN: Observational study. SUBJECTS: A large commercially insured population of adult patients without recorded type 1 diabetes who initiated insulin. MAIN MEASURES: We evaluated changes in non-insulin antidiabetic medication use during the 120 days immediately following insulin initiation, rates of increase in insulin dose and/or dosing frequency during the 270 days following an insulin initiation treatment period of 90 days, and rates of insulin discontinuation. KEY RESULTS: Seven thousand, nine hundred and thirty-two patients initiated insulin during 2003-2008, with the majority (61 %) initiating basal insulin only. Metformin (55 %), sulfonylureas (39 %), and thiazolidinediones (30 %) were commonly used prior to insulin initiation. Metformin was continued by 64 % of patients following mixed or mealtime insulin initiation; the continuation rate was nearly as high for sulfonylureas (58 %). Insulin dose and/or dosing frequency increased among 22.9 % of patients. Insulin was discontinued by 27 % of patients. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of substantial departures from guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy. Insulin secretagogues were frequently co-prescribed with insulin. The majority of patients had no evidence of treatment intensification following insulin initiation, although this finding is difficult to interpret without HbA1c levels. While each patient's care should be individualized, our data suggest that the quality of care following insulin initiation can be improved.

Finding their way home. Despite mixed evidence, providers and payers are adopting patient-centered medical homes to improve health and cut costs.

Medical homes are proliferating, though not everyone is convinced they'll produce savings. Don't tell that to the Michigan Blues, which since 2008 has helped more than 1,200 primary-care practices qualify as medical homes, with another 1,000 in the process. The insurer calculates that the project saved it $155 million in 2012 alone. "Those are dollar savings observed in claims data--these are not back-of-the-envelope calculations," says Dr. David Share, of the Michigan Blues.

Contemporary use of prasugrel in clinical practice: insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Prasugrel is a recently approved thienopyridine for use in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. There are no data on contemporary use of prasugrel in routine clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed the patterns of prasugrel use among 55 821 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and were discharged alive from January 2010 to December 2011 at 44 hospitals participating in the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium. Potential inappropriate therapy was defined as use in patients who had a history of cerebrovascular disease, weighed <60 kg, or were aged ≥75 years old. Clopidogrel was prescribed to 83% (n=46 574) and 17% (n=9247) of patients received prasugrel on hospital discharge. A steady, linear increase in prasugrel use was seen during the study period, with discharge prescription increasing from 8.4% in quarter 1 of 2010 to 22.3% in quarter 4 of 2011. Of the total cohort, 69.1% of patients presented with acute coronary syndrome, and in this group, 17.2% received prasugrel. Among patients prescribed prasugrel, 28.3% (n=2614) received the medication for indications outside of acute coronary syndromes. One or more known contraindications to the drug were present in 6% to 10% of patients discharged on this agent. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a steady increase in the use of prasugrel with the drug being used in ≈22% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention by study end. Prasugrel use in patients with known contraindications is not uncommon and may be a suitable target for focused quality improvement efforts.

For-profit conversion of Blue Cross plans: public benefit or public harm?

Conversions of Blue Cross plans to for-profit status have the potential to remake the corporate landscape of health care finance. Absent regulatory intervention, current trends could easily result in more than half of Blue Cross subscribers being in for-profit plans, a phenomenon far more significant than the conversion of nonprofit hospitals. Therefore, regulators' deliberations over conversion proposals are beginning to focus on the health policy impacts. This chapter surveys the full range of health policy implications by analyzing all existing studies of Blue Cross conversions and reporting on the authors' own case studies of conversion impacts. These studies conclude that conversions have not caused major negative impacts on the availability or accessibility of health care in the states in which conversions have occurred so far. However, a great deal of uncertainty exists about the actual effects of previous conversions, and each state is unique; therefore, even if the historical record were clear, it is difficult to predict with great certainty what the actual effects will be in another state undergoing a Blue conversion.

Bounceback: Blues thrive as markets cool toward HMOs.

Enrollment in Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) plans has grown by almost seventeen million since 1994, and recent financial performance indicators are positive for most plans in the Blues system. These gains have been achieved by for-profit, nonprofit, and mutually owned plans. A journalistic analysis of distinctive features contributing to recent successes is offered, combining observations of financial analysts, health services researchers, and BCBS officials. Long-term stability, broad provider networks, and conservative financial management have given the Blues advantages vis-à-vis many managed care organizations that have lost market share in the same period.