Cost-benefit analysis with return on investment of clinical pharmacists in the Military Health System.

BACKGROUND: The Defense Health Agency comprises more than 700 military medical, dental, and veterinary facilities and provides care to more than 9.6 million beneficiaries. As medication experts, pharmacists identify opportunities to optimize medication therapy, reduce cost, and increase readiness to support the Defense Health Agency's mission. The Tripler Pilot Project and the Army Polypharmacy Program were used to establish a staffing model of 1 clinical pharmacist for every 6,500 enrolled beneficiaries. No large-scale cost-benefit study within the military health care system has been done, which documents the number of clinical interventions and uses established cost-avoidance (CA) data, to determine the cost-benefit and return on investment (ROI) for clinical pharmacists working in the medical treatment facilities. OBJECTIVE: To validate the patient-centered medical home staffing model across the military health care system using the Tripler Pilot Project results to provide a cost-benefit analysis with an ROI. The secondary goal is to describe the interventions, staffing levels, and US Department of Defense-specific requirements impacting the provision of clinical pharmacy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 3 years of encounters by clinical pharmacists in which an intervention was documented in the Tri-Service Workflow (TSWF) form as part of the electronic health record was completed. The analysis used 6 steps to assign CA intervention types and to prevent duplication and overestimation of the ROI. The absolute number of clinical pharmacists was determined using workload criteria defined as at least 20 encounters per month for at least 3 months of each calendar year. The number of clinical pharmacist full-time employees (FTEs) was determined by dividing the number of total active months by 12 months. Attrition was calculated comparing the presence of a unique provider identification between calendar years. The ROI range was calculated by dividing the CA by the total cost of clinical pharmacists using the variables' raw and extrapolated CA based on percentage of documentation template usage and the active clinical pharmacist calculation (absolute and FTE-based). RESULTS: Between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019, a total of 1,069,846 encounters by clinical pharmacists were documented in the electronic health record. The TSWF Alternative Input Method form was used by pharmacists to document 616,942 encounters. Forty-three percent of TSWF documented encounters had at least 1 CA intervention. The absolute number of clinical pharmacists associated with a documented encounter in any medical treatment facility ranged from 404 in 2017 to 374 in 2018 and the clinical pharmacist FTEs ranged from 324 in 2017 to 314 in 2019. Annual attrition rates for clinical pharmacists ranged from 15% to 20% (58 to 81 clinical pharmacists) annually. The total CA range was $329,166,543-$534,014,494. The ROI range was between $2 and $4 per dollar spent. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that ambulatory care clinical pharmacists in the Military Health System bring value through a positive ROI. Our study also identified a potential shortage of clinical pharmacists within the Air Force and Navy branches impacting medication management. This can have a negative impact on the readiness of service members, one of the leading priorities of the US Department of Defense.

Is the current referral trend a threat to the Military Health System? Perioperative outcomes and costs after colorectal surgery in the Military Health System versus civilian facilities.

BACKGROUND: TRICARE military beneficiaries are increasingly referred for major surgeries to civilian hospitals under "purchased care." This loss of volume may have a negative impact on the readiness of surgeons working in the "direct-care" setting at military treatment facilities and has important implications under the volume-quality paradigm. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of care source (direct versus purchased) and surgical volume on perioperative outcomes and costs of colorectal surgeries. METHODS: We examined TRICARE claims and medical records for 18- to 64-year-old patients undergoing major colorectal surgery from 2006 to 2015. We used a retrospective, weighted estimating equations analysis to assess differences in 30-day outcomes (mortality, readmissions, and major or minor complications) and costs (index and total including 30-day postsurgery) for colorectal surgery patients between purchased and direct care. RESULTS: We included 20,317 patients, with 24.8% undergoing direct-care surgery. Mean length of stay was 7.6 vs 7.7 days for direct and purchased care, respectively (P = .24). Adjusted 30-day odds between care settings revealed that although hospital readmissions (odds ratio 1.40) were significantly higher in direct care, overall complications (odds ratio 1.05) were similar between the 2 settings. However, mean total costs between direct and purchased care differed ($55,833 vs $30,513, respectively). Within direct care, mean total costs ($50,341; 95% confidence interval $41,509-$59,173) were lower at very high-volume facilities compared to other facilities ($54,869; 95% confidence interval $47,822-$61,916). CONCLUSION: Direct care was associated with higher odds of readmissions, similar overall complications, and higher costs. Contrary to common assumptions regarding volume and quality, higher volume in the direct-care setting was not associated with fewer complications.

Factors Associated With Progression to Surgical Intervention for Lumbar Disc Herniation in the Military Health System.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To determine surgery-free survival of patients receiving conservative management of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) in the military healthcare system (MHS) and risk factors for surgical intervention. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Radiculopathy from LDH is a major cause of morbidity and cost. METHODS: The Military Data Repository was queried for all patients diagnosed with LDH from FY2011-2018; the earliest such diagnosis in a military treatment facility (MTF) was kept for each patient as the initial diagnosis. Follow-up time to surgical intervention was defined as the time from diagnosis to first encounter for lumbar microdiscectomy or lumbar decompression in either a MTF or in the civilian sector. The Military Data Repository was also queried for history of tobacco use at any time during MHS care, age at the time of diagnosis, sex, MHS beneficiary category, and diagnosing facility characteristics. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the associations of patient and diagnosing facility characteristics with time to surgical intervention. RESULTS: A total of 84,985 MHS beneficiaries including 62,771 active duty service members were diagnosed with LDH in a MTF during the 8-year study period. A total of 10,532 (12.4%) MHS beneficiaries, including 7650 (10.9%) active duty, failed conservative management onto surgical intervention with lumbar microdiscectomy or lumbar decompression. Median follow-up time of the cohort was 5.2 (interquartile range 2.6, 7.5) years. Among all healthcare beneficiaries, several patient-level (younger age, male sex, and history of tobacco use) and facility-level characteristics (hospital vs. clinic and surgical care vs. primary care clinic) were independently associated with higher risk of surgical intervention. CONCLUSION: LDH compromises military readiness and negatively impacts healthcare costs. MHS beneficiaries with LDH have a good prognosis with approximately 88% of patients successfully completing conservative management. However, strategies to improve outcomes of conservative management in LDH should address risks associated with both patient and facility characteristics.Level of Evidence: 4.

Do the Number of Visits and the Cost of Musculoskeletal Care Improve Outcomes? More May Not Be Better.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between health care use and the magnitude of change in patient-reported outcomes in individuals who received treatment for subacromial pain syndrome. The secondary objective was to determine the value of care, as measured by change in pain and disability per dollar spent. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial that investigated the effects of nonsurgical care for subacromial pain syndrome. METHODS: Two groups of treatment responders were created, based on 1-year change in Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score (high, 46.83 points; low, 8.21 points). Regression analysis was performed to determine the association between health care use and 1-year change in SPADI score. Baseline SPADI score was used as a covariate in the regression analysis. Value was measured by comparing health care visits and costs expended per SPADI 1-point change between responder groups. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were included; 38 were classified as high responders (mean 1-year SPADI change score, 46.83 points) and 60 were classified as low responders (1-year SPADI change score, 8.21 points). Neither unadjusted medical visits (5.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.35, 7.44 versus 6.30; 95% CI: 5.14, 7.46) nor medical costs ($1404.86; 95% CI: $1109.34, $1779.09 versus $1679.26; 95% CI: $1391.54, $2026.48) were significantly different between high and low responders, respectively. CONCLUSION: Neither the number of visits nor the financial cost of nonsurgical shoulder- related care was associated with improvement in shoulder pain and disability at 1 year. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(11):642-648. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9440.

TRICARE For Children: Between Medicaid And Marketplace Plans For Comprehensiveness And Cost Sharing.

TRICARE provides health care benefits to nearly two million children of active duty, retired, National Guard, and reserve service members. Child health advocates and congressional reports have raised questions regarding the adequacy of these benefits, compared with other sources of children's health insurance. To help address these questions, we compared TRICARE benefits with benefits from Medicaid and Marketplace plans because they represent alternative sources of coverage for many of the families enrolled in TRICARE. Overall, we found that TRICARE benefits fell in the middle-between Medicaid plans' more comprehensive benefits with no cost sharing and Marketplace plans' more restrictive benefits with higher cost sharing.

Assessing Low-Value Health Care Services In The Military Health System.

Low-value care is the provision of procedures and treatments that provide little or no benefit to patients while increasing the cost of health care. This study examined the provision of low-value care in the Military Heath System (MHS), comparing care delivered in civilian health care facilities (purchased care) to care delivered in Department of Defense-controlled health care facilities (direct care). We used 2014 TRICARE claims data to evaluate the provision of nineteen previously developed measures of low-value care, including diagnostic, screening, and monitoring tests and therapeutic procedures. Of these, six measures appeared more frequently in direct care, while eleven measures appeared more frequently in purchased care-which may reflect the outsourcing of specialist services from the former to the latter. Magnetic resonance imaging for low back pain emerged as the most common low-value service in both care environments and could represent a target for future interventions. As the MHS and the United States increasingly focus on value-based care, the identification of low-value services accompanied by efforts to reduce such inefficient practices could provide greater quality of care at a lower cost.

Readiness Of Medical Providers In The Military Health System: Overview Of Operational And Policy Considerations.

US military forces have diverse missions, including combat, response to natural disasters, humanitarian assistance, training, and diplomacy. The military's medical forces, composed of clinical providers from the Army, Navy, and Air Force, support these operations-often on a moment's notice. The Military Health System (MHS) must ensure that medical providers are always trained and equipped to deliver care when deployed on missions in often austere environments. As part of its approach to this challenge, the MHS has initiated a data-driven effort to determine required clinical competencies by identifying and measuring the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for care in these environments. These efforts are being implemented while the MHS is undergoing significant organizational change. In this article we describe past and current efforts to maintain a "ready medical force" as well as current challenges and opportunities related to maintaining the readiness of medical providers while the MHS intends to evolve into an integrated health system.

Contribution Of Care Source To Cancer Treatment Cost Variation In The US Military Health System.

The US Military Health System (MHS) provides universal access to health care for more than nine million eligible beneficiaries through direct care in military treatment facilities or purchased care in civilian facilities. Using information from linked cancer registry and administrative databases, we examined how care source contributed to cancer treatment cost variation in the MHS for patients ages 18-64 who were diagnosed with colon, female breast, or prostate cancer in the period 2003-14. After accounting for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics, we found the independent contribution of care source to total variation in cost to be 8 percent, 12 percent, and 2 percent for colon, breast, and prostate cancer treatment, respectively. About 20-50 percent of the total cost variance remained unexplained and may be related to organizational and administrative factors.

A Military Health System For The Twenty-First Century.

The Military Health System is one of the largest integrated health care systems in the United States. It is composed of a "direct care" system of military treatment facilities managed in a federated manner by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense Health Agency and a "purchased care" component that consists of a network of health care providers managed through TRICARE. The system is undergoing significant reform and transformation. In 2017 Congress directed the Department of Defense (DoD) to consolidate all DoD military treatment facilities of the Army, Navy, and Air Force under the Defense Health Agency, while at the same time DoD civilian leaders put additional pressure on the system to accelerate reform efforts across the enterprise. Similar to other health systems, the Military Health System is under pressure to achieve greater efficiencies and reduce costs. This article portrays the drivers for consolidation of the three medical departments-those of the Army, Navy, and Air Force-under one agency and reflects on the impacts of this transformation in light of the DoD's unique mission.

Costs for Colon Cancer Treatment Comparing Benefit Types and Care Sources in the US Military Health System.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the USA, contributing largely to US healthcare spending. Provision of services (direct or purchased) and insurance benefit type may impact cost for cancer care. As a common cause of cancer in both men and women, we aim to compare colon cancer treatment costs between insurance benefit types and care sources in the US Military Health System (MHS) to better understand whether and to what extent these system factors impact cancer care costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Department of Defense Central Cancer Registry records and MHS Data Repository administrative claims were used to identify MHS beneficiaries aged 18-64 who were diagnosed with primary colon adenocarcinoma and received treatment between 2003 and 2008. The data linkage was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, the Defense Health Agency, and the National Institutes of Health. Costs to the MHS for each claim related to cancer treatment were extracted from the linked data and adjusted to 2008 USD. We used quantile regression models to compare median cancer treatment costs between benefit types and care sources (direct, purchased, or both), adjusted for demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: The median per capita (n = 801) costs for colon cancer care were $60,321 (interquartile range $24,625, $159,729) over a median follow-up of 1.7 years. The model-estimated treatment costs were similar between benefit types. Patients using direct care had significantly lower estimated median costs [$34,145 (standard error $4,326)] than patients using purchased care [$106,395 ($10,559)] or both care sources [$82,439 ($13,330)], controlled for patient demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Differences in cost by care source were noted for patients with later stage tumors and by treatment type. Relative costs were 2-3 times higher for purchased care compared to direct care for patients with late-stage tumors and for patients receiving chemotherapy or radiation treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In the MHS, median cost for colon cancer treatment was lower in direct care compared to purchased care or patients using a combination of direct and purchased care. The variation in cancer treatment costs between care sources may be due to differences in treatment incentives or capabilities. Additional studies on cost differences between direct and purchased services are needed to understand how provision of care affects cancer treatment costs and to identify possible targets for cost reduction.

Cost and Healthcare Utilization Among Non-Elderly Head and Neck Cancer Patients in the Military Health System, a Single-Payer Universal Health Care Model.

INTRODUCTION: Examining costs and utilization in a single-payer universal health care system provides information on fiscal and resource burdens associated with head and neck cancer (HNC). Here, we examine trends in the Department of Defense (DoD) HNC population with respect to: (1) reimbursed annual costs and (2) patterns and predictors of health care utilization in military only, civilian only, and both systems of care (mixed model). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted using TRICARE claims data from fiscal years 2007 through 2014 for reimbursement of ambulatory, inpatient, and pharmacy charges. The study was approved by the Defense Health Agency Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties as exempt from institutional review board full review. The population was all beneficiaries, age 18-64, with a primary ICD-9 diagnosis of HNC, on average, 2,944 HNC cases per year. The outcomes of regression models were total reimbursed health care cost, and counts of ambulatory visits, hospitalizations, and bed days. The predictors were fiscal year, demographic variables, hospice use, type and geographic region of TRICARE enrollment, use of military or civilian care or mixed use, cancer treatment modalities, the number of physical and mental health comorbid conditions, and tobacco use. A priori, null hypotheses were assumed. RESULTS: Per annual average, 61% of the HNC population was age 55-64, and 69% were males. About 6% accessed military facilities only for all health care, 60% accessed civilian only, and 34% accessed both military and civilian facilities. Patients who only accessed military care had earlier stage disease as indicated by rates of single modality treatment and hospice use; military care only and mixed use had similar rates of combination treatment and hospice use. The average cost per patient per year was $14,050 for civilian care only, $13,036 for military care only, and $29,338 for mixed use of both systems. The strongest predictors of higher cost were chemotherapy, radiation therapy, head and neck surgery, hospice care, and mixed-use care. The strongest predictors of health care utilization were chemotherapy, use of hospice, the number of physical and mental health comorbidities, radiation therapy, head and neck surgery, and system of care. CONCLUSIONS: To a single payer, the use of a single system of care exclusively among HNC patients is more cost-effective than use of a mixed-use system. The results suggest an over-utilization of ambulatory care services when both military and civilian care are accessed. Further investigation is needed to assess coordination between systems of care and improved efficiencies with respect to the cost and apparent over-utilization of health care services.

A Guide to Understanding Reimbursement and Value-Based Care in the Military Health System.

INTRODUCTION: With the continued rise in the cost of U.S. health care, there is an increased emphasis on value-based care methodologies. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent. Few studies have evaluated the role of value-based care in the Military Health System (MHS), especially in a format which physicians and providers can understand. The purpose of this article is to provide a guide to understanding current reimbursement systems and value-based care in the MHS and discuss potential strategies for improving value and military readiness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We outlined the current value-based care methodologies in the MHS, and by using musculoskeletal care as an example, offer strategies for further improvement. RESULTS: The MHS has been a leader in the health care industry in adopting value-based care strategies. Current value-based systems in the MHS are primarily designed to incentivize process measure compliance. Initial steps toward measurement and reporting health outcomes have been made, however, with the military's use of the Integrated Resourcing and Incentive System (IRIS), National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, and the Joint Outpatient Experience Survey (JOES). CONCLUSION: As this article will describe, universal reporting of health outcomes, adoption of integrated practice units, and a focus on determining outcomes of illness over the entire care cycle offer a significant opportunity to accelerate the MHS journey to providing true value-based care. The universal measurement and systematic improvement of outcomes based on this measurement will contribute to military medical readiness and warfighter effectiveness.