Health care utilization and costs by metabolic syndrome risk factors.

BACKGROUND: This study compared prevalent health utilization and costs for persons with and without metabolic syndrome and investigated the independent associations of the various factors that make up metabolic syndrome. METHODS: Subjects were enrollees of three health plans who had all clinical measurements (blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose, body mass index, triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) necessary to determine metabolic syndrome risk factors over the 2-year study period (n = 170,648). We used clinical values, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnoses, and medication dispensings to identify risk factors. We report unadjusted mean annual utilization and modeled mean annual costs adjusting for age, sex, and co-morbidity. RESULTS: Subjects with metabolic syndrome (n = 98,091) had higher utilization and costs compared to subjects with no metabolic syndrome (n = 72,557) overall, and when stratified by diabetes (P < 0.001). Average annual total costs between subjects with metabolic syndrome versus no metabolic syndrome differed by a magnitude of 1.6 overall ($5,732 vs. $3,581), and a magnitude of 1.3 when stratified by diabetes (diabetes, $7,896 vs. $6,038; no diabetes, $4,476 vs. $3,422). Overall, total costs increased by an average of 24% per additional risk factor (P < 0.001). Costs and utilization differed by risk factor clusters, but the more prevalent clusters were not necessarily the most costly. Costs for subjects with diabetes plus weight risk, dyslipidemia, and hypertension were almost double the costs for subjects with prediabetes plus similar risk factors ($8,067 vs. $4,638). CONCLUSIONS: Metabolic syndrome, number of risk factors, and specific combinations of risk factors are markers for high utilization and costs among patients receiving medical care. Diabetes and certain risk clusters are major drivers of utilization and costs.

Harnessing stakeholder perspectives to improve the care of osteoporosis after a fracture.

UNLABELLED: This study used in-depth interviews and focus groups to evaluate osteoporosis care after a fracture. Patients (eligible women aged 67 who sustained a clinical fracture(s)), clinicians, and staff stated that an outreach program facilitated osteoporosis care management, but more-tailored education and support and increased participation of orthopedic specialists appear necessary. INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis treatment reduces fracture risk, but screening and treatment are underutilized, even after a fracture has occurred. This study evaluated key stakeholder perspectives about the care of osteoporosis after a fracture. METHODS: Participants were from a nonprofit health maintenance organization in the United States: eligible women members aged 67 or older who sustained a clinical fracture(s) (n = 10), quality and other health care managers (n = 20), primary care providers (n = 9), and orthopedic clinicians and staff (n = 28); total n = 67. In-depth interviews and focus groups elicited participant perspectives on an outreach program to patients and clinicians and other facilitators and barriers to care. Interviews and focus group sessions were transcribed and content-analyzed. RESULTS: Patients, clinicians, and staff stated that outreach facilitated osteoporosis care management, but important patient barriers remained. Patient knowledge gaps and fatalism were common. Providers stated that management needed to begin earlier, and longer-term patient support was necessary to address adherence. Orthopedic clinicians and staff expressed lack of confidence in their osteoporosis management but willingness to encourage treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although an outreach program assisted with the management of osteoporosis after a fracture, more-tailored education and support and increased participation of orthopedic specialists appear necessary to maximize osteoporosis management.