Multifaceted interventions improve medication adherence and reduce acute hospitalization rates in medicaid patients prescribed asthma controllers.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the effectiveness of managed care-led interventions in Medicaid subjects with asthma on medication adherence and acute hospitalization in Pennsylvania. METHODS: A total of 3589 members (age range, 5-64 years) served by two Pennsylvania-based Medicaid managed care plans (southeastern Pennsylvania [SEPA] and Lehigh-Capital/New West Pennsylvania [LCNWPA]) with low adherence rates (proportion of days covered [PDC]; 20%-67%) for asthma controller prescription fills in 2012 were guided through a care continuum by a comprehensive asthma strategy, consisting of adherence-improvement interventions (grouped as general intervention [GI] or personalized intervention [PI] for higher-risk subjects). Medication adherence and acute hospitalization rates (emergency department [ED] and inpatient [IP]) were compared at baseline versus one-year post-intervention using paired t-test or signed-rank tests. Repeated measures analysis of variances detected the interaction effect of time by intervention group after controlling for sociodemographic covariates. RESULTS: Member profiles in SEPA (n = 2 796) and LCNWPA (n = 793) were racially and ethnically distinct. Both cohorts experienced statistically significant improvements in mean PDC rate (+4.9% and +7.2%; p = 0.01 and p = 0.03, respectively), accompanied by significant reductions in ED visits (asthma-related: -23.0% and -17.5%, respectively; p < 0.01), and IP admissions (asthma-related: -37.1% and -40.0%, respectively; p < 0.01). The PI subcohorts showed significantly greater improvements in mean PDC versus GI subcohorts (p ≤ 0.04), whereas acute hospitalization rates were statistically comparable in the SEPA cohort, despite its greater asthma burden. CONCLUSIONS: Managed care-led interventions can effectively improve medication adherence and reduce acute hospitalizations in high-risk Medicaid populations.

Postdischarge engagement decreased hospital readmissions in Medicaid populations.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of managed care organization (MCO)-implemented postdischarge engagement, supported by other broadly focused interventions, on 30-day hospital readmissions in 6 at-risk Medicaid populations. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: One-year follow-up analysis of member claims data was performed following an intervention period from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2014. Postdischarge engagement, supported by additional MCO-initiated interventions, was implemented to reduce 30-day hospital readmissions in Medicaid members having 1 or more dominant chronic conditions. Hospital readmission rates were calculated at baseline and at 1 year post intervention. Bivariable and multivariable generalized estimating equation analysis was used to quantify the likelihood of hospital readmissions. RESULTS: Following implementation, postdischarge engagement rates increased significantly, whereas provider follow-up rates remained unchanged. Increased member engagement resulted in statistically significant reductions in weighted readmission rates enterprise-wide (-10.1%; P <.01) and in 3 of 6 MCOs (-3.9% to -15.8%; P ≤.05) in 2014. Compared with nonparticipants, members who were successfully reached for postdischarge engagement displayed a 33% decrease in 30-day readmissions enterprise-wide (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.62-0.73) and a comparable decrease (-23% to -39%) in 5 of the 6 MCOs. In this context, greater frequency of postdischarge engagement was associated with proportionally decreased likelihood of readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Postdischarge engagement, against the backdrop of multifaceted MCO-implemented interventions, was associated with significantly reduced hospital readmissions in at-risk Medicaid subjects. Reduced likelihood of readmissions was observed at both the enterprise-wide and plan levels in a manner proportional to the frequency of engagement, a novel reported outcome for this population.

Collaborative DTM reduces hospitalization and healthcare costs in patients with diabetes treated with polypharmacy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of a collaborative pharmacy benefits manager (PBM)/ health plan-administered drug therapy management (DTM) program on healthcare utilization and costs in patients with diabetes treated with polypharmacy. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective quasi-experimental design with comparison group. METHODS: This DTM program was a collaborative effort between the PBM, PerformRx, and the care management departments of Keystone First (KF) and AmeriHealth Caritas Pennsylvania (ACP) care management departments, targeting patients with diabetes using >15 medications. Pharmacists reviewed member profiles and made evidencebased prescriber and patient interventions, working directly with prescribers and indirectly with members, via care managers. Care managers provided additional services not otherwise within the scope of DTM. The study group consisted of 954 DTM participants reviewed by a pharmacist between November 1, 2010, and July 31, 2011. The control group consisted of 810 matched DTM participants not reviewed by a pharmacist. RESULTS: Intervention acceptance rates for KF and ACP were 33% and 26%, respectively. The study group demonstrated lower inpatient admissions and emergency department utilization rates, although only the KF study group inpatient admission rate achieved statistical significance (76.4%; P = .0002). The study groups realized statistically significant total cost savings (pharmacy + medical) compared with their corresponding control groups (47.8% KF, P = .0039; 50.7% ACP, P = .0497) despite non-statistically significant increases in pharmacy costs. CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative pharmacist-driven DTM program with a care manager-executed patient outreach component results in reduced hospital utilization and significant healthcare cost savings.

The National Health Plan Collaborative to Reduce Disparities and Improve Quality.

BACKGROUND: Despite numerous reports and initiatives, progress in reducing racial/ethnic disparities in health care has been slow. The National Health Plan Collaborative (NHPC), a novel public-private partnership between nine health plans covering approximately 95 million lives, leading learning and research organizations, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, was established in December 2004 to address these disparities. PROGRESS TO DATE: The health plans were able to overcame initial challenges in obtaining information on race/ethnicity of their enrollees and examined their diabetes performance measure to assess disparities in care. By February 2006, the initial nine plans that had joined the NHPC progressed from focusing solely on data collection and management issues and were engaged in outreach activities to members, providers, or community or had completed capacity development for disparities work. Five plans had implemented one or more pilot interventions. Plans also addressed unanticipated challenges, such as sorting through large amounts of data to target disparities. CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED: Because many of the plans are complex national entities with varying regional and departmental structures, simply achieving coordination of disparities activities across the organization has been a major challenge and, in many cases, a major breakthrough. CONCLUSIONS: The NHPC represents a model of shared learning and innovation through which health plans are tackling racial/ethnic disparities. Now that most of the plans have some data on their enrollees with diabetes and have begun targeting disparities, they want to capitalize on their collective industry strength to influence policy on issues related to disparities.

Clinical practice guideline: adult sinusitis.

OBJECTIVE: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on managing sinusitis, defined as symptomatic inflammation of the paranasal sinuses. Sinusitis affects 1 in 7 adults in the United States, resulting in about 31 million individuals diagnosed each year. Since sinusitis almost always involves the nasal cavity, the term rhinosinusitis is preferred. The guideline target patient is aged 18 years or older with uncomplicated rhinosinusitis, evaluated in any setting in which an adult with rhinosinusitis would be identified, monitored, or managed. This guideline is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and manage adults with sinusitis. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve diagnostic accuracy for adult rhinosinusitis, reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, reduce inappropriate use of radiographic imaging, and promote appropriate use of ancillary tests that include nasal endoscopy, computed tomography, and testing for allergy and immune function. In creating this guideline the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of allergy, emergency medicine, family medicine, health insurance, immunology, infectious disease, internal medicine, medical informatics, nursing, otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, pulmonology, and radiology. RESULTS: The panel made strong recommendations that 1) clinicians should distinguish presumed acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) from acute rhinosinusitis caused by viral upper respiratory infections and noninfectious conditions, and a clinician should diagnose ABRS when (a) symptoms or signs of acute rhinosinusitis are present 10 days or more beyond the onset of upper respiratory symptoms, or (b) symptoms or signs of acute rhinosinusitis worsen within 10 days after an initial improvement (double worsening), and 2) the management of ABRS should include an assessment of pain, with analgesic treatment based on the severity of pain. The panel made a recommendation against radiographic imaging for patients who meet diagnostic criteria for acute rhinosinusitis, unless a complication or alternative diagnosis is suspected. The panel made recommendations that 1) if a decision is made to treat ABRS with an antibiotic agent, the clinician should prescribe amoxicillin as first-line therapy for most adults, 2) if the patient worsens or fails to improve with the initial management option by 7 days, the clinician should reassess the patient to confirm ABRS, exclude other causes of illness, and detect complications, 3) clinicians should distinguish chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and recurrent acute rhinosinusitis from isolated episodes of ABRS and other causes of sinonasal symptoms, 4) clinicians should assess the patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis for factors that modify management, such as allergic rhinitis, cystic fibrosis, immunocompromised state, ciliary dyskinesia, and anatomic variation, 5) the clinician should corroborate a diagnosis and/or investigate for underlying causes of CRS and recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, 6) the clinician should obtain computed tomography of the paranasal sinuses in diagnosing or evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, and 7) clinicians should educate/counsel patients with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis regarding control measures. The panel offered as options that 1) clinicians may prescribe symptomatic relief in managing viral rhinosinusitis, 2) clinicians may prescribe symptomatic relief in managing ABRS, 3) observation without use of antibiotics is an option for selected adults with uncomplicated ABRS who have mild illness (mild pain and temperature <38.3 degrees C or 101 degrees F) and assurance of follow-up, 4) the clinician may obtain nasal endoscopy in diagnosing or evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, and 5) the clinician may obtain testing for allergy and immune function in evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis. DISCLAIMER: This clinical practice guideline is not intended as a sole source of guidance for managing adults with rhinosinusitis. Rather, it is designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making strategies. It is not intended to replace clinical judgment or establish a protocol for all individuals with this condition, and may not provide the only appropriate approach to diagnosing and managing this problem.

Gender-specific care of the patient with diabetes: review and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Men and women differ in their experience of diabetes mellitus (DM). For optimal prevention and treatment of the disease, these differences must be acknowledged. Unfortunately, most studies of diabetes have focused almost exclusively on men. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to survey the literature about the sex-specific features of DM and to make recommendations for the gender-specific care of patients. METHODS: An initial literature search was performed with Google Scholar and MEDLINE (1995-2005) using the search terms sex/gender, women, diabetes mellitus, and coronary artery disease, and specific topic headings such as polycystic ovary syndrome. The bibliographies of articles were used extensively to augment the search, and more specific search terms were included. The strength of each recommendation was assessed. RESULTS: : Even when women were included in clinical trials, investigators typically made no attempt to assess the impact of sex differences on the reported results. Existing studies, however, reveal several differences between men and women with diabetes. The prevalence of DM is growing fastest for older minority women. Women with diabetes, regardless of menopausal status, have a 4- to 6-fold increase in the risk of developing coronary artery disease (CAD), whereas men with diabetes have a 2- to 3-fold increase in risk. Women with diabetes have a poorer prognosis after myocardial infarction and a higher risk of death overall from cardiovascular disease than do men with diabetes. Women with type 2 DM experience more symptoms of hyperglycemia than do their male counterparts. Obesity, an important contributor to type 2 DM, is more prevalent in women. Women with diabetes have an increased risk of hypertension compared with men with diabetes. Women have a more severe type of dyslipidemia than do men (low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, small particle size of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high levels of triglycerides), and these risk factors for CAD have a stronger influence in women. Oxidative stress may confer a greater increase in the risk of CAD for women with diabetes than for men with diabetes. Many other sex differences in DM are due to women's reproductive physiology. Polycystic ovary syndrome is an important correlate of insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome. Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 DM. Women are less likely than men to receive aggressive treatment for CAD and to achieve treatment goals. Critical recommendations for women include exercise, testing for CAD, daily aspirin to counteract the prothrombotic state, depression screening, careful treatment to avoid weight gain, long-term follow-up of children of women with GDM, control of risk factors for CAD, and aggressive treatment with coronary angioplasty for CAD. Disease management programs for patients with diabetes have been shown to save money and improve outcomes, and should continue to incorporate information about sex-specific differences in DM as it becomes available. CONCLUSION: Gender-specific care of the patient with diabetes should be informed by evidence-based recommendations.