Advertisement

Patient Activation Changes as a Potential Signal for Changes in Health Care Costs: Cohort Study of US High-Cost Patients

  • Ann Lindsay
  • Judith H. Hibbard
  • Derek B. Boothroyd
  • Alan Glaseroff
  • Steven M. Asch
Original Research

Abstract

Background

Programs to improve quality of care and lower costs for the highest utilizers of health services are proliferating, yet such programs have difficulty demonstrating cost savings.

Objective

In this study, we explore the degree to which changes in Patient Activation Measure (PAM) levels predict health care costs among high-risk patients.

Participants

De-identified claims, demographic data, and serial PAM scores were analyzed on 2155 patients from multiple medical groups engaged in an existing Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation-funded intervention over 3 years designed to activate and improve care coordination for high-risk patients.

Design

In this prospective cohort study, four levels of PAM (from low to high) were used as the main predictor variable. We fit mixed linear models for log10 of allowed charges in follow-up periods in relation to change in PAM, controlling for baseline PAM, baseline costs, age, sex, income, and baseline risk score.

Main Measures

Total allowed charges were derived from claims data for the cohort. PAM scores were from a separate database managed by the local practices.

Key Results

A single PAM level increase was associated with 8.3% lower follow-up costs (95% confidence interval 2.5–13.2%).

Conclusions

These findings contribute to a growing evidence base that the change in PAM score could serve as an early signal indicating the impact of interventions designed for high-cost, high-needs patients.

KEY WORDS

medicare patient activation health economics return on investment 

Notes

Funding Information

Funding for the analysis reported in this article was provided from the Stanford Coordinated Care Team Training Account at the Stanford School of Medicine.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Ann D. Lindsay is a clinical advisor of Clover Health.

Judith H. Hibbard is a consultant and equity stakeholder for Insignia Health.

Alan Glaseroff is a clinical advisor for Cardinal Analytx, VIM, Omada Health, and Clover Health.

All remaining authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11606_2018_4657_MOESM1_ESM.docx (21 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 21 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Blumenthal D, Chernof B, Fulmer T, Lumpkin J, Selberg J. Caring for High-Need, High-Cost Patients — An Urgent Priority. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(10):909–911. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1608511.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zulman DM, Pal Chee C, Ezeji-Okoye SC, et al. Effect of an Intensive Outpatient Program to Augment Primary Care for High-Need Veterans Affairs Patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;5(4):e007771. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stockard J, Tusler M. Development and testing of a short form of the Patient Activation Measure. Heal Serv Res. 2005;40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00438.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Mahoney ER, Tusler M. Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res. 2004;39(4 Pt 1):1005–1026. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evangelista LS, Liao S, Motie M, De Michelis N, Lombardo D. On-going palliative care enhances perceived control and patient activation and reduces symptom distress in patients with symptomatic heart failure: a pilot study. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2014;13(2):116–123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515114520766.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salgado TM, Mackler E, Severson JA, et al. The relationship between patient activation, confidence to self-manage side effects, and adherence to oral oncolytics: a pilot study with Michigan oncology practices. Support Care Cancer. 2017:1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3584-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hibbard JH, Mahoney E, Sonet E. Does Patient Activation Level Affect the Cancer Patient Journey? Patient Educ Couns. 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.03.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greene J, Hibbard JH, Sacks R, Overton V, Parrotta CD. When patient activation levels change, health outcomes and costs change, too. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(3):431–437. doi: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0452.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hibbard JH, Greene J, Sacks R, Overton V, Parrotta CD. Adding A Measure Of Patient Self-Management Capability To Risk Assessment Can Improve Prediction Of High Costs. Health Aff. 2016;35(3):489–494. doi: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hibbard JH, Greene J, Overton V. Patients with lower activation associated with higher costs; delivery systems should know their patients’ “scores”. Health Aff. 2013;32(2):216–222. doi: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hibbard JH, Greene J, Sacks RM, Overton V, Parrotta C. Improving Population Health Management Strategies: Identifying Patients Who Are More Likely to Be Users of Avoidable Costly Care and Those More Likely to Develop a New Chronic Disease. Health Serv Res. 2016. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pantely, SE; Lee C. PBGH IOCP Experience Summary. The project described was supported by Grant Number 1C1CMS331047 from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or any of its agencies. The research presented here was conducted by the awardee. Findings might or might not be consistent with or confirmed by the findings of the independent evaluation contractor. The data on which this study is based was shared with the researchers for a limited time by agreements between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Pacific Business Group on Health (awardee of the CMS grant) and Stanford School of Medicine. The data will not be available to other researchers.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duan N. Smearing Estimate: A Nonparametric Retransformation Method. J Am Stat Assoc. 1983;78(383):605–610. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1983.10478017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Core Team. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuznetsova A. Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models [R package lmerTest version 2.0–33].Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greene J, Hibbard JH, Sacks R, Overton V, Parrotta CD. When Patient Activation Levels Change, Health Outcomes And Costs Change, Too. Health Aff. 2015;34(3):431–437. doi: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hibbard JH, Greene J, Overton V. Patients with lower activation associated with higher costs; Delivery systems should know their Patients’ “Scores”. Health Aff. 2013;32:216–222. doi: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fowles JB, Terry P, Xi M, Hibbard J, Bloom CT, Harvey L. Measuring self-management of patients’ and employees’ health: Further validation of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) based on its relation to employee characteristics. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77:116–122. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738399109000949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Remmers C, Hibbard J, Mosen DM, Wagenfield M, Hoye RE, Jones C. Is Patient Activation Associated With Future Health Outcomes and Healthcare Utilization Among Patients With Diabetes ? J Ambul Care Manag. 2009;32(4):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Greene J, Hibbard JH, Sacks R, Overton V, Parrotta CD. When patient activation levels change, health outcomes and costs change, too. Health Aff. 2015;34(3):431–437. doi: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hibbard JH, Greene J, Tusler M. Improving the outcomes of disease management by tailoring care to the patient’s level of activation. Am J Manag Care. 2009;15(6):353–360. .PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shively MJ, Gardetto NJ, Kodiath MF, et al. Effect of patient activation on self-management in patients with heart failure. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2013;28:20–34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/JCN.0b013e318239f9f9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mercer SW, Jani BD, Maxwell M, Wong SYS, Watt GCM. Patient enablement requires physician empathy: a cross-sectional study of general practice consultations in areas of high and low socioeconomic deprivation in Scotland. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13(1):6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-13-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hibbard JH, Greene J, Shi Y, Mittler J, Scanlon D. Taking the Long View: How Well Do Patient Activation Scores Predict Outcomes Four Years Later? Med Care Res Rev. 2015;72(3):324. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558715573871.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reistroffer, Cindy; Hearld, Larry; and Szychowski J. An Examination of the Relationship Between Care Management With Coaching for Activation and Patient Outcomes. Am J Manag Care. 2017;23(2):123–128.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schoeder S. We Can Do Better — Improving the Health of the American People — NEJM. N Engl J Med. 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann Lindsay
    • 1
  • Judith H. Hibbard
    • 2
  • Derek B. Boothroyd
    • 3
  • Alan Glaseroff
    • 4
  • Steven M. Asch
    • 5
  1. 1.Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine Stanford University School of MedicineMcKinleyvilleUSA
  2. 2.University of OregonEugeneUSA
  3. 3.Quantitative Sciences Unit, Department of MedicineStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  4. 4.Center for Excellence in Clinical ResearchStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  5. 5.VA Center for Innovation to Implementation, Department of MedicineStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations