Advertisement

Effect of Intensive Interdisciplinary Transitional Care for High-Need, High-Cost Patients on Quality, Outcomes, and Costs: a Quasi-Experimental Study

  • James E. BaileyEmail author
  • Satya Surbhi
  • Jim Y. Wan
  • Kiraat D. Munshi
  • Teresa M. Waters
  • Bonnie L. Binkley
  • Michael O. Ugwueke
  • Ilana Graetz
Original Research

Abstract

Background

Many health systems have implemented team-based programs to improve transitions from hospital to home for high-need, high-cost patients. While preliminary outcomes are promising, there is limited evidence regarding the most effective strategies.

Objective

To determine the effect of an intensive interdisciplinary transitional care program emphasizing medication adherence and rapid primary care follow-up for high-need, high-cost Medicaid and Medicare patients on quality, outcomes, and costs.

Design

Quasi-experimental study.

Patients

Among 2235 high-need, high-cost Medicare and Medicaid patients identified during an index inpatient hospitalization in a non-profit health care system in a medically underserved area with complete administrative claims data, 285 participants were enrolled in the SafeMed care transition intervention, and 1950 served as concurrent controls.

Interventions

The SafeMed team conducted hospital-based real-time screening, patient engagement, enrollment, enhanced discharge care coordination, and intensive home visits and telephone follow-up for at least 45 days.

Main Measures

Primary difference‐in‐differences analyses examined changes in quality (primary care visits, and medication adherence), outcomes (preventable emergency visits and hospitalizations, overall emergency visits, hospitalizations, 30‐day readmissions, and hospital days), and medical expenditures.

Key Results

Adjusted difference-in-differences analyses demonstrated that SafeMed participation was associated with 7% fewer hospitalizations (− 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), − 0.73 to − 0.06), 31% fewer 30-day readmissions (− 0.34; 95% CI, − 0.61 to − 0.07), and reduced medical expenditures ($− 8690; 95% CI, $− 14,441 to $− 2939) over 6 months. Improvements were limited to Medicaid patients, who experienced large, statistically significant decreases of 39% in emergency department visits, 25% in hospitalizations, and 79% in 30-day readmissions. Medication adherence was unchanged (+ 2.6%; 95% CI, − 39.1% to 72.9%).

Conclusions

Care transition models emphasizing strong interdisciplinary patient engagement and rapid primary care follow-up can enable health systems to improve quality and outcomes while reducing costs among high-need, high-cost Medicaid patients.

KEY WORDS

care transitions chronic disease health care delivery underserved populations quality improvement super-utilizer multiple chronic conditions Medicaid Medicare 

Notes

Author Contributions

The authors gratefully acknowledge Patti Smith, MPH, for her editorial assistance; Karen Hopper, MD, Michelle Scroggins, FNP, Paula Bell, PharmD, Angel Jones, PharmD, Leigh Anne Keough, PharmD, Caprice Brown, RN, Bonnye Griffin, MSW, Cassandra Norwood, MSW, Patricia Wright, LPN, Brittney Willoughby, LPN, Justin Wright, CPT, Amanda Clayborne-Clark, CPT, Jill Connors, PhD, Sarah Henning, MHSA, and Mansoor Shahid, MHA for their dedicated service to vulnerable patients in need; and most importantly, to the people served by the SafeMed program who helped us understand the care they need most.

Funding

The project described was supported by Grant Number ICIMS 331067-01-00 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 US Department of Health and Human Services or any of its agencies. In addition, this work was partially supported by the University of Tennessee Health Science Center and the Robert S. Pearce Endowed Chair in Internal Medicine.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

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

Supplementary material

11606_2019_5082_MOESM1_ESM.docx (63 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 62.9 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Cohen SB, Yu W. The concentration and persistence in the level of health expenditures over time: estimates for the U.S. population, 2008-2009. Statistical Brief #354. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2014. Available at https://meps.ahrq.gov/data_files/publications/st354/stat354.pdf. Accessed 13 March 2019.
  2. 2.
    Jiang HJ, Weiss A, Barrett ML, Sheng M. Characteristics of hospital stays for super-utilizers by payer, 2012. HCUP Statistical Brief [Internet]. May 30, 2017; #190. Available at: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb190-Hospital-Stays-Super-Utilizers-Payer-2012.pdf. Accessed 13 March 2019.
  3. 3.
    Health Affairs. Health Affairs Blog [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: Health Affairs. 2012 September 12 [cited 2019 March 13]. Available at: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20120921.023379/full/.
  4. 4.
    Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Reducing hospital readmissions: a revolutionary approach to improving health care delivery. [Internet]. Princeton, NJ: RWJF; 2014 Feb 1 [cited March 13, 2019]. Available at: https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/articles-and-news/2014/02/improving-management-of-health-care-superutilizers.html. Accessed 13 March 2019.
  5. 5.
    Gawande A. The hot spotters: can we lower medical costs by giving the neediest patients better care? The New Yorker. January 2011. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/01/24/the-hot-spotters. Accessed 13 March 2019.
  6. 6.
    Kaufman S, Ali N, DeFiglio V, Craig K, Brenner J. Early efforts to target and enroll high-risk diabetic patients into urban community-based programs. Health Promot Pract 2014;15(2 Suppl):62S-70S. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839914535776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vaida B. For super-utilizers, integrated care offers a new path. Health Aff (Millwood) 2017;36(3):394–7. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Long P, Abrams M, Milstein A, Anderson G, Lewis Apton K, Lund Dahlberg M, et al. Effective care for high-need patients: opportunities for improving outcomes, value, and health. Washington, DC: National Academy of Medicine, 2017.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hong CS, Siegal AL, Ferris TG. Caring for high-need, high-cost patients: what makes for a successful care management program? Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 2014;19:1–19. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2014/aug/caring-high-need-high-cost-patients-what-makes-successful-care. Accessed 13 March 2019.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hong CS, Abrams MK, Ferris TG. Toward increased adoption of complex care management. N Engl J Med 2014;371(6):491–3. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1401755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bray-Hall ST. Transitional care: focusing on patient-centered outcomes and simplicity. Ann Intern Med 2012;157(6):448–9. doi:  https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-6-201209180-00010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feltner C, Jones CD, Cene CW, Zheng ZJ, Sueta CA, Coker-Schwimmer EJ, et al. Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2014;160(11):774–84. doi:  https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hayes SL, Salzberg CA, McCarthy D, Radley DC, Abrams MK, Shah T, et al. High-need, high-cost patients: who are they and how do they use health care? a population-based vomparison of demographics, health care use, and expenditures. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 2016;26:1–14.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Joynt KE, Figueroa JF, Beaulieu N, Wild RC, Orav EJ, Jha AK. Segmenting high-cost Medicare patients into potentially actionable cohorts. Healthc (Amst) 2017;5(1–2):62–7. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2016.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coleman EA. Falling through the cracks: challenges and opportunities for improving transitional care for persons with continuous complex care needs. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003;51(4):549–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coleman EA, Smith JD, Raha D, Min SJ. Posthospital medication discrepancies: prevalence and contributing factors. Arch Intern Med 2005;165(16):1842–7. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.165.16.1842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Forster AJ, Murff HJ, Peterson JF, Gandhi TK, Bates DW. The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital. Ann Intern Med 2003;138(3):161–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Corbett CF, Setter SM, Daratha KB, Neumiller JJ, Wood LD. Nurse identified hospital to home medication discrepancies: implications for improving transitional care. Geriatr Nurs 2010;31(3):188–96. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2010.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Makaryus AN, Friedman EA. Patients’ understanding of their treatment plans and diagnosis at discharge. Mayo Clin Proc 2005;80(8):991–4. doi:  https://doi.org/10.4065/80.8.991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coleman EA, Parry C, Chalmers S, Min SJ. The care transitions intervention: results of a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2006;166(17):1822–8. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.17.1822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Naylor MD, Brooten DA, Campbell RL, Maislin G, McCauley KM, Schwartz JS. Transitional care of older adults hospitalized with heart failure: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52(5):675–84. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52202.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kripalani S, Roumie CL, Dalal AK, Cawthon C, Businger A, Eden SK, et al. Effect of a pharmacist intervention on clinically important medication errors after hospital discharge: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2012;157(1):1–10. doi:  https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-1-201207030-00003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Walker DG, Aedo C, Albala C, Allen E, Dangour AD, Elbourne D, et al. Methods for economic evaluation of a factorial-design cluster randomised controlled trial of a nutrition supplement and an exercise programme among healthy older people living in Santiago, Chile: the CENEX study. BMC Health Serv Res 2009;9:85.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kalista T, Lemay V, Cohen L. Postdischarge community pharmacist-provided home services for patients after hospitalization for heart failure. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2015;55(4):438–42. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1331/JAPhA.2015.14235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Phatak A, Prusi R, Ward B, Hansen LO, Williams MV, Vetter E, et al. Impact of pharmacist involvement in the transitional care of high-risk patients through medication reconciliation, medication education, and postdischarge call-backs (IPITCH Study). J Hosp Med 2016;11(1):39–44. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Williams MV, Li J, Hansen LO, Forth V, Budnitz T, Greenwald JL, et al. Project BOOST implementation: lessons learned. South Med J 2014;107(7):455–65. doi:  https://doi.org/10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Altfeld S, Pavie K, Rosenberg W, Shure I. Integrating care across settings: the Illinois Transitional Care Consortium’s Bridge Model. Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging; 2013 [cited 2017 June 2]. Available at: http://www.asaging.org/blog/integrating-care-across-settings-illinois-transitional-care-consortium%E2%80%99s-bridge-model. Accessed 12 March 2019.
  28. 28.
    Jack BW, Chetty VK, Anthony D, Greenwald JL, Sanchez GM, Johnson AE, et al. A reengineered hospital discharge program to decrease rehospitalization: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2009;150(3):178–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bunting BA, Cranor CW. The Asheville Project: long-term clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes of a community-based medication therapy management program for asthma. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2006;46(2):133–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bailey JE, Surbhi S, Bell PC, Jones AM, Rashed S, Ugwueke MO. SafeMed: using pharmacy technicians in a novel role as community health workers to improve transitions of care. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) 2016;56(1):73–81. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2015.11.011. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Harris LJ, Graetz I, Podila PS, Wan J, Waters TM, Bailey JE. Characteristics of hospital and emergency care super-utilizers with multiple chronic conditions. J Emerg Med 2016;50(4):e203–14. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2015.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Health Resources Administration. HRSA Data Warehouse MUA Find: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; 2017 [cited 2017 June 9]. Available from: https://datawarehouse.hrsa.gov/tools/analyzers/muafind.aspx.
  33. 33.
    QSource. A regional call to action on transitions of care: Memphis: QSource; 2011; p 8.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Surbhi S, Munshi KD, Bell PC, Bailey JE. Drug therapy problems and medication discrepancies during care transitions in super-utilizers. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2016;56(6):633–42 e1. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2016.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bailey JE, Binkley BL. Using the SafeMed model to improve transitions of care. Practice Transformation Series [Internet]. 2016; 2017(May 16). Available at: https://www.stepsforward.org/modules/safemed-transition-care. Accessed 12 March 2019
  36. 36.
    Bindman AB, Chattopadhyay A, Auerback GM. Interruptions in Medicaid coverage and risk for hospitalization for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions. Ann Intern Med 2008;149(12):854–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Oster A, Bindman AB. Emergency department visits for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: insights into preventable hospitalizations. Med Care 2003;41(2):198–207. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLR.0000045021.70297.9F.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    National Quality Forum. Measures, Reports & Tools; [cited 2017 July 23]. Available from: http://www.qualityforum.org/Measures_Reports_Tools.aspx. Accessed 12 March 2019
  39. 39.
    Choudhry NK, Shrank WH, Levin RL, Lee JL, Jan SA, Brookhart MA, et al. Measuring concurrent adherence to multiple related medications. Am J Manag Care 2009;15(7):457–64.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Prevention quality overall composite technical specifications, Prevention Quality Indicator 90 (PQI 90), AHRQ Quality Indicators™, Version 6.02016 May 31, 2017. Available at: www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/Downloads/Modules/PQI/V60-ICD10/TechSpecs/PQI_90_Prevention_Quality_Overall_Composite.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2019.
  41. 41.
    Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. New Engl J Med 2009;360(14):1418–28. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0803563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Research Data Assistance Center. Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility code - January: ResDAC; 2016 [cited 2017 June 1]. Available at: https://www.resdac.org/cms-data/variables/Dual-Status-Code-occurs-12-times. Accessed 12 March 2019
  43. 43.
    ICD-9-CM Enhanced Charlson SAS code. Winnepeg, Canada: Manitoba Centre for Health Policy; 2006.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Riegel B, Naylor M, Stewart S, McMurray JJ, Rich MW. Interventions to prevent readmission for congestive heart failure. JAMA. 2004;291(23):2816; author reply -7. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.23.2816-a.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bielaszka-DuVernay C. The ‘GRACE’ model: in-home assessments lead to better care for dual eligibles. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011;30(3):431–4. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kangovi S, Mitra N, Grande D, White ML, McCollum S, Sellman J, et al. Patient-centered community health worker intervention to improve posthospital outcomes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174(4):535–43. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.14327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Coburn KD, Marcantonio S, Lazansky R, Keller M, Davis N. Effect of a community-based nursing intervention on mortality in chronically ill older adults: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med 2012;9(7):e1001265. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dorr DA, Wilcox AB, Brunker CP, Burdon RE, Donnelly SM. The effect of technology-supported, multidisease care management on the mortality and hospitalization of seniors. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008;56(12):2195–202. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02005.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Durfee J, Johnson T, Batal H, Long J, Rinehart D, Everhart R, et al. The impact of tailored intervention services on charges and mortality for adult super-utilizers. Healthc (Amst). 2017. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2017.08.004.
  50. 50.
    Jackson BM, Gutierrez ML, Relyea GE, Carlton EL, Ahn S, Binkley BL, et al. Unmet primary care needs in diabetic patients with multimorbidity in a medically underserved area. Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol 2017;4:2333392817702760. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1177/2333392817702760.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Raven MC, Kushel M, Ko MJ, Penko J, Bindman AB. The Effectiveness of emergency department visit reduction programs: a systematic review. Ann Emerg Med 2016;68(4):467–83 e15.doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.04.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jackson C, Shahsahebi M, Wedlake T, DuBard CA. Timeliness of outpatient follow-up: an evidence-based approach for planning after hospital discharge. Ann Fam Med 2015;13(2):115–22. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Eaddy MT, Cook CL, O’Day K, Burch SP, Cantrell CR. How patient cost-sharing trends affect adherence and outcomes: a literature review. P T 2012;37(1):45–55.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Roemer MI, Hopkins CE, Carr L, Gartside F. Copayments for ambulatory care: penny-wise and pound-foolish. Med Care 1975;13(6):457–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Blewett LA, Johnson PJ, Lee B, Scal PB. When a usual source of care and usual provider matter: adult prevention and screening services. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:1354–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ivey SL, Shortell SM, Rodriquez HP, Wang YE. Patient engagement in ACO practices and patient-reported outcomes among adults with co-occurring chronic disease and mental health conditions. Med Care 2018;56(7):551–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • James E. Bailey
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Satya Surbhi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jim Y. Wan
    • 1
    • 3
  • Kiraat D. Munshi
    • 4
  • Teresa M. Waters
    • 1
    • 3
    • 5
  • Bonnie L. Binkley
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michael O. Ugwueke
    • 6
  • Ilana Graetz
    • 1
    • 3
    • 7
  1. 1.Center for Health System ImprovementUniversity of Tennessee Health Science CenterMemphisUSA
  2. 2.Department of MedicineUniversity of Tennessee Health Science CenterMemphisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Preventive MedicineUniversity of Tennessee Health Science CenterMemphisUSA
  4. 4.Express Scripts Holding CompanyMemphisUSA
  5. 5.Department of Health Management and PolicyUniversity of Kentucky College of Public HealthLexingtonUSA
  6. 6.Methodist Le Bonheur HealthcareMemphisUSA
  7. 7.Department of Health Policy and ManagementEmory University Rollins School of Public HealthAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations