Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 21–27 | Cite as

A Novel Intervention for High-Need, High-Cost Medicaid Patients: a Study of ECHO Care

  • Miriam KomaromyEmail author
  • Judy Bartlett
  • Sarah R. Gonzales-van Horn
  • Andrea Zurawski
  • Summers G. Kalishman
  • Yiliang Zhu
  • Herbert T. Davis
  • Venice Ceballos
  • Xi Sun
  • Martin Jurado
  • Kimberly Page
  • Allison Hamblin
  • Sanjeev Arora
Original Research

Abstract

Background

A small number of high-need patients account for a disproportionate amount of Medicaid spending, yet typically engage little in outpatient care and have poor outcomes.

Objective

To address this issue, we developed ECHO (Extension for Community Health Outcomes) Care™, a complex care intervention in which outpatient intensivist teams (OITs) provided care to high-need high-cost (HNHC) Medicaid patients. Teams were supported using the ECHO model™, a continuing medical education approach that connects specialists with primary care providers for case-based mentoring to treat complex diseases.

Design

Using an interrupted time series analysis of Medicaid claims data, we measured healthcare utilization and expenditures before and after ECHO Care.

Participants

ECHO Care served 770 patients in New Mexico between September 2013 and June 2016. Nearly all had a chronic mental illness, and over three-quarters had a chronic substance use disorder.

Intervention

ECHO Care patients received care from an OIT, which typically included a nurse practitioner or physician assistant, a registered nurse, a licensed mental health provider, and at least one community health worker. Teams focused on addressing patients’ physical, behavioral, and social issues.

Main Measures

We assessed the effect of ECHO Care on Medicaid costs and utilization (inpatient admissions, emergency department (ED) visits, other outpatient visits, and dispensed prescriptions.

Key Results

ECHO Care was associated with significant changes in patients’ use of the healthcare system. At 12 months post-enrollment, the odds of a patient having an inpatient admission and an ED visit were each reduced by approximately 50%, while outpatient visits and prescriptions increased by 23% and 8%, respectively. We found no significant change in overall Medicaid costs associated with ECHO Care.

Conclusions

ECHO Care shifts healthcare utilization from inpatient to outpatient settings, which suggests decreased patient suffering and greater access to care, including more effective prevention and early intervention for chronic conditions.

KEY WORDS

ECHO model multidisciplinary primary care teams complex care high-need high-cost patients Medicaid 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Chris Ruge CNP, Devon Neale MD, and all ECHO Care team members and teleECHO specialists; John Billings JD and Tod Mijanovich PhD (NYU) for Medicaid claims analysis guidance; Jennifer Snead PhD (ECHO Institute) for manuscript preparation support; Mark Larson (Center for Health Care Strategies); Nancy Smith Leslie, the NM State Medicaid Director, and the NM Medicaid MCOs. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (Grant Number: 1C1CMS330973-01-00). The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. HHS or any of its agencies. The research presented was conducted by the awardee. Findings may or may not be consistent with or confirmed by the findings of the independent evaluation contractor.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

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

Supplementary material

11606_2019_5206_MOESM1_ESM.docx (101 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 101 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Cohen SB. Statistical Brief# 455: The Concentration of Health Care Expenditures and Related Expenses for Costly Medical Conditions, 2012. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2014.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McCarthy D, Ryan J, Klein S. Models of Care for High-Need, High-Cost Patients: An Evidence Synthesis. Commonwealth Fund; 2015:1–19.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1608511 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bodenheimer T. Strategies to Reduce Costs and Improve Care for High-Utilizing Medicaid Patients: Reflections on Pioneering Programs. Center for Health Care Strategies; 2013:1–24. http://www.chcs.org/media/HighUtilizerReport_102413_Final3.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2017.
  5. 5.
    Neal J, Nigam S. Medical Homes: Cost Effects of Utilization by Chronically Ill Patients. Am J Manag Care. 2015;21(1):13.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maeng DD, Snyder SR, Davis TW, Tomcavage JF. Impact of a Complex Care Management Model on Cost and Utilization Among Adolescents and Young Adults with Special Care and Health Needs. Popul Health Manag. 2017;20(6):435–441.  https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2016.0167 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Milstein A, Gilbertson E. American Medical Home Runs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(5):1317–1326.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.5.1317 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kelly C, Hulme C, Farragher T, Clarke G. Are differences in travel time or distance to healthcare for adults in global north countries associated with an impact on health outcomes? A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11).  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Syed ST, Gerber BS, Sharp LK. Traveling Towards Disease: Transportation Barriers to Health Care Access. J Community Health. 2013;38(5):976–993.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-013-9681-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arora S, Thornton K, Murata G, et al. Outcomes of treatment for hepatitis C virus infection by primary care providers. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(23):2199–2207. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/Nejmoa1009370. Accessed 18 April 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewis J, Hoyt A, Kakoza RM. Enhancing quality of primary care using an ambulatory ICU to achieve a patient-centered medical home. J Prim Care Community Health. 2011;2(4):234–239. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2150131911410063. Accessed 5 June 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Milstein A. Redesigning Primary Care for Breakthrough in Health Insurance Affordability: Model I, The Ambulatory Intensive Caring Unit. San Francisco, CA: Mercer; 2005:41.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Komaromy M, Madden EF, Zurawski A, et al. Contingent engagement: What we learn from patients with complex health problems and low socioeconomic status. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(3):524–531.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.08.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arora S, Kalishman S, Dion D, et al. Partnering Urban Academic Medical Centers And Rural Primary Care Clinicians To Provide Complex Chronic Disease Care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(6):1176–1184.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0278 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bhavaraju N, Nanni J, Carlson C, Sholk J, Peterson K, Smith LA. Breaking the Barriers to Specialty Care: Practicle Ideas to Improve Health Equity and Reduce Cost. FSG and Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation; 2016. http://www.fsg.org/publications/breaking-barriers-specialty-care. Accessed 24 Oct 2019.
  16. 16.
    Hamblin A, Somers SA. Introduction to Medicaid Care Management Best Practices. Hamilton, NJ: Center for Health Care Strategies, Inc.; 2011.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hayes SL, Salzberg CA, McCarthy D, et al. High-Need, High-Cost Patients: Who Are They and How Do They Use Health Care? A Population-Based Comparison of Demographics, Health Care Use, and Expenditures. Issue Brief Commonw Fund. 2016;26:1–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Penfold RB, Zhang F. Use of Interrupted Time Series Analysis in Evaluating Health Care Quality Improvements. Acad Pediatr. 2013;13(6):S38-S44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2013.08.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Soumerai SB, Ceccarelli R, Koppel R. False Dichotomies and Health Policy Research Designs: Randomized Trials Are Not Always the Answer. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(2):204–209.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-016-3841-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davis R. Using a Cost and Utilization Lens to Evaluate Programs Serving Complex Populations: Benefits and Limitations. Center for Health Care Strategies, Inc. 2017. https://www.chcs.org/resource/using-cost-utilization-lens-evaluate-programs-serving-complex-populations-benefits-limitations/. Accessed 30 March 2018.
  22. 22.
    Anderson GF, Ballreich J, Bleich S, et al. Attributes Common to Programs That Successfully Treat High-Need, High-Cost Individuals. Am J Manag Care. 2015;21(11):e597-e600.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bodenheimer T, Chen E, Bennett HD. Confronting The Growing Burden Of Chronic Disease: Can The U.S. Health Care Workforce Do The Job? Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(1):64–74.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.1.64 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q. 2005;83(3):457–502. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x/full. Accessed 25 May 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Joynt KE, Gawande AA, Orav EJ, Jha AK. Contribution of Preventable Acute Care Spending to Total Spending for High-Cost Medicare Patients. JAMA. 2013;309(24):2572.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.7103 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pourat N, Davis AC, Chen X, Vrungos S, Kominski GF. In California, Primary Care Continuity Was Associated With Reduced Emergency Department Use And Fewer Hospitalizations. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(7):1113–1120.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.1165 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lagoe RJ, Westert GP. Evaluation of hospital inpatient complications: a planning approach. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10(1).  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-200
  28. 28.
    Biener AI, Zuvekas SH, Hill SC. Impact of Recent Medicaid Expansions on Office-Based Primary Care and Specialty Care among the Newly Eligible. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(4):2426–2445.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12793 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kominski GF, Nonzee NJ, Sorensen A. The Affordable Care Act’s Impacts on Access to Insurance and Health Care for Low-Income Populations. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38(1):489–505.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044555 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Anderson B, Armstrong E, Miller W, et al. HCIA Complex/High-Risk Patient Targeting: Third Annual Report. University of Chicago: NORC. 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miriam Komaromy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Judy Bartlett
    • 2
  • Sarah R. Gonzales-van Horn
    • 3
  • Andrea Zurawski
    • 3
  • Summers G. Kalishman
    • 3
  • Yiliang Zhu
    • 4
  • Herbert T. Davis
    • 4
  • Venice Ceballos
    • 3
  • Xi Sun
    • 3
  • Martin Jurado
    • 3
  • Kimberly Page
    • 4
  • Allison Hamblin
    • 5
  • Sanjeev Arora
    • 3
  1. 1.Medical Director, Grayken Center for Addiction, Boston Medical Center, Boston UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of New Mexico Health Sciences CenterAlbuquerqueUSA
  3. 3.University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, ECHO Institute™AlbuquerqueUSA
  4. 4.Division of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and PreventionUniversity of New Mexico Health Sciences CenterAlbuquerqueUSA
  5. 5.Center for Health Care Strategies, Inc.HamiltonUSA

Personalised recommendations