Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In Search of Financial Savings from Disease Management

Applying the Number-Needed-to-Decrease Analysis to a Diabetic Population

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Disease Management & Health Outcomes

Abstract

Background

In a previous article using population-level data, an a priori number-needed-to-decrease (NND) analysis was conducted to determine if there is potential opportunity in a given population for a disease management program to achieve financial effectiveness. Critics of that study have suggested that analysis at the entire population level does not account for differential enrollment trends. They also contend that reviewing disease-only hospitalization data disregards changes in acute utilization for comorbidities of the primary condition. This article responds to these two criticisms by critically examining the hypothesis that evaluating a specific diseased cohort elicits more reasonable projections of the financial effectiveness of a disease management program than when the analysis is conducted at the population level. To do this, this article reports the results of an a priori NND analysis of hospitalizations conducted on a diabetes mellitus cohort.

Methods

An NND analysis was conducted on a diabetes cohort that was identified in a health plan population using Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS®) criteria. Hospitalizations were categorized in three groups: diabetes-only; diabetes plus comorbid conditions; and diabetes plus comorbid conditions and diagnoses possibly associated with diabetes.

Results

To cover fees alone, it is estimated that a disease management program would have to reduce diabetes-only hospitalizations by 74%; hospitalizations for diabetes and comorbid conditions by 39%; or hospitalizations for diabetes, comorbid conditions, and diagnoses possibly associated with diabetes by 26%.

Conclusions

The findings of the present study indicate that when performing the NND analysis at the cohort level as opposed to at the population level, even more stringent levels of performance are required to break even. Given that program fees is the only variable that can truly be manipulated a priori by the disease management program under the current model to improve the likelihood of achieving economic effectiveness, alternative approaches to this dilemma are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Linden A. What will it take for disease management to demonstrate a return on investment? New perspectives on an old theme. Am J Manag Care 2006; 12: 217–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group. National health expenditure tables, historical and projected [online]. Available from URL: http://new.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp [Accessed 2006 Jun 26]

  3. McCaig LF, Burt CW. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2003 emergency department summary. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, No. 358 [online]. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics, 2005 May 26. Available from URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad358.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jun 26]

    Google Scholar 

  4. US Congressional Budget Office. An analysis of the literature on disease management programs [online]. Washington DC: Congressional Budget Office, 2004 Oct 13. Available from URL: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cf-m?.index=5909&sequence=0 [Accessed 2006 Jun 26]

    Google Scholar 

  5. Editor. New standard for DM outcomes measurement proposed. Dis Manag News 2006; 11(8): 1,4–5

    Google Scholar 

  6. Editor. Duncan: new DM outcomes standard has pluses, minuses. Dis Manag News 2006; 11(8): 4–5

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kuraitis V. Re: New press release on www.dismgmt.com on proving measurement valid (April 2006, week 4, message 7304; 2006 Apr 23) [online]. Message posted to the Disease Management Forum electronic mailing list. Available from URL: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/DMFORUM/ [Accessed 2006 Jun 1]

  8. Wilson T. Re: New press release on www.dismgmt.com on proving measurement valid (April 2006, week 4, message 7311; 2006 Apr 240 [online]. Message posted to the Disease Management Forum electronic mailing list. Available from URL; http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/DMFORUM/ [Accessed 2006 Jun 1]

  9. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes fact sheet — 2002 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2003.pdf [Accessed 2006 May 3]

  10. American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the US in 2002. Diabetes Care 2003; 26: 917–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Linden A. Measuring diagnostic and predictive accuracy in disease management: an introduction to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. J Eval Clin Pract 2006; 12(2): 132–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. US National Committee for Quality Assurance. HEDIS® 2006: Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set. Volume 2: technical specifications. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  13. Linden A, Adams J, Roberts N. The generalizability of disease management program results: getting from here to there. Manag Care Interface 2004; 17(7): 38–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hux JE, Ivis F, Flintoft V, et al. Diabetes in Ontario: determination of prevalence and incidence using a validated administrative data algorithm. Diabetes Care 2002; 25: 512–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Linden A, Butterworth SW, Roberts N. Disease management interventions II: what else is in the black box? Dis Manag 2006; 9(2): 73–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 1728–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fleishman JA, Cohen JW, Manning WG, et al. Using the SF-12 health status measure to improve predictions of medical expenditures. Med Care 2006; 44: I54–I63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lorig KR, Ritter P, Stewart AL, et al. Chronic disease self-management program: 2-year health status and health care utilization outcomes. Med Care 2001; 39(11): 1217–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Susan Butterworth, PhD, for her review and editing of the manuscript. No sources of funding were used to assist in conducting the study. Neither author has any conflict of interest that is directly relevant to the content of the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Linden Consulting Group, 6208 NE Chestnut Street, Hillsboro, Oregon, OR 97124, USA

    Ariel Linden (health services researcher)

  2. School of Medicine and School of Nursing, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA

    Ariel Linden (health services researcher)

  3. Prime Care Physicians, Albany, New York, USA

    Thomas J. Biuso

  4. Hospitalist Program, St Peter’s Hospital, Albany, New York, USA

    Thomas J. Biuso

Authors
  1. Ariel Linden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas J. Biuso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ariel Linden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Linden, A., Biuso, T.J. In Search of Financial Savings from Disease Management. Dis-Manage-Health-Outcomes 14, 197–202 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200614040-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200614040-00001

Keywords

Search

Navigation