Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Partnering with Insurers in Caring for the Most Vulnerable Youth with Diabetes: NICH as an Integrator

  • Psychosocial Aspects (S Jaser, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Diabetes Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of review

In this review, we outline barriers to appropriately caring for high-risk youth with diabetes and discuss efforts in partnering with insurers through Alternative Payment Models to achieve the Triple Aim (improved health, improved care, and reduced costs) for this population.

Recent findings

Current approaches in caring for youth with diabetes who evidence a high degree of social complexity are woefully ineffective. These youth are vulnerable to repeat diabetic ketoacidosis episodes, poor glycemic control, and excessive utilization of healthcare resources. To effectively pursue the Triple Aim, an “integrator” (i.e., an entity that accepts responsibility for all components of the Triple Aim for a specified population) must be identified; however, this does not fit into current fee-for-service models.

Summary

Integrators for youth with diabetes are limited, but early examples of integrator efforts are promising. We present one successful “integrator,” Novel Interventions in Children’s Healthcare (NICH), and detail this program’s efforts in partnering with insurers to serve high-risk youth with diabetes.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. IHI Triple Aim initiative. In: Institute for healthcare improvement. 2016. http://www.ihi.org/engage/initiatives/tripleaim/pages/default.aspx. Accessed 15 Dec 2016.

  2. Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The Triple Aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff. 2008;27:759–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wagner DV, Stoeckel ME, Tudor M, Harris MA. Treating the most vulnerable and costly in diabetes. Curr Diab Rep. 2015;15:32–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rivkees SA, Daniels SR. When policy, demographics, and disease collide: the penalty of poor diabetes care in immigrant children. Ped Research. 2016;80:328–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Modi AC, Pai AL, Hommel KA, Hood KK, Cortina S, Hilliard ME, et al. Pediatric self-management: a framework for research, practice, and policy. Pediatrics. 2012;129:473–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. • 2014 Diabetes health care cost and utilization report. Health care cost institute. 2016. http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/report/2014-diabetes-health-care-cost-utilization-report/. Accessed 21 Dec 2016. This paper provides the most updated trends in health care spending and utilization for the US population with diagnosed diabetes.

  7. Mays GP. Health care, employers and population health. Health Management and Policy Presentations. Paper 138. 2016. http://uknowledge.uky.edu/hsm_present/138. Accessed 21 Dec 2016.

  8. May C, Montori V, Mair F. We need minimally disruptive medicine. BMJ. 2009;339:b2803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Harris MA, Wagner DV, Heywood M, Hoehn D, Bahia H, Spiro K. Youth repeatedly hospitalized for DKA: proof of concept for Novel Interventions in Children’s Healthcare (NICH). Diabetes Care. 2014;37:e125–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:1033–46.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Shrestha SS, Zhang P, Albright A, Imperatore G. Medical expenditures associated with diabetes among privately insured US youth in 2007. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:1097–101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Miller GF, Coffield E, Leroy Z, Wallin R. Prevalence and costs of five chronic conditions in children. J Sch Nurs. 2016.

  13. Patterson CC, Dahlquist GG, Gyürüs E, Green A, Soltész G, EURODIAB Study Group. Incidence trends for childhood type 1 diabetes in Europe during 1989-2003 and predicted new cases 2005-20: a multicentre prospective registration study. Lancet. 2009;373:2027–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. D’Adamo E, Caprio S. Type 2 diabetes in youth: epidemiology and pathophysiology. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:161–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Secrest AM, Becker DJ, Kelsey SF, LaPorte RE, Orchard TJ. Cause-specific mortality trends in a large population-based cohort with long-standing childhood-onset type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 2010;59:3216–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. United States Government Accountability Office. MEDICAID: a small share of enrollees consistently accounted for a large share of expenditures. 2015. http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670112.pdf. Accessed 21 Dec 2016.

  17. Charron-Prochownik D, Kovacs M, Obrosky DS, Stiffler L. Biomedical and psychosocial predictors of early rehospitalization among children with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a longitudinal study. Diabetes Med. 1994;11:372–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kennan HT, Foster CM, Bratton SL. Social factors associated with prolonged hospitalization among diabetic children. Pediatrics. 2002;109:40–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Randall L, Begovic J, Hudson M, Smiley D, Peng L, Pitre N, et al. Recurrent diabetic ketoacidosis in inner-city minority patients: behavioral, socioeconomic, and psychosocial factors. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:1891–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. La Greca AM, Swales T, Klemp S, Madigan S, Skler J. Adolescents with diabetes: gender differences in psychosocial and glycemic control. Child Health Care. 1995;24:61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Anderson RJ, Grigsby AB, Freedland KE, et al. Anxiety and poor glycemic control: a meta-analytic review of the literature. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2002;32:235–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Harris MA, Hood KK, Weissberg-Benchell J. Teens with diabetes: a clinician’s guide. Alexandria: American Diabetes Association; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lancaster BM, Gadaire DM, Holman K, LeBlanc LA. Association between diabetes treatment adherence and parent–child agreement regarding treatment responsibilities. Fam Syst Health. 2015;33:120–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hilliard ME, Wu YP, Rausch J, Dolan LM, Hood KK. Predictors of deteriorations in diabetes management and control in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52:28–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Arthur KC, Lucenko BA, Sharkova IV, et al. Social complexity and suboptimal health care utilization: a marker of need for care coordination? Platform presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies; April 25–28, 2015; San Diego, CA.

  26. Schrager SM, Arthur KC, Nelson J, Edwards AR, Murphy JM, Mangione-Smith R, et al. Development and validation of a method to identify children with social complexity risk factors. Pediatrics. 2016;138, e20153787.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012. Diabetes Care. 2012;35:11–63.

    Google Scholar 

  28. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Type 1 diabetes: diagnosis and management of type 1 diabetes in children, young people and adults. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Craig ME, Twigg SM, Donaghue KC, Cheung N, Cameron F, Conn J, et al. National evidence-based clinical care guidelines for type 1 diabetes for children, adolescents and adults. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Aging; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  30. •• Alternative Payment Model Framework and Progress Tracking (APM FPT) Work Group. Final White Paper. 2016. https://hcp-lan.org/workproducts/apm-whitepaper.pdf. Accessed 21 Dec 2016. This white paper provides an alternative payment model (APM) framework that can be used to track progress toward payment reform. A federally funded research and development center was asked to convene this large national initiative, from which the authors of this paper (“the Work Group”) and this paper were assembled.

  31. Daly R. HHS meets quality, alternative payment goals early. Healthc Financ Manage. 2016;70:11–4.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Better care. Smarter spending. Healthier people: paying providers for value, not volume. 2015. https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2015-Fact-sheets-items/2015-01-26-3.html. Accessed 14 Dec 2016.

  33. Rosenkrantz AB, Nicola GN, Hirsch JA. Anticipated impact of the 2016 Federal election on Federal health care legislation. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017.

  34. Farmer SA, Shalowitz J, George M, McStay F, Patel K, Perrin J, et al. Fully capitated payment breakeven rate for a mid-size pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2016;e20154367

  35. Zhang P, Shrestha S. Estimating the costs of diabetes by episodes of care: promises and challenges. J Diabetes Complications. 2015;29:463–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Kanter MH, Lindsay G, Bellows J, Alide C. Complete care at Kaiser Permanente: transforming chronic and preventive care. Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2013;39:484–94.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Katon WJ, Lin EH, Von Korff M, Ciechanowski P, Ludman EJ, Young B, et al. Collaborative care for patients with depression and chronic illness. NEJM. 2010;363:2611–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. California Medi-Cal Type 2 Diabetes Study Group. Closing the gap: effect of diabetes case management on glycemic control among low-income ethnic minority populations: the California Medi-Cal type 2 diabetes study. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Van Walleghem N, Macdonald CA, Dean HJ. Evaluation of a systems navigator model for transition from pediatric to adult care for young adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:1529–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Cadario F, Prodam F, Bellone S, et al. Transition process of patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) from paediatric to the adult health care service: a hospital-based approach. Clin Endocrinol. 2009;71:346–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Treadwell J, Perez R, Stubbs D, McAllister JW, Stern S, Buzi R. Case management and care coordination: supporting children and families to optimal outcomes. Springer International Publishing; 2014; p. 107-15.

  42. Berry JG, Agrawal RK, Cohen E, Kuo DZ. The landscape of medical care for children with medical complexity. Overland Park: Children’s Hospital Association; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Brown SA, García AA, Winter M, Silva L, Brown A, Hanis CL. Integrating education, group support, and case management for diabetic Hispanics. Ethn Dis. 2011;21:20–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Bojadzievski T, Gabbay RA. Patient-centered medical home and diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:1047–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Rosenthal TC. The medical home: growing evidence to support a new approach to primary care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2008;21:427–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cooley WC, McAllister JW, Sherrieb K, Kuhlthau K. Improved outcomes associated with medical home implementation in pediatric primary care. Pediatrics. 2009;124:358–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Drummond A, Looman W, Phillips A. Coping among parents of children with special health care needs with and without a health care home. J Pediatr Health Care. 2012;26:266–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Raphael JL, Cooley WC, Vega A, et al. Outcomes for children with chronic conditions associated with parent-and provider-reported measures of the medical home. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2015;26:358–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Katz ML, Laffel LM, Perrin JM, Kuhlthau K. Impact of type 1 diabetes mellitus on the family is reduced with the medical home, care coordination, and family-centered care. J Pediatr. 2012;160:861–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Korenstein D, Duan K, Diaz MJ, Ahn R, Keyhani S. Do health care delivery system reforms improve value? The jury is still out. Med Care. 2016;54:55–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Sheiman I. Integrated health care payment methods: typology, evidence and pre-conditions of implementation. Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP. 2014 Sep 25;18

  52. Berenson RA, Upadhyay DK, Delbanco SF, Murray R. Payment methods and benefit designs: how they work and how they work together to improve healthcare. A typology of payment methods. 2016. http://www.urban.org/research/publication/typology-payment-methods/view/full_report. Accessed 15 Dec 2016.

  53. Beck JK, Logan KJ, Hamm RM, et al. Reimbursement for pediatric diabetes intensive case management: a model for chronic diseases? Pediatrics. 2004;113:e47–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. • Harris MA, Spiro K, Heywood M, Wagner DV, Hoehn D, Hatten A, et al. Novel Interventions in Children’s Health Care (NICH): innovative treatment for youth with complex medical conditions. Clin Pract Pediatr Psychol. 2013;2:137–45. This study provides a more detailed description of the NICH program, which was used as a primary example of an “integrator” in the present review. This paper includes the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of the intervention, along with a case example.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Harris MA, Wagner DV, Heywood M, Hartman A, Harris J, Barry S, Rogers B. Youth repeatedly hospitalized for DKA: NICH work(s)! [Abstract]. Diabetes. 2016; 76.

  56. McConnell KJ, Chang AM, Cohen DJ, et al. Oregon’s Medicaid transformation: an innovative approach to holding a health system accountable for spending growth. Healthc (Amst). 2014;2(3):163–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Brown B, Crapo J, The key to transitioning from fee-for-service to value-based reimbursement. 2014. https://www.healthcatalyst.com/hospital-transitioning-fee-for-service-value-based-reimbursements. Accessed 20 Dec 2016

  58. McCarthy D, Ryan J, Klein S. Models of care for high-need, high-cost patients: an evidence synthesis. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2015;31:1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Wagner DV, Borduin CM, Sawyer AM, Dopp AR. Long-term prevention of criminality in siblings of serious and violent juvenile offenders: a 25 year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of multisystemic therapy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014;82(3):492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Fordatch MS, Patterson GR, Degarmo DS, Beldavs ZQ. Testing the Oregon delinquency model with 9-year follow-up of the Oregon Divorce Study. Dev Psychopathol. 2009;21(02):637–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Diabetes Center of Excellence, UMass Medical School, 368 Plantation St., Worcester, MA, 01605, USA

    Samantha A. Barry

  2. Oregon Health & Science University OHSU, 707 SW Gaines Street, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

    Lena Teplitsky, David V. Wagner, Brian T. Rogers & Michael A. Harris

  3. CareOregon, 315 SW 5th Ave, Portland, OR, 97204, USA

    Amit Shah

  4. Harold Schnitzer Diabetes Health Center, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

    Michael A. Harris

Authors
  1. Samantha A. Barry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lena Teplitsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David V. Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amit Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Brian T. Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael A. Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael A. Harris.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Samantha A. Barry, Lena Teplitsky, David V. Wagner, Amit Shah, Brian T. Rogers, and Michael A. Harris declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Psychosocial Aspects

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barry, S.A., Teplitsky, L., Wagner, D.V. et al. Partnering with Insurers in Caring for the Most Vulnerable Youth with Diabetes: NICH as an Integrator. Curr Diab Rep 17, 26 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-017-0849-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-017-0849-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation