Health for life

So, does the medical home "save money?"  A recent publication in Population Health Management about Community Care of North Carolina (CCNC) says "yes." Thats important, because CCNC program has had more than its fair share of controversy. 

You can read more about CCNC here.  According to the Commonwealth Fund, Raleigh pays CCNCs 14 non-profit regional networks $3 per member per month (PMPM) for medical home services for over a million Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries. In exchange, the 1300 clinics provide preventive care services, 24 hour coverage services, coordinating access to specialty services, care management and quality improvement. To do all that, CCNC uses a "medical home model" with "specialized chronic care programs" staffed by teams of docs, pharmacists and care managers.

The quasi-experimental evaluation published in PHM used "hierarchical modeling" to evaluate the impact of CCNC on two different samples of non-elderly (ages 0 to 64) disabled Medicaid patients who had no other insurance:

Model 1: compared the medical home patients claims expense within and outside the enrollment periods "after controlling for other covariate values"

Model 2 created matched cohorts of enrolled and non-enrolled patients to compare pre-post differences in insurance claims expense. Matching was based on pre-enrollment pharmacy use, race, age, enrollment duration, clinical risk and behavioral health burdens.  For every enrolled patient, ten non-enrolled comparison patients were selected. 

The study period was January 1 2007 through Sept. 30, 2011.  Any single months of disenrollment were "filled in" if there was enrollment 2 months per and 2 months post. 

Results?

Model 1: This used insurance claims data for over 169,000 patients with an average age of 35 years. 52% were male with a 24% rate of mental illness and an 8% rate of chemical dependency. Compared to the time of not being enrolled in a program, claims expense was statistically significantly $190 per member per month (PMPM) cheaper in the first year; that declined to $64 PMPM cheaper in the last ear of study.  Persons with a higher burden of illness had even greater savings.

Model 2: This studied claims from approximately 102,000 enrolled patients with pretty much the same baseline characteristics in Model 1. Savings achieved statistical significance in the 3rd, 4th and 5th years of study: $81, $73 and $121 PMPM, respectively.

The DMCBs take:

While it can get lost in the sublime minutiae of hierarchical modeling, the DMCB finds the methodology and the numbers to be credible.  It has used the same Model 2 style of matching in its own studies. Since a pristinely conducted prospective randomized control clinical study is functionally impossible in a state-wide Medicaid program, quasi-experimental study designs like this are a good window into figuring out what happened.

And what happened is that they saved a lot of money. Assuming CCNC was paid $3 PMPM or $36 million per year for a about a million beneficiaries, avoided claims expense appeared to be well north of that.

While CCNC has a lot of moving pieces, the DMCB believes the key success factor was based on identifying the most vulnerable patients and then using nurses to intervene on the them.

The average caseload per nurse ranges from 150 to 200 patients.  As the Commonwealth Fund summary describes.....

"Case managers... work with primary care providers (“medical homes”) to identify patients who will benefit most from targeted care management interventions, such as patients making repeated ER visits; patients diagnosed with asthma, diabetes, or heart failure; and patients who have two or more chronic conditions (including mental health conditions) with high service use or activity limitations indicating complex care needs. Care managers identify high-risk patients through the CMIS and from case-identification lists provided by the CCNC central office, notifications of admissions provided by hospitals, and physician errals."

CCNC is to be congratulated for moving from opaque actuarial studies to the harsh glare of peer-reviewed publications.  While some critics may pounce on some of the weaknesses inherent in any retrospective analysis of subpopulations, the observations from two "Model 1 and Model 2" vantage points  are sufficiently positive to believe that North Carolinas taxpayers got their moneys worth.

The DMCB would point out two caveats:

The disabled Medicaid beneficiary population is a notoriously high utilization group that is a classic example of the return on investment from "low hanging fruit." A little coordination goes a long way in a population with a baseline of high utilization.  The same approach may not work in other populations with different patterns of claims expense.

Unfortunately, this gives us little insight about the potential impact of a similar medical home model in commercially insured populations or among Medicare beneficiaries.  Thats doubly true for fee-for-service beneficiaries who are outside of any managed care networks.

...and you can take that to the bank?

It seems no discussion on the Patient Centered Medical Home is complete without a erence to Medicaids Community Care of North Carolina. The states consultants reports on CCNC have been accepted as gospel by the academic community (for example) and have contributed to a widespread consensus that the PCMH saves money. As in billions.

Or does it? For a readable discussion of why CCNC may or may not have saved money, check out this four pager by Joseph Burns appearing in March 2012 issue of Managed Care Magazine. Skeptics point out numerous inconsistencies, including North Carolinas lingering high costs and little change in inpatient utilization. MCM asked analytics impresario Ariel Linden to take a look at CCNC and, after using a time series analysis, he was unable to find evidence of savings.

Nothing new, says the Disease Management Care Blog, which has long been unable to make much sense of the consultants reports either. What is new are the responses of CCNCs Paul Mahoney, founding physician Charles Wilson and advocate Adam Searing. It seems North Carolinas fee schedule is complicated, physician buy-in is high, something must be working because the Medicaid program has avoided making fee schedule cuts and, last but not least, the States legislature never intended the consultants evaluations to meet the exacting standards of the DMCB readership.

The DMCB doubts the controversy will go away.  What we can learn from the CCNC imbroglio is how important it is to think about the analysis early in the planning process. In the meantime, PCMH advocates will probably have to look elsewhere if they want to er to studies that are understandable, transparent and convincing.

Coda: By the way, whatever its imperfections, the CCNC is a good example of a "shared resources" approach to nurse care management. As the DMCB understands it, in CCNC, the primary care sites do not hire their own nurses.  Rather, the costs of the nurses are regionally supported and the nurses are, in effect, loaned out to the clinics. 

The DMCB argues that there is little difference between this and hiring a disease management/population health service provider. To paraphrase Comrade Deng again, the color of the cat may be different, but it still catches mice.

Health reporters at work

When the major news media organizations (for example, here and here) proclaimed that 200,000 cardiovascular deaths in the U.S. could be avoided every year, the Disease Management Care Blog decided to learn more.

The information reported in the media was taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions Sept. 3 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. As the DMCB understands it, the CDC authors pulled 2001-2010 mortality data from the National Vital Statistics System. Once that was done, they counted up the number of persons aged less than 75 years who died of "ischemic heart disease," "cerebrovascular disease," hypertensive disease" or "chronic rheumatic heart disease."

So what did MMWR really say?

The total of "less-than-75" deaths in 2001 was 227,961.  For 2010, it was lower at 200,070. Since the population in the U.S. has changed over the last decade, the totals for each of the two comparison years were then expressed as a "per 100,000" statistic.

Since 2001, the "less-than-75" death rate per 100,000 declined by 29%.  The decline averaged 3.8% a year.* Persons age 65-74 years had an average decline of 5.1% vs. 3.3% persons between the ages of 55-64. 

The good news is that Black (3.9%) and Hispanic (4.5%) persons had greater declines than whites (3.6%). The bad news is that they started and ended with a higher death rate.

Heres a visual display of the data:


 The DMCBs take

1. "Avoidable?" The CDC definition implies that perfect control of all cardiac risk factors (for example, cholesterol and weight) for everyone under the age of 75 will result in a 0 per 100,000 cardiovascular death rate. Not so, because those risk classic factors capture some, but not all, persons who succumb to heart attack and stroke.

2. So, this is bad news?  "200,000" deaths is an impressive number, but, on an unadjusted basis, thats about 28,000 fewer compared to 10 years ago. Some additional good news is that the U.S. rate of non-fatal heart attack and stroke appears to have dropped significantly also.  We are making significant headway in the battle against heart disease.

3. The real story? Persons of color have had the greatest relative benefit but still have the greatest absolute need.  That lingering health care disparity went shamefully unmentioned by CNN and was only briefly mentioned by USAToday.

4. Something for everyone: In their "Conclusions and Comments," the authors of the MMWR paper speculated on the benefits of the (still unproven) Million Hearts Initiative (a Berwick-era idea) as well as "health information technology" and various "community prevention strategies" The DMCBs colleagues in the care management service industry will really like the authors nods toward "team based care" and how "individuals can work toward reducing their own heart disease and stroke risk."  If the CDC says so, it must be true - assuming theres a good business model.

5. Speaking of speculation, the authors wondered if the greater decline in the Medicare age group (65-74 years) versus the younger age group (55-64) was because of the presence of health insurance. Maybe, but maybe not.  The DMCB also wonders if heart disease is more lethal and less amenable to intervention among younger persons, but cant find any literature to back that up.

6. Politics intrude:  Naturally, the scientists who write MMWR are too classy than to curry favor with the appointees that populate the upper echelons of the federal bureaucracy, but that didnt stop the CDC Vital Signs from shamefully putting in a "making it easier for Americans to afford regular preventive health care through the Affordable Care Act" plug.  The ACA was not mentioned in the MMWR report because the declines mentioned above occurred in the absence of the ACA. 

The DMCB predicts that when the "avoidable" death rate continues to decline by 3.8% in the coming years, Obamacare advocates will take the credit.


*The DMCB isnt sure how 3.8% for 10 years makes for 29% either, but thats statistics for you.

Image from Wikipedia