Ann Lindsay1, Judith H Hibbard2, Derek B Boothroyd3, Alan Glaseroff4, Steven M Asch5. 1. Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 2475 North Bank Rd., McKinleyville, CA, 95519, USA. ann.lindsay@stanford.edu. 2. University of Oregon, Eugene, USA. 3. Quantitative Sciences Unit, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, USA. 4. Center for Excellence in Clinical Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, USA. 5. VA Center for Innovation to Implementation, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Programs to improve quality of care and lower costs for the highest utilizers of health services are proliferating, yet such programs have difficulty demonstrating cost savings. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we explore the degree to which changes in Patient Activation Measure (PAM) levels predict health care costs among high-risk patients. PARTICIPANTS: De-identified claims, demographic data, and serial PAM scores were analyzed on 2155 patients from multiple medical groups engaged in an existing Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation-funded intervention over 3 years designed to activate and improve care coordination for high-risk patients. DESIGN: In this prospective cohort study, four levels of PAM (from low to high) were used as the main predictor variable. We fit mixed linear models for log10 of allowed charges in follow-up periods in relation to change in PAM, controlling for baseline PAM, baseline costs, age, sex, income, and baseline risk score. MAIN MEASURES: Total allowed charges were derived from claims data for the cohort. PAM scores were from a separate database managed by the local practices. KEY RESULTS: A single PAM level increase was associated with 8.3% lower follow-up costs (95% confidence interval 2.5-13.2%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings contribute to a growing evidence base that the change in PAM score could serve as an early signal indicating the impact of interventions designed for high-cost, high-needs patients.
BACKGROUND: Programs to improve quality of care and lower costs for the highest utilizers of health services are proliferating, yet such programs have difficulty demonstrating cost savings. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we explore the degree to which changes in Patient Activation Measure (PAM) levels predict health care costs among high-risk patients. PARTICIPANTS: De-identified claims, demographic data, and serial PAM scores were analyzed on 2155 patients from multiple medical groups engaged in an existing Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation-funded intervention over 3 years designed to activate and improve care coordination for high-risk patients. DESIGN: In this prospective cohort study, four levels of PAM (from low to high) were used as the main predictor variable. We fit mixed linear models for log10 of allowed charges in follow-up periods in relation to change in PAM, controlling for baseline PAM, baseline costs, age, sex, income, and baseline risk score. MAIN MEASURES: Total allowed charges were derived from claims data for the cohort. PAM scores were from a separate database managed by the local practices. KEY RESULTS: A single PAM level increase was associated with 8.3% lower follow-up costs (95% confidence interval 2.5-13.2%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings contribute to a growing evidence base that the change in PAM score could serve as an early signal indicating the impact of interventions designed for high-cost, high-needs patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
health economics; medicare; patient activation; return on investment
Authors: Martha J Shively; Nancy J Gardetto; Mary F Kodiath; Ann Kelly; Tom L Smith; Carl Stepnowsky; Charles Maynard; Carolyn B Larson Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Judith H Hibbard; Jessica Greene; Yunfeng Shi; Jessica Mittler; Dennis Scanlon Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Judith H Hibbard; Jessica Greene; Rebecca M Sacks; Valerie Overton; Carmen Parrotta Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Stewart W Mercer; Bhautesh D Jani; Margaret Maxwell; Samuel Y S Wong; Graham C M Watt Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Jennifer K Carroll; Jonathan N Tobin; Amneris Luque; Subrina Farah; Mechelle Sanders; Andrea Cassells; Steven M Fine; Wendi Cross; Michele Boyd; Tameir Holder; Marie Thomas; Cleo Clarize Overa; Kevin Fiscella Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-06-25 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Rafael N Miranda; Aunima R Bhuiya; Zak Thraya; Rebecca Hancock-Howard; Brian Cf Chan; Carolyn Steele Gray; Walter P Wodchis; Kednapa Thavorn Journal: JMIR Aging Date: 2022-04-20
Authors: Wael F Hussein; Paul N Bennett; Anna Carrasco; Sumi Sun; Marc Reiterman; Emily Watson; Brigitte Schiller Journal: Hemodial Int Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 1.543