Brian W Powers1,2,3,4, Jiali Yan5, Jingsan Zhu6, Kristin A Linn7, Sachin H Jain3, Jennifer L Kowalski8, Amol S Navathe9,10. 1. Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 3. CareMore Health System, Cerritos, CA, USA. 4. Atrius Health, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 6. Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 7. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 8. Anthem Public Policy Institute, Washington, DC, USA. 9. Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. amol@wharton.upenn.edu. 10. Corporal Michael J. Cresencz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. amol@wharton.upenn.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a growing focus on improving the quality and value of health care delivery for high-cost patients. Compared to fee-for-service Medicare, less is known about the clinical composition of high-cost Medicare Advantage populations. OBJECTIVE: To describe a high-cost Medicare Advantage population and identify clinically and operationally significant subgroups of patients. DESIGN: We used a density-based clustering algorithm to group high-cost patients (top 10% of spending) according to 161 distinct demographic, clinical, and claims-based variables. We then examined rates of utilization, spending, and mortality among subgroups. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one thousand five hundred forty-six Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. MAIN MEASURES: Spending, utilization, and mortality. KEY RESULTS: High-cost patients (n = 6154) accounted for 55% of total spending. High-cost patients were more likely to be younger, male, and have higher rates of comorbid illnesses. We identified ten subgroups of high-cost patients: acute exacerbations of chronic disease (mixed); end-stage renal disease (ESRD); recurrent gastrointestinal bleed (GIB); orthopedic trauma (trauma); vascular disease (vascular); surgical infections and other complications (complications); cirrhosis with hepatitis C (liver); ESRD with increased medical and behavioral comorbidity (ESRD+); cancer with high-cost imaging and radiation therapy (oncology); and neurologic disorders (neurologic). The average number of inpatient days ranged from 3.25 (oncology) to 26.09 (trauma). Preventable spending (as a percentage of total spending) ranged from 0.8% (oncology) to 9.5% (complications) and the percentage of spending attributable to prescription medications ranged from 7.9% (trauma and oncology) to 77.0% (liver). The percentage of patients who were persistently high-cost ranged from 11.8% (trauma) to 100.0% (ESRD+). One-year mortality ranged from 0.0% (liver) to 25.8% (ESRD+). CONCLUSIONS: We identified clinically distinct subgroups of patients within a heterogeneous high-cost Medicare Advantage population using cluster analysis. These subgroups, defined by condition-specific profiles and illness trajectories, had markedly different patterns of utilization, spending, and mortality, holding important implications for clinical strategy.
BACKGROUND: There is a growing focus on improving the quality and value of health care delivery for high-cost patients. Compared to fee-for-service Medicare, less is known about the clinical composition of high-cost Medicare Advantage populations. OBJECTIVE: To describe a high-cost Medicare Advantage population and identify clinically and operationally significant subgroups of patients. DESIGN: We used a density-based clustering algorithm to group high-cost patients (top 10% of spending) according to 161 distinct demographic, clinical, and claims-based variables. We then examined rates of utilization, spending, and mortality among subgroups. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one thousand five hundred forty-six Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. MAIN MEASURES: Spending, utilization, and mortality. KEY RESULTS: High-cost patients (n = 6154) accounted for 55% of total spending. High-cost patients were more likely to be younger, male, and have higher rates of comorbid illnesses. We identified ten subgroups of high-cost patients: acute exacerbations of chronic disease (mixed); end-stage renal disease (ESRD); recurrent gastrointestinal bleed (GIB); orthopedic trauma (trauma); vascular disease (vascular); surgical infections and other complications (complications); cirrhosis with hepatitis C (liver); ESRD with increased medical and behavioral comorbidity (ESRD+); cancer with high-cost imaging and radiation therapy (oncology); and neurologic disorders (neurologic). The average number of inpatient days ranged from 3.25 (oncology) to 26.09 (trauma). Preventable spending (as a percentage of total spending) ranged from 0.8% (oncology) to 9.5% (complications) and the percentage of spending attributable to prescription medications ranged from 7.9% (trauma and oncology) to 77.0% (liver). The percentage of patients who were persistently high-cost ranged from 11.8% (trauma) to 100.0% (ESRD+). One-year mortality ranged from 0.0% (liver) to 25.8% (ESRD+). CONCLUSIONS: We identified clinically distinct subgroups of patients within a heterogeneous high-cost Medicare Advantage population using cluster analysis. These subgroups, defined by condition-specific profiles and illness trajectories, had markedly different patterns of utilization, spending, and mortality, holding important implications for clinical strategy.
Entities:
Keywords:
care management; high-cost patients; medicare advantage
Authors: Jeffrey D Clough; Gerald F Riley; Melissa Cohen; Sheila M Hanley; Darshak Sanghavi; Darren A DeWalt; Rahul Rajkumar; Patrick H Conway Journal: Healthc (Amst) Date: 2015-10-01
Authors: Natalie S Lee; Noah Whitman; Nirav Vakharia; Glen B Taksler; Michael B Rothberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jiali Yan; Kristin A Linn; Brian W Powers; Jingsan Zhu; Sachin H Jain; Jennifer L Kowalski; Amol S Navathe Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-12-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Susan L Hayes; Claudia A Salzberg; Douglas McCarthy; David C Radley; Melinda K Abrams; Tanya Shah; Gerard F Anderson Journal: Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) Date: 2016-08
Authors: Niteesh K Choudhry; William H Shrank; Raisa L Levin; Joy L Lee; Saira A Jan; M Alan Brookhart; Daniel H Solomon Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Jiali Yan; Kristin A Linn; Brian W Powers; Jingsan Zhu; Sachin H Jain; Jennifer L Kowalski; Amol S Navathe Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-12-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Samuel J Amodeo; Henrik F Kowalkowski; Halley L Brantley; Nicholas W Jones; Lauren R Bangerter; David J Cook Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Odilia I Woudstra; Joey M Kuijpers; Folkert J Meijboom; Marco C Post; Monique R M Jongbloed; Anthonie L Duijnhouwer; Arie P J van Dijk; Joost P van Melle; Thelma C Konings; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Barbara J M Mulder; Berto J Bouma Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother Date: 2019-10-01
Authors: Maureen Anderson; Crawford W Revie; Henrik Stryhn; Cordell Neudorf; Yvonne Rosehart; Wenbin Li; Meriç Osman; David L Buckeridge; Laura C Rosella; Walter P Wodchis Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2019-11-10
Authors: Ravi B Parikh; Kristin A Linn; Jiali Yan; Matthew L Maciejewski; Ann-Marie Rosland; Kevin G Volpp; Peter W Groeneveld; Amol S Navathe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 3.240