IMPORTANCE: Better patient management can reduce emergency department (ED) use. Performance measures should reward plans for reducing utilization by predictably high-use patients, rather than rewarding plans that shun them. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a quality measure for ED use for people diagnosed with serious mental illness or substance use disorder, accounting for both medical and social determinants of health (SDH) risks. DESIGN: Regression modeling to predict ED use rates using diagnosis-based and SDH-augmented models, to compare accuracy overall and for vulnerable populations. SETTING: MassHealth, Massachusetts' Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program. PARTICIPANTS: MassHealth members ages 18-64, continuously enrolled for the calendar year 2016, with a diagnosis of serious mental illness or substance use disorder. EXPOSURES: Diagnosis-based model predictors are diagnoses from medical encounters, age, and sex. Additional SDH predictors describe housing problems, behavioral health issues, disability, and neighborhood-level stress. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: We predicted ED use rates: (1) using age/sex and distinguishing between single or dual diagnoses; (2) adding summarized medical risk (DxCG); and (3) further adding social risk (SDH). RESULTS: Among 144,981 study subjects, 57% were women, 25% dually diagnosed, 67% White/non-Hispanic, 18% unstably housed, and 37% disabled. Utilization was higher by 77% for those dually diagnosed, 50% for members with housing problems, and 18% for members living in the highest-stress neighborhoods. SDH modeling predicted best for these high-use populations and was most accurate for plans with complex patients. CONCLUSION: To set appropriate benchmarks for comparing health plans, quality measures for ED visits should be adjusted for both medical and social risks.
IMPORTANCE: Better patient management can reduce emergency department (ED) use. Performance measures should reward plans for reducing utilization by predictably high-use patients, rather than rewarding plans that shun them. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a quality measure for ED use for people diagnosed with serious mental illness or substance use disorder, accounting for both medical and social determinants of health (SDH) risks. DESIGN: Regression modeling to predict ED use rates using diagnosis-based and SDH-augmented models, to compare accuracy overall and for vulnerable populations. SETTING: MassHealth, Massachusetts' Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program. PARTICIPANTS: MassHealth members ages 18-64, continuously enrolled for the calendar year 2016, with a diagnosis of serious mental illness or substance use disorder. EXPOSURES: Diagnosis-based model predictors are diagnoses from medical encounters, age, and sex. Additional SDH predictors describe housing problems, behavioral health issues, disability, and neighborhood-level stress. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: We predicted ED use rates: (1) using age/sex and distinguishing between single or dual diagnoses; (2) adding summarized medical risk (DxCG); and (3) further adding social risk (SDH). RESULTS: Among 144,981 study subjects, 57% were women, 25% dually diagnosed, 67% White/non-Hispanic, 18% unstably housed, and 37% disabled. Utilization was higher by 77% for those dually diagnosed, 50% for members with housing problems, and 18% for members living in the highest-stress neighborhoods. SDH modeling predicted best for these high-use populations and was most accurate for plans with complex patients. CONCLUSION: To set appropriate benchmarks for comparing health plans, quality measures for ED visits should be adjusted for both medical and social risks.
Authors: John Kautter; Gregory C Pope; Melvin Ingber; Sara Freeman; Lindsey Patterson; Michael Cohen; Patricia Keenan Journal: Medicare Medicaid Res Rev Date: 2014-05-09
Authors: R A Rosenblatt; G E Wright; L M Baldwin; L Chan; P Clitherow; F M Chen; L G Hart Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Yang Zhao; Arlene S Ash; Randall P Ellis; John Z Ayanian; Gregory C Pope; Bruce Bowen; Lori Weyuker Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Bryan Dowd; Medha Karmarker; Tami Swenson; Shriram Parashuram; Robert Kane; Robert Coulam; Molly Moore Jeffery Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2013-05-17 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Karen E Joynt Maddox; Mat Reidhead; Jianhui Hu; Amy J H Kind; Alan M Zaslavsky; Elna M Nagasako; David R Nerenz Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Arlene S Ash; Eric O Mick; Randall P Ellis; Catarina I Kiefe; Jeroan J Allison; Melissa A Clark Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 21.873
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