Dataset Information

Social Risk Adjustment of Quality Measures for Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease in a Commercially Insured US Population.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Patients' social risk factors may be associated with physician group performance on quality measures.

Objective

To examine the association of social risk with change in physician group performance on diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) quality measures in a commercially insured population.

Design, setting, and participants

In this cross-sectional study using claims data from 2010 to 2014 from a US national health insurance plan, the performance of 1400 physician groups (physicians billing under the same tax identification number) was estimated. After base adjustments for age and sex, changes in variation across groups and reordering of rankings resulting from additional adjustments for clinical, social, or both clinical and social risk factors were analyzed. In all models, only within-group associations were adjusted to distinguish the association of patients' social risk factors with outcomes while excluding physician groups' distinct characteristics that could also change observed performance. Data analysis was conducted between April and July 2018.

Main outcomes and measures

Process measures (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] testing, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] testing, and statin use), disease control measures (HbA1c and LDL-C level control), and use-based outcome measures (hospitalizations for ambulatory-sensitive conditions) were calculated with base adjustment (age and sex), clinical adjustment, social risk factor adjustment, and both clinical and social adjustments. Quality variance in physician group performance and changes in rankings following these adjustments were measured.

Results

This study identified 1 684 167 enrollees (859 618 [51%] men) aged 18 to 65 years (mean [SD] age, 50 [10.7] years) with diabetes or CVD. Performance rates were high for HbA1c and LDL-C level testing (mean ranged from 79.5% to 87.2%) but lower for statin use (54.7% for diabetes cohort and 44.2% for CVD cohort) and disease control measures (57.9% on LDL-C control for diabetes cohort and 40.0% for CVD cohort). On average, only 8.8% of enrollees with diabetes and 1.0% of enrollees with CVD in a group were hospitalized. The addition of clinical and social risk factors to base adjustment reduced variance across physician groups for most measures (percentage change in SD ranged from -13.9% to 1.6%). Although overall agreement between performance scores with base vs full adjustment was high, there was still substantial reordering for some measures. For example, social risk adjustment resulted in reordering for disease control in the diabetes cohort. Of the 1400 physician groups, 330 (23.6%) had performance rankings for HbA1c control that increased or decreased by at least 10 percentile points after adding social risk factors to age and sex. Both clinical and social risk adjustment affected rankings on hospital admissions.

Conclusions and relevance

Accounting for social risk may be important to mitigate adverse consequences of performance-based payments for physician groups serving socially vulnerable populations.

SUBMITTER: Nguyen CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6450315 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: To investigate the risk of cardiovascular events associated with concomitant use of stimulants and atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) among youth and evaluate whether AAP dose and duration of concomitant use modifies the risk. Methods: We used IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus data from 2006 to 2015 to construct a retrospective cohort of commercially-insured youth aged 5-17 years old who initiated a stimulant medication. Time-varying concomitant stimulant/AAP use was defined as current, past and no concomitant use based on person months. The primary time-varying Cox proportional hazard regression analysis evaluated the risk of cardiovascular events comparing current concomitant use with past and no concomitant use, adjusted for baseline cardiovascular risk. A secondary analysis assessed the risk of cardiovascular events comparing AAP daily doses (<1, 1-2, >2 mg) and duration (<3, 3-6, >6 months) of current concomitant use to no concomitant use. Cardiovascular outcomes included severe (i.e., stroke, acute myocardial infarction, ischemic heart disease) and less severe (i.e., angina pectoris, cardiac dysrhythmias, transient cerebral ischemia, hypertensive disease, tachycardia, palpitations, syncope). Results: For this cohort of 61,438 youths, the incidence rate of severe cardiovascular events was 0.18 per 10,000 person-months, and all events occurred in no concomitant use months. The risk of less severe cardiovascular events was significantly higher in current concomitant users compared with no [HR: 2.59 (95%CI: 1.72, 3.90)] and past [HR: 1.89 (95%CI: 1.10, 3.24)] concomitant users. Compared to no concomitant use, the risk of less severe cardiovascular events was significantly higher at all AAP daily doses [HR: <1 mg: 2.82 (95%CI: 1.72, 4.61); 1-2 mg: 2.22 (95%CI: 1.16, 4.25); >2 mg: 2.65 (95%CI: 1.50, 4.71)]. The risk of less severe cardiovascular events significantly elevated for all duration of use and was higher for <3 months of concomitant use [HR: <3 months: 3.45 (95%CI: 2.17, 5.47) relative to 3-6 months: 2.60 (95%CI: 1.29, 5.25) or >6 months: 2.61 (95%CI: 1.59, 4.30)]. Conclusions: Severe cardiovascular events are rare. Concomitant stimulant/AAP use elevates the risk of less severe cardiovascular events. Periodic heart rate or blood pressure monitoring for youth on stimulant/AAP treatment may be warranted.

Project description:ImportanceAs opioid-related mortality continues to increase, naloxone remains a critical intervention in preventing overdose death. Opportunities to expand access through the health care setting should be optimized.ObjectiveTo determine the characteristics of naloxone prescribing for US patients at high risk of opioid overdose.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used Truven Health MarketScan data from October 1, 2015, through December 31, 2016, of individuals with International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes related to opioid use, misuse, dependence, and overdose. The cohort included 138 108 commercially insured individuals aged 15 years or older in the United States with claims related to opioid misuse or dependence, opioid-related overdose, or both.ExposuresOutpatient naloxone pharmacy claims.Main outcomes and measuresDemographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, health care service use, and proportion prescribed naloxone were included in multivariable logistic regression analyses to test the association of opioid risk group with naloxone claim.ResultsOf 138 108 high-risk individuals (mean [SD] age, 43.4 [0.4] years; 72 435 [52.4%] men), 2135 (1.5%) were prescribed naloxone. Having prior diagnoses of both opioid misuse or dependence and overdose was associated with a greater likelihood of receiving naloxone (odds ratio [OR], 2.32; 95% CI, 1.98-2.72; P < .001) compared with having a prior diagnosis of opioid misuse or dependence without overdose. Having a prior diagnosis of opioid overdose alone was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving naloxone (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94; P = .01) compared with having a prior diagnosis of opioid misuse or dependence without overdose. Factors associated with lower naloxone prescription included being aged 30 to 44 years (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62-0.84; P < .001) and being from the Midwest (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.54-0.71; P < .001) or West (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.98; P = .03). Opioid use disorder treatment, such as use of medication-assisted therapy (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.53-1.86; P < .001), visiting a detoxification facility (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.31-1.76; P < .001), or receiving other substance use disorder treatment (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30; P = .01), were associated with increased likelihood of receiving naloxone, as were receiving outpatient care from a pain specialist (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.40-1.76; P < .001), psychologist (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.29-1.70; P < .001), or surgeon (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.32; P < .001). Overall, 98.5% (n = 135 973) of high-risk patients did not received naloxone, despite many interactions with the health care system, including 88 618 hospitalizations, 229 680 emergency department visits, 298 058 internal medicine visits, and 568 448 family practice visits.Conclusions and relevancePatients at high risk of opioid overdose rarely received prescriptions for naloxone despite numerous interactions with the health care system. Prescribing in emergency, inpatient, and outpatient settings represents an opportunity to improve access.

Project description:ImportanceYouths with type 2 diabetes are at higher risk for complications compared with peers with type 1 diabetes, though few studies have evaluated differences in access to specialty care.ObjectiveTo compare claims with diabetes specialists for youths with type 1 vs type 2 diabetes and the association between specialist claims with multidisciplinary and acute care utilization.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used Optum Clinformatics Data Mart commercial claims. Individuals included in the study were youths younger than 19 years with type 1 or 2 diabetes as determined by a validated algorithm and prescription claims. Data were collected for youths with at least 80% enrollment in a commercial health plan from December 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed from September 2022 to January 2024.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the number of ambulatory claims from an endocrine and/or diabetes physician or advanced practice clinician associated with a diabetes diagnosis code; secondary outcomes included multidisciplinary and acute care claims.ResultsClaims were analyzed for 4772 youths (mean [SD] age, 13.6 [3.7] years; 4300 [90.1%] type 1 diabetes; 472 [9.9%] type 2 diabetes; 2465 [51.7%] male; 128 [2.7%] Asian, 303 [6.4] Black or African American, 429 [9.0%] Hispanic or Latino, 3366 [70.5%] non-Hispanic White, and 546 [11.4%] unknown race and ethnicity). Specialist claims were lower in type 2 compared with type 1 diabetes (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.52-0.72]; P < .001) in propensity score-weighted analyses. The presence of a comorbidity was associated with increased specialist claims for type 1 diabetes (IRR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03-1.10]) and decreased claims for type 2 diabetes (IRR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67-0.87]). Pooling diagnosis groups and adjusted for covariates, each additional specialist claim was associated with increased odds of a claim with a diabetes care and education specialist (odds ratio [OR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.25-1.36]), dietitian (OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.09-1.19]), and behavioral health clinician (OR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.12-1.20]). For acute care claims, each additional specialist claim was associated with increased odds of admission (OR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.11-1.24]) but not for emergency claims (OR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98-1.82]).Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that youths with type 2 diabetes were significantly less likely to have specialist claims despite insurance coverage, indicating other barriers to care, which may include medical complexity. Access to diabetes specialists influences engagement with multidisciplinary services. The association between increasing ambulatory clinician services and admissions suggests high utilization by a subgroup of patients at greater risk for poor outcomes.