Dataset Information

The impact of telemental health use on healthcare costs among commercially insured adults with mental health conditions.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the impact of telemental health (TMH) use on total healthcare costs and mental health (MH)-related costs paid by a third party among adults with mental health conditions (MHC).

Method

This study employed a pre-post design with a non-equivalent control group. The cohort comprised adults with MHCs identified using diagnosis codes from de-identified claims data of the Optum Clinformatics DataMart (2010 January 01 to 2017 June 30). We identified mental health (MH) service users and TMH users (N = 348) based on procedure codes. Non-users (N = 238,595) were defined as those who only used in-person MH services. A Difference-in-Differences (DID) analysis was performed within a multivariable two-part model (TPM) framework to examine the impact of TMH use on adjusted standardized costs (2018 US $) of all healthcare services and MH services. Patient-level and state-level factors were adjusted in TPM.

Results

TMH use was associated with significantly higher MH-related costs [Marginal effect = $461.3, 95% confidence interval: $142.4-$780.2] and an excess of $370 increase in MH-related costs at follow-up as compared to baseline. However, TMH use was not associated with an increase in total third-party healthcare costs nor with changes in total costs from baseline to follow-up.

Conclusions

Despite having a higher likelihood of MH services use and MH-related costs, TMH users did not have higher total costs as compared to adults using only in-person MH services. Our findings suggest that TMH can increase access to MH care without increasing total healthcare costs among adults with MHC. Future studies exploring whether TMH use can lead to cost-savings over a longer period are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Zhao X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7535072 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionInsomnia diagnosis has been associated with a significant clinical and economic burden on patients and healthcare systems. This study examined changes in healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs in insomnia patients before and after initiation of suvorexant treatment.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed Optum Clinformatics Data Mart claims data (Jan 2010-Dec 2018). Patients with ≥ 2 insomnia diagnosis claims and ≥ 1 prescription for suvorexant were included. Prevalent and incident insomnia patients were analyzed separately. The change in the trends of HCRU and costs were examined for 12 months before and 12 months after suvorexant initiation. An interrupted time series (ITS) analysis was conducted to assess the level and slope changes. Subgroups of patients with mental health comorbidities were examined.ResultsThe study included 18,919 and 5939 patients in the prevalent and incident insomnia cohorts, respectively. For the prevalent cohort, mean (SD) age was 64.5 (14.1) years, 65% were female, 74% had Medicare Advantage coverage, and 61% had a Charlson comorbidity index score ≥ 1. Characteristics for the incident cohort were similar. The ITS results suggested that the trend for monthly total healthcare cost (THC) was increasing before suvorexant initiation (US$52.51 in the prevalent cohort, $74.93 in incident insomnia cohort), but, after suvorexant initiation, the monthly total cost showed a decreasing trend in both cohorts. The decrease in slope for THC after suvorexant initiation were $72.66 and $112.07 per month in the prevalent and incident cohorts, respectively. The monthly trends in HCRU rates also decreased. The subgroup analysis showed that decreases were 1.5-3 times greater for patients with mental health comorbidities.ConclusionsIn this real-world study, suvorexant initiation was associated with immediate and continued decreases in HCRU and costs in insomnia patients. Further research is needed to understand the effect of suvorexant initiation on direct medical costs as well as costs associated with lost productivity in other real-world settings.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To measure 18-month healthcare cost difference attributable to hearing loss (HL) in older adults. DESIGN:Matched cohort. SETTING:Retrospective analysis of administrative healthcare bills of insured older Americans. PARTICIPANTS:Older U.S. adults with health insurance in 3 cohorts matched based on HL diagnosis using propensity score methods (N=904,750). MEASUREMENTS:Comparison groups were defined as those with and without HL diagnosis using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, diagnosis codes from billing records. Outcomes measured include 18-month total healthcare payments and healthcare payments broken down according to payment type (inpatient, outpatient, prescription, hearing services). Three comparison cohorts were examined for these outcomes: individuals covered by Medicare plus supplemental private insurance (Cohort 1, n=782,216), those covered only under Medicare (Cohort 2, n=105,296), and those within the Medicare sample that were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage (Subcohort 3, n=17,238). The quality of the propensity score match was examined using standardized differences in means or proportions between all matched covariates, and cost outcomes were analyzed using multiple generalized linear regression models. RESULTS:Fully adjusted models showed significantly higher 18-month healthcare payments for individuals with a diagnosis of HL without indication of use of hearing services than in those without a HL diagnosis in the 3 samples (payment differences: $3,587 Cohort 1, $3,779 Cohort 2, $4,657 Subcohort 3; all p<.001). Payment differences were also found between individuals with HL and indications of hearing services and those without HL. CONCLUSION:We observed more than 20% higher total healthcare payments over 18 months for a group of insured individuals with HL regardless of insurance type or hearing services use, indicating that negative health-related effects of HL may increase healthcare use unrelated to HL. Thus, clinical care to ameliorate HL may improve overall health.

Project description:BackgroundFew studies have estimated the real-world economic burden such as all-cause and follicular lymphoma (FL)-related costs and health care resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with FL.ObjectivesThis study evaluated outcomes in patients who were newly initiated with FL indicated regimens by line of therapy with real-world data.MethodsA retrospective study was conducted among patients with FL from MarketScan® databases between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2013. Patients were selected if they were ≥18 years old when initiated on a FL indicated therapy, had at least 1 FL-related diagnosis, ≥1 FL commonly prescribed systemic anti-cancer therapy after diagnosis, and did not use any FL indicated regimen in the 24 months prior to the first agent. These patients were followed up at least 48 months and the outcomes, including the distribution of regimens by line of therapy, the treatment duration by line of therapy, all-cause and FL-related costs, and HCRU by line of therapy were evaluated.ResultsThis study identified 598 patients who initiated FL indicated treatment. The average follow-up time was approximately 5.7 years. Of these patients, 50.2% (n=300) were female, with a mean age of 60.7 years (SD=13.1 years) when initiating their treatment with FL indicated regimens. Overall, 598 (100%) patients received first-line therapy, 180 (43.6%) received second-line therapy, 51 received third-line therapy, 21 received fourth-line therapy, and 10 received fifth-line therapy. Duration of treatment by each line of therapy was 370 days, 392 days, 162 days, 148 days, and 88 days, respectively. The most common first-line regimens received by patients were rituximab (n=201, 33.6%), R-CHOP (combination of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride [hydroxydaunomycin]; n=143, 24.0%), BR (combination of bendamustine and rituximab; n=143, 24.0%), and R-CVP (combination of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone; n=71, 11.9%). The most common second-line treatment regimens were (N=180): rituximab (n=78, 43.3%) and BR (n=41, 22.8%). Annualized all-cause health care costs per patient ranged from US$97 141 (SD: US$144 730) for first-line to US$424 758 (SD: US$715 028) for fifth-line therapy.ConclusionsThe primary regimens used across treatment lines conform to those recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines. The economic burden for patients with FL is high and grows with subsequent lines of therapy.

Project description:IntroductionThere are limited data on treatment patterns, adverse events (AEs), and economic burden in younger, commercially insured patients treated for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).MethodsAdults with ≥1 treatment for MCL between 1 November 2013-31 December 2017 were identified from IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims-US; index date was first treatment. Patients carried ≥1 MCL diagnosis, were newly treated, and were enrolled continuously for ≥12 months prior to and ≥30 days following index. Patients receiving the four most common MCL regimens were included. Measures included frequency of incident AEs, resource use, and costs overall and by number of AEs. Adjusted logistic regression and generalized linear modeling evaluated risk of hospitalization and all-cause costs per patient per month (PPPM).ResultsTwo thousand five hundred and nine treated patients had a drug-specific code and were classified to a specific treatment regimen. Of those patients, 1785 patients received at least one of the four most commonly used MCL regimens (R-CHOP, rituximab monotherapy, B-R, and ibrutinib) at some point over follow-up (median 23 months). R-CHOP was the most common regimen observed in the first line (26%), followed by rituximab monotherapy (19%), B-R (15%), and ibrutinib (5%). The median age was 57 years; median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 0. Among patients receiving the four most common regimens, 63% of patients experienced ≥1 incident AE (R-CHOP 77%, B-R 58%, and ibrutinib 52%). An increasing number of incident AEs was associated with increased hospitalization risk (odds ratio = 2.4; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 2.1-2.7) and increased mean costs PPPM (cost ratio = 1.1; 95% CI 1.1-1.2).DiscussionThis is the largest study describing treatment patterns and clinical and economic impact of MCL treatment. The most common regimens were R-CHOP, rituximab monotherapy, B-R, and ibrutinib. The majority of treated patients experienced at least one incident AE, with hospitalization risk and all-cause costs increasing as the number of AEs increased.

Project description:Background/objectivesBenzodiazepines (BZDs) are widely prescribed to older adults. Although prescribing has declined in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Medicare introduced BZD coverage in 2013. It is unknown whether declines in the VA have been widespread among older adults in the United States.DesignObservational study in traditional fee-for-service Medicare, commercial insurance, and the VA.SettingUnited States, 2013-2017.ParticipantsAdults aged 55 and older in traditional Medicare (234,290,693 person-months), commercial insurance (337,827,125 person-months), and the VA (256,590,369 person-months).Measurements(1) Change in BZD and BZD-opioid co-prescribing modeled by Poisson regression over time; and (2) standardized ratios of BZD and BZD-opioid co-prescribing, using Medicare as the reference.ResultsFrom April 2013 to December 2017, the monthly percentage of adults aged 55 and older who received BZDs fell from 10.4% to 9.3% in Medicare, 6.6% to 6.5% in commercial insurance, and 5.7% to 3.0% in the VA. Monthly BZD-opioid co-prescribing over the same time fell from 4.0% to 3.0% in Medicare, 2.3% to 2.0% in commercial, and 2.2% to .6% for the VA. Age- and sex-adjusted rates of decline for BZD and BZD-opioid co-prescribing were statistically significant for all systems. Annual BZD rate reductions were .98 (Medicare), .99 (commercial), and .87 (VA; P < .001 for all); co-prescribing rate reductions were .95, .99, and .75 (P < .001 for all). Using standardized ratios accounting for demographic and clinical characteristics, both prescribing and co-prescribing were lowest for the VA relative to Medicare (standardized BZD ratio = .40; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .39-.40; standardized BZD-opioid co-prescribing ratio = .35; 95% CI = .35-.35). Prescribing in commercial insurance was also lower (BZD = .65; 95% CI = .65-.65; BZD-opioid co-prescribing = .65; 95% CI = .65-.65).ConclusionBZD prescribing has declined much more to older adults receiving care through the VA than Medicare or commercial insurance. Other systems may learn from strategies implemented in the VA.