Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The increasing prevalence of diabetes is associated with increased health care use and costs. Innovations to improve the quality of care, manage the increasing demand for health care and control the growth of health care costs are needed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the care process and costs of managed, protocolized and usual care for type 2 diabetes patients from a societal perspective. Methods In two distinct regions of the Netherlands, both managed and protocolized diabetes care were implemented. Managed care was characterized by centralized organization, coordination, responsibility and centralized annual assessment. Protocolized care had a partly centralized organizational structure. Usual care was characterized by a decentralized organizational structure. Using a quasi-experimental control group pretest-posttest design, the care process (guideline adherence) and costs were compared between managed (n = 253), protocolized (n = 197), and usual care (n = 333). We made a distinction between direct health care costs, direct non-health care costs and indirect costs. Multivariate regression models were used to estimate differences in costs adjusted for confounding factors. Because of the skewed distribution of the costs, bootstrapping methods (5000 replications) with a bias-corrected and accelerated approach were used to estimate 95% confidence intervals (CI) around the differences in costs. Results Compared to usual and protocolized care, in managed care more patients were treated according to diabetes guidelines. Secondary health care use was higher in patients under usual care compared to managed and protocolized care. Compared to usual care, direct costs were significantly lower in managed care (€-1.181 (95% CI: -2.597 to -334)) while indirect costs were higher (€758 (95% CI: -353 to 2.701), although not significant. Direct, indirect and total costs were lower in protocolized care compared to usual care (though not significantly). Conclusions Compared to usual care, managed care was significantly associated with better process in terms of diabetes care, fewer secondary care consultations and lower health care costs. The same trends were seen for protocolized care, however they were not statistically significant. Trial registration Current Controlled trials: ISRCTN66124817 .

Representatives of industry, government, caregivers, and consumers join scholars and policy analysts in comparing market forces to regulation as potential means for righting what is wrong with managed care. The contributors that John E. Billi and Gail B. Agrawal have gathered here quickly move the healthcare debate beyond the classroom, think tank, and statehouse to the boardroom and examining room. Some argue strongly that the solution is to be found in the democratic process and government intervention, while others maintain that only market forces in a competitive environment can respond quickly to the needs of consumers and purchasers alike. The contributors' diverse opinions about the oversight of managed care reflect an enduring divide, one that will affect how society ultimately resolves questions about the inevitable tradeoffs among health-care quality, cost, and access in an environment of limited resources. The Challenge of Regulating Managed Care will appeal to policymakers, those in the medical field, and all readers interested in the American experience with managed care.

Background: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services pays for services provided through traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare and managed care plans (Medicare Advantage [MA]). It is important to understand how financing and organizational arrangements relate to quality of care. Objectives To compare care experiences and preventive services receipt in traditional Medicare and MA for healthy and sick beneficiaries. Methods: Randomly selected beneficiaries responded to the 2003 and 2004 Consumer Assessments of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) surveys. We analyzed 237,221 MA responses (80% response rate) and 153,535 from FFS (68% response rate). We compared case-mix-adjusted CAHPS scores between FFS and MA for healthy and sick beneficiaries on 7 CAHPS measures of care experiences and 3 preventive service measures. Results: CAHPS scores were lower in MA than FFS for all care experience measures except office wait time. The sick had less favorable care experiences than the healthy for all measures, but were more likely to receive each preventive service (P < 0.001). FFS-MA differences were larger for the sick than the healthy for 5 of 7 experience measures (P < 0.05), and were twice as large for physician ratings and interactions. Office wait time and rates of immunization were better in MA than FFS (P < 0.001), with no differences between healthy and sick groups. Conclusions: Beneficiaries in health plans report less favorable care experiences than those in FFS, particularly among the sick, but preventive service measures are higher in MA. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should strengthen efforts to improve care experiences of the sick, particularly in MA, and preventive service receipt in FFS.

Background About 35 % of non-elderly U.S. adult Medicaid enrollees have a behavioral health condition, such as anxiety, mood disorders, substance use disorders, and/or serious mental illness. Individuals with serious mental illness, in particular, have mortality rates that are 2 to 3 times higher as the general population, which are due to multiple factors including inactivity, poor nutrition, and tobacco use. 61 % of Medicaid beneficiaries with behavioral health conditions also have multiple other co-occurring chronic physical health conditions, which further contributes to morbidity and mortality. The Wellness Incentives and Navigation (WIN) project is one of 10 projects under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services “Medicaid Incentives for the Prevention of Chronic Diseases” Initiative, to “test the effectiveness of providing incentives directly to Medicaid beneficiaries of all ages who participate in prevention programs, and change their health risks and outcomes by adopting healthy behaviors.” Methods/Design WIN is a three-year randomized pragmatic clinical trial designed to examine the comparative effectiveness of the combined use of personal navigators, motivational interviewing, and a flexible wellness account on cardiovascular risk reduction among individuals in Medicaid with co-occurring physical and mental health conditions or serious mental illness alone relative to the usual care provided within Medicaid Managed Care. 1250 individuals, identified through Medicaid claims data, were recruited and randomly assigned to an intervention group or control group with outcomes tracked annually. A comparison group was also recruited to help assess the study’s internal validity. Discussion The primary outcomes are physical and mental health related quality-of-life as measured by the SF-12, and BMI, blood pressure, LDL-C, and Hba1c results for those who are diabetic measured clinically. The purpose of this paper is to present the unique design of the WIN trial prior to results becoming available in hopes of assisting other researchers in conducting community-based randomized pragmatic trials. Outcomes will be assessed through the linkage of patient reported outcomes, health care claims, and electronic health record data. Trial Registration NCT02440906

To mark the 30th anniversary of The American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC), each issue in 2025 includes reflections from a thought leader on what has changed over the past 3 decades and what's next for managed care. The June issue features a conversation with Melinda B. Buntin, PhD, a health economist and a Bloomberg Distinguished Professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Carey Business School.

OBJECTIVE: To describe methods, recruitment success, and 1-y results of a study evaluating the effectiveness of phone- and mail-based weight-loss interventions in a managed care setting. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial with three groups, that is, usual care, mail intervention, and phone intervention. SUBJECTS: In total, 1801 overweight members of a managed-care organization (MCO). MEASUREMENTS: Height, weight, medical status, and weight-loss history were measured at baseline. Participation in intervention activities was monitored for 12 months in the two active treatment groups. Self-reported weight was obtained at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: More individuals assigned to mail treatment started it (88%) than did those assigned to phone treatment (69%). However, program completion rates were higher in the phone (36%) than mail (7%) intervention. The mean weight losses were 1.93, 2.38, and 1.47 kg at 6 months in the mail, phone, and usual care groups, respectively. The differences between the phone and usual care groups were statistically significant. The mean weight losses at 12 months did not differ by treatment group (2.28 kg mail, 2.29 kg phone, and 1.92 kg usual care). Greater weight loss was seen in men, older participants, and those with no prior experience in a weight-loss program. Heavier participants and those who reported current treatment for depression lost less weight. CONCLUSION: Although mail- and phone-based weight-loss programs can be delivered to large numbers of people in an MCO setting, additional work is needed to enhance their clinical efficacy as well as to assess their costs.

Background Health information technology can enhance self-management and quality of life for patients with chronic disease and overcome healthcare barriers for patients with limited English proficiency. After a randomized controlled trial of a multilingual automated telephone self-management support program (ATSM) improved patient-centered dimensions of diabetes care in safety net clinics, we collaborated with a nonprofit Medicaid managed care plan to translate research into practice, offering ATSM as a covered benefit and augmenting ATSM to promote medication activation. This paper describes the protocol of the Self-Management Automated and Real-Time Telephonic Support Project (SMARTSteps). Methods/Design This controlled quasi-experimental trial used a wait-list variant of a stepped wedge design to enroll 362 adult health plan members with diabetes who speak English, Cantonese, or Spanish and receive care at 4 publicly-funded clinics. Through language-stratified randomization, participants were assigned to four intervention statuses: SMARTSteps-ONLY, SMARTSteps-PLUS, or wait-list for either intervention. In addition to usual primary care, intervention participants received 27 weekly calls in their preferred language with rotating queries and response-triggered education about self-care, medication adherence, safety concerns, psychological issues, and preventive services. Health coaches from the health plan called patients with out-of-range responses for collaborative goal setting and action planning. SMARTSteps-PLUS also included health coach calls to promote medication activation, adherence and intensification, if triggered by ATSM-reported non-adherence, refill non-adherence from pharmacy claims, or suboptimal cardiometabolic indicators. Wait-list patients crossed-over to SMARTSteps-ONLY or -PLUS at 6 months. For participants who agreed to structured telephone interviews at baseline and 6 months (n = 252), primary outcomes will be changes in quality of life and functional status with secondary outcomes of 6-month changes in self-management behaviors/efficacy and patient-centered processes of care. We will also evaluate 6-month changes in cardiometabolic (HbA1c, blood pressure, and LDL) and utilization indicators for all participants. Discussion Outcomes will provide evidence regarding real-world implementation of ATSM within a Medicaid managed care plan serving safety net settings. The evaluation trial will provide insight into translating and scaling up health information technology interventions for linguistically and culturally diverse vulnerable populations with chronic disease. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00683020

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced health systems to offer video and telephone visits as in-person visit alternatives. Although video visits offer some benefits compared with telephone visits, they require complex setup, which may disadvantage some patients due to the \"digital divide.\" Our objective was to determine patient and neighborhood characteristics associated with visit modality. This was a cross-sectional study across 1652 primary care and specialty care practices of adult patients at an integrated health system from April 23 to June 1, 2020. We used electronic health record and administrative data. Our primary outcome was visit modality (in-person, video, or telephone), which was captured using billing codes. We assessed predictors of using video vs telephone using multivariable logistic regression. We used hierarchical logistic regression to determine the contribution of patient-, physician-, and practice-level components of variance in the choice of video or telephone visits. We analyzed 231,596 visits by 162,102 patients. Sixty-five percent of the visits were virtual (31.7% telephone, 33.5% video). Patients who were older than 65 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.40-0.43), Black (AOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.57-0.63), Hispanic (AOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80), Spanish-speaking (AOR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.52-0.61), and from areas with low broadband access (AOR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98) were less likely to use video visits. Practices (38%) and clinicians (26%) drove more of the variation in video visit use than patients (9%). Telemedicine access differences may compound disparities in chronic disease and COVID-19 outcomes. Institutions should monitor video visit use across demographics and equip patients, clinicians, and practices to promote telemedicine equity.

To mark the 30th anniversary of The American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC), each issue in 2025 includes a special feature: reflections from a thought leader on what has changed-and what has not-over the past 3 decades and what's next for managed care. The September issue features a conversation with Dora Hughes, MD, MPH, chief medical officer and director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality at CMS.

To mark the 30th anniversary of The American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC), each issue in 2025 includes a special feature: reflections from a thought leader on what has changed-and what has not-over the past 3 decades and what's next for managed care. The August issue features a conversation with Charles N. (Chip) Kahn III, MPH, the president and CEO of the Federation of American Hospitals and a longtime member of the AJMC editorial board.