Review Of Strategies To Enhance Outcomes For Patients With Type 2 Diabets
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Review Of Strategies To Enhance Outcomes For Patients With Type 2 Diabets

on

  • 794 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
794
Views on SlideShare
792
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

http://www.linkedin.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Review Of Strategies To Enhance Outcomes For Patients With Type 2 Diabets Review Of Strategies To Enhance Outcomes For Patients With Type 2 Diabets Document Transcript

  • BUSINESSREVIEW ARTICLEReview of Strategies to EnhanceOutcomes for Patients with Type 2Diabetes: Payers’ PerspectiveRhonda Greenapple, MSPHBackground: Diabetes and its clinical consequences exact a great toll on patients and onsociety in terms of its effects on morbidity and mortality and its staggering economic impact.Objective: To review various programs and strategies that aim at enhancing adherence toantihyperglycemic therapy and suggest the best approach to improving patient outcomesand reducing healthcare costs.Discussion: Treatment goals for patients with diabetes have been defined, and multiple safeand effective medications are available. Nevertheless, the majority of patients with diabetesfail to achieve treatment goals, because of difficulty with adherence to medication regimensand lifestyle modifications, and because of economic barriers. This article discusses variousinitiatives developed to improve patient outcomes, including consumer-driven health plansand wellness and prevention programs. Furthermore, economic incentives to patients, suchas value-based insurance design, may increase adherence; nevertheless, evidence suggeststhat such programs alone provide only modest gains. Primary providers in disease manage- Stakeholder Perspective,ment programs can include nurses, case managers, or pharmacists. Supportive interventions page 386across several modalities have been shown to be effective.Conclusion: An approach that uses a combination of strategies designed to impact patients’ Am Health Drug Benefits.health-related behaviors across a variety of modalities may help to improve outcomes and 2011;4(6):377-386reduce costs. Additional novel, innovative interdisciplinary initiatives are necessary to effect www.AHDBonline.commeaningful change that can facilitate improved health outcomes for patients with diabetes Disclosures are at end of textand maximize cost-effectiveness approaches for payers.D iabetes is an important disease state causing sig- remain undiagnosed.2 Currently, type 2 diabetes accounts nificant morbidity and mortality throughout the for at least 95% of diabetes cases.3 Prediabetic patients United States and worldwide. The current obe- with elevated blood glucose levels represent 57 millionsity epidemic, together with the US aging population, individuals who are at high risk for progressing to dia-is fueling the rapid increase in diabetes prevalence. A betes within 10 years.3modeling study suggests that by 2020, 15% of adultswill have diabetes, and 37% will have prediabetes com- Diabetes Comorbiditiespared with 12% and 28%, respectively, today.1 By 2050, Patients with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk forapproximately 15 new diabetes cases per 1000 people the development of cardiovascular disorders, includingare expected annually. This will result in a diabetes coronary artery disease (CAD) and stroke. The constel-prevalence of between 1 in 5 diagnosed adults and 1 in lation of symptoms that includes insulin resistance and3 undiagnosed adults.1 central obesity greatly increases the likelihood of emer- Estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and gence of additional comorbidities.4 Common comorbidi-Prevention (CDC) suggest that as of 2007, 23.6 million ties associated with diabetes include hypertensionadults and children in the United States had diabetes; (Figure 1), hyperglycemia, and dyslipidemia.this represented nearly 8% of the US population.2 In Overall, interventions to improve these comorbidi-addition, 5.7 million individuals who have diabetes ties individually result in concurrent improvements in other related clinical parameters. For example, whenMs Greenapple is President, Reimbursement Intelligence, obese individuals lose weight, insulin resistance is typi-LLC, Madison, NJ. cally diminished, improving blood glucose levels, bloodVol 4, No 6 l September/October 2011 www.AHDBonline.com l American Health & Drug Benefits l 377
  • BUSINESS imately 2 to 4 times higher than adults without diabetes. KEY POINTS And the risk for stroke is 2 to 4 times greater in patients ® Patients with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk for with diabetes compared with those without diabetes. cardiovascular disorders, including coronary artery Macrovascular complications of diabetes include disease, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease. CAD, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease, which can ® The costs for diabetic patients with complications result in ulcers, gangrene, and lower-extremity amputa- are nearly 3-fold greater than for diabetic patients tions. Diabetes macrovascular complications associated without complications. with larger blood vessels include CVD and stroke, which ® The complications of diabetes can be prevented or are responsible for 65% of all deaths in diabetes.5 delayed with appropriate glycemic control, disease Macrovascular complications representing small vascu- management, and ongoing monitoring. lar injuries include diabetic retinopathy and peripheral ® An approach that uses a combination of strategies nerve damage. Neuropathy, renal disease, and ocular across a variety of care and payer modalities may damage are among the microvascular complications of provide substantial improvements in patient diabetes. Diabetes is currently the leading cause of end- outcomes and curb the excess costs. stage renal disease.5 ® Payers may need to reexamine how they approach The complications of diabetes can be prevented or the management of care for patients with diabetes. delayed with appropriate glycemic control and ongoing disease management and monitoring. The benefits of good glycemic control have a long-term impact on out-Figure 1 Prevalence of Comorbidities: Diabetes and comes. For example, a reduction in hemoglobin (Hb) Cardiovascular Disease in Adults Aged 20-69 Years A1c of 1% diminishes the risk for microvascular compli- cations of eye, kidney, and nerve damage by 40%.1 Each 20 Hypertension 10-mm Hg reduction in systolic BP reduces diabetes- CAD related complications by 12%, and correction of dyslipi- 16.7% CHF demia may reduce the risk for cardiovascular complica- tions by up to 50%.1 15 Economic Impact Prevalence, % 12% The costs associated with diabetes are staggering. Data released by the CDC in 2007 showed that the total 10 cost of diagnosed diabetes in the United States was $174 7.4% billion, which included $116 billion of direct medical costs and $58 billion of indirect costs (ie, disability, work 5.6% 4.7% loss, and premature death).2 5 An analysis by UnitedHealth Group indicated that 2.4% the majority of patients with diabetes are covered by pri- 1.5% 0.8% vate insurance, but the prevalence of diabetes and predi- 0.1% 0 abetes in Medicare and Medicaid populations is higher Type 1 diabetes Type 2 diabetes Nondiabetic patients than among the privately insured; consequently, these Patient population programs carry a disproportionate responsibility for healthcare costs attributed to these conditions.1CAD indicates coronary artery disease; CHF, chronic heart failure. This analysis included data from a sample of 10 mil-Reprinted with permission from Fitch K, et al. Value-based insur- lion commercial health plan members, showing that theance designs for diabetes drug therapy: actuarial and implementa- average annual costs incurred by a patient with diabetestion considerations. Milliman Client Report. December 1, 2008. in 2009 was $11,700 compared with annual costs of $4400 for a patient without diabetes.1 Furthermore, the pressure (BP) typically decreases, and lipid parameters average annual costs incurred by a diabetic patient with are improved. complications was $20,700, which is nearly 3 times that of a diabetic patient without complications ($7800).1 Clinical Consequences Another analysis demonstrated that even when con- Patients with diabetes are at great risk for serious and trolling for specific comorbidities, including hyperten- life-threatening complications.5 Adults with diabetes have sion, congestive heart failure, and CAD, patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related death rates approx- diabetes require greater expenditures compared with378 l American Health & Drug Benefits l www.AHDBonline.com September/October 2011 l Vol 4, No 6
  • Strategies to Enhance Outcomes in Diabetesnondiabetic patients with those conditions.6 Estimates Table 1 Control Rates of Blood Glucose, Blood Pressure, andfrom the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Cholesterol in Patients with Diabetesindicate that nearly 25% of hospital spending results Control rate Control ratefrom patients with diabetes.7 In addition, hospital admis- for patients aged for patients agedsions for persons with diabetes cost more than compara- <65 years ≥65 yearsble admissions for patients without diabetes.1 The optimal management of diabetes requires control Blood glucose target 49% 62%of the patient’s glucose levels, BP, and lipid levels. HbA1c <7%However, a relatively low proportion of patients with Systolic BP target 60% 33%diabetes actually achieve the treatment goals. Less than <130 mm Hg50% of adults with diabetes aged <65 years demonstratetarget HbA1c levels of <7%, as illustrated in Table 1.8 HDL-C target 49% 56% >40 mg/dL men, Adherence to antihyperglycemic drug therapy is rela- >50 mg/dL womentively poor, which is an important reason for limitedtreatment success.6 A meta-analysis of adherence studies LDL-C target 39% 48%demonstrated a range of adherence between 36% and <100 mg/dL93% in retrospective studies, and between 67% and 85% BP indicates blood pressure; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin;in prospective monitoring studies.9 HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, low-density Multiple studies have confirmed that poor adher- lipoprotein cholesterol.ence to drug therapy is associated with poor glycemic Reprinted with permission from Fitch K, et al. Improved man-control; similarly, a strong correlation exists between agement can help reduce the economic burden of type 2 dia-good compliance and adherence to antihyperglycemic betes: a 20-year actuarial projection. Milliman Client Report.medication regimens and glycemic control. One issue April 28, 2010.that contributes to poor medication adherence is theburden of copayments.10 With increasing copaymentsfor antihyperglycemic drugs, adherence to prescribed multiple-drug combinations. Frequent monitoring isregimens decreases. necessary, and clinicians should aggressively modify medication regimens to achieve treatment goals.Overview of the Approach to Treatment Appropriate medication selection requires that physi- Major medical associations have adopted treatment cians be cognizant of all of the potential effects of anti-algorithms and guidelines for the management of diabetic medications, beyond their effects on hyper-patients with diabetes, including the American Diabetes glycemia. For example, the vast majority of patients withAssociation, the European Association for the Study of type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese, yet the use ofDiabetes, American College of Endocrinology, and the many antihyperglycemic medications (ie, insulin, sul-American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.11 fonylureas) results in weight gain. Selection of agentsAlthough there are differences and distinctions in their that are weight neutral, or promote weight loss, can offerrecommendations, overall treatment approaches include additional advantages to patients.lifestyle modifications to improve diet, increased physi- Other factors to consider include the effects of dif-cal activity, and smoking cessation. ferent medications on dyslipidemia and BP.5 The Virtually all patients with diabetes require pharmaco- choice of agents may also depend on their effects onlogic therapy, however. In addition to achieving beta-cell function. It is estimated that by the time ofglycemic control with target HbA1c levels >7%, medical diagnosis, patients with type 2 diabetes have lost atinterventions aim to control BP, correct dyslipidemia, least 50% of their beta-cells.12 Preservation of remain-and facilitate weight reduction for patients who are ing beta-cell function should be a therapeutic priority;obese or overweight.1 weight loss is an important route to this goal. Different Metformin, a biguanide, is generally the first oral antihyperglycemic medications have variable effects onantidiabetic medication administered. Metformin is beta-cell function, which should figure in the clinicaltitrated to maximal effect over 1 to 2 months, with the decision-making.12goal of achieving a significant reduction in HbA1c. If met- For example, the thiazolidinediones promote weightformin monotherapy does not achieve an HbA1c control gain, but the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone delays beta-level at or near 7%, additional drugs may be added. cell decline. Agents that promote the release of insulin, Some oral drugs are formulated as combinations (typ- including sulfonylureas and the glinides, appear toically with metformin) to enhance compliance with increase the rate of beta-cell failure. Agents that workVol 4, No 6 l September/October 2011 www.AHDBonline.com l American Health & Drug Benefits l 379
  • BUSINESS via the incretin pathway, glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 investment (ROI) of its employee wellness programs, analogs and dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors, ap- which included smoking cessation, guidance for nutri- pear to preserve beta-cell function.12 tion and weight management, and stress management.15 Support was offered via online programs, individual Unmet Needs coaching, and classes. Their analysis compared medical Current treatment approaches remain far from solv- claims for participants in the wellness programs with ing the problem of diabetes. This enormous unmet need risk-matched employees who did not participate in the has driven the development of many novel agents that wellness programs (N = 1892 for both groups). Although incorporate innovative technologies and address differ- program expenses totaled $808,403, the savings generat- ent metabolic pathways. ed from these programs over 4 years was $1,335,524, At least 3 different classes of agents to stimulate the resulting in an ROI of $1.65 for every dollar spent on the incretin pathway are being investigated12: wellness program.15 • Small-molecule glucose-dependent insulinotropic Affinia Group provided economic incentives for receptor agonists (GPR119) are in clinical develop- patients with diabetes to better manage their disease. ment by at least 3 different companies Participation in their program resulted in a substantial • Compounds to stimulate TGR5, which is expressed discount on annual insurance premiums, as well as extra in enteroendocrine cells of the gut and augments reimbursement for annual healthcare costs and reduc- GLP-1 release, are being investigated tions in copays for drugs and provider visits.14 • Activators of fatty acid–binding receptors, which Ralston and colleagues implemented a novel web- potentiate insulin secretion by the pancreas in based collaborative care program.16 After an initial con- response to fatty acids, are particularly interesting, sultation, participants used online counseling services because they do not seem to promote beta-cell decline. and medical records were reviewed by a care manager. Glucokinase activators increase pancreatic beta-cell After adjusting for age, sex, and baseline HbA1c, enroll- sensitivity to glucose, thereby promoting insulin secre- ment in this program for 12 months resulted in a signif- tion and enhancing hepatic handling of glucose; they icant reduction in HbA1c levels. After 1 year, 11% of also promote beta-cell function and survival.12 patients in the usual-care group had HbA1c levels <7% At least 8 companies have glucokinase activators in compared with 33% of participants in the web-based preclinical or clinical development. Another class of intervention (P = .03).16 agents under investigation, sodium-glucose transport Another study examined the use of a diabetes man- inhibitors, promotes urinary excretion of glucose; at least agement program in a Medicare Advantage population.13 9 of these agents are the subjects of clinical investigation. To be included, these high-risk patients had to have had Several formulations of oral insulin are in development.12 at least 1 emergency or urgent care visit or 1 hospital admission with a diabetes-related diagnosis in the 12 Strategies to Improve Care and Control Costs months before admission. Patients with CAD and dia- Disease/Case Management betes were randomized to the intervention or usual-care Disease management programs have long been used group. Patients in the intervention group received edu- to improve outcomes for patients with diabetes. These cational materials at the beginning of the program and a programs can encompass a wide range of interventions, quarterly newsletter on diabetes.13 including patient education, biometric monitoring, A critical component of this disease management reminders for tests and examinations, review of care included periodic telephone calls from a nurse case man- plans, and patient support programs, all with the goal of ager, who called participants every 14 to 30 days for supporting treatment adherence.13 assessment and to provide coaching, education, and The Living Well care process, created by the Diabetes reminders about vaccinations, eye and foot examina- Workgroup of Intermountain Healthcare, includes state- tions, and adherence to prescribed medications. Nurse of-the-art educational materials for physicians and managers also communicated regularly with patients’ patients, as well as expert advice to help clinicians with physicians to support treatment plans. complex treatment decisions.14 The program also pro- This telephone-based intervention was very effec- vides multidisciplinary coordination of diabetes care, tive in decreasing diabetes-related inpatient admissions enhancements to the electronic medical record (EMR), and all-cause medical costs (P ≤.05 vs usual-care group, as well as data systems to allow healthcare providers to for both comparisons). The annual all-cause medical more readily track their performance.14 costs per member decreased by $985 in the interven- Highmark, a BlueCross BlueShield health plan in tion group and increased by $4547 (P <.05) in the com- Pennsylvania, evaluated the cost-savings and return on parison group.380 l American Health & Drug Benefits l www.AHDBonline.com September/October 2011 l Vol 4, No 6
  • Strategies to Enhance Outcomes in Diabetes Significant improvements (P <.001) were realized in program initiation date. The total cost of inpatient andall clinical measures assessed, including HbA1c, foot outpatient services declined by $20,246 during 12examinations, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL- months of this program.20 Although the number ofC) levels, and the presence of microalbuminuria. patient–provider interactions increased, inpatient serv-Consistent, timely management via telephone by a nurse ices decreased as outpatient services were increasinglycase manager effectively improved clinical parameters used, leading to decreased costs. This improvement inand resulted in cost-savings in patients from a Medicare expenditure includes fees paid to the pharmacists forAdvantage population. their intervention, the initial cost of supplying patients with glucose monitors, and charges for the educationalPharmacist-Led Intervention program to train participating pharmacists. Approximately 15 years ago, the Asheville Diabetes The Asheville Project utilized an innovative commu-Care Project was begun.17,18 This innovative, communi- nity-based disease management approach that includedty-wide disease management program utilized pharma- pharmacist–patient interactions to provide educationcists to provide critical information and support to and support. With more than 5 years of follow-up, clini-enhance outcomes in patients with diabetes in the cal and economic improvements were clear.21 At eachAsheville, NC, area. The North Carolina Center for follow-up visit, increasing numbers of patients achievedPharmaceutical Care coordinated the project, which HbA1c levels <7%, and more than 50% demonstratedincluded pharmaceutical companies, universities, and improvements in dyslipidemia at every measurement.hospital-based resources, physicians, and community- Multivariate analyses revealed that the patients whobased pharmacists. The city of Asheville was the benefited the most were the ones with the highest base-employer and payer; patients included active and retired line HbA1c levels and the highest costs at baseline.employees and their families.17,18 Expenditures, which had initially been concentrated Once patients were identified, their physicians were on inpatient and outpatient physician services, werenotified, and a participating pharmacist was assigned to increasingly dedicated to prescription medications. Totaleach patient. Pharmacists met with their designated pa- mean direct medical costs decreased by between $1200tients for initial 60-minute counseling sessions and offered and $1872 per patient annually. One employer groupguidance and advice to help patients achieve their ther- noted that employees lost fewer days to sick time annu-apeutic goals: patients understood that their progress ally, resulting in annual increases in productivity ofwould be monitored, their physicians would be informed approximately $18,000.of their progress, and monthly follow-up visits with the Individuals enrolled in the Asheville Project werepharmacist were planned. Pharmacists documented committed to participating in the program. The riskpatient interactions according to a specified protocol manager for Asheville reported that when individualsand communicated regularly with referring physicians.19 did not comply with they disease management program, This pharmacist-implemented disease management they were notified that they would no longer receive freeprogram offered financial benefits for all stakeholders as medications and healthcare services; that knowledgewell as the potential for improved clinical results.19 became “the greatest adherence tool we ever saw.”22Copays were waived if patients participated in the pro- The program was subsequently expanded to covergram with a trained pharmacist. Pharmacists were paid other disease areas, including hypertension, dyslipi-for their interactions with these patients, and the demia, and asthma; favorable clinical and economicemployer incurred lower overall healthcare costs as a results emerged for all of these conditions.23 The diabetesresult of improved clinical benefits resulting from program was successfully expanded in 2009 to cover 30enhanced diabetes management.19 employers in 10 cities. Economic analyses confirmed the The first clinical outcomes of the Asheville Project benefits of the program: employers saved $1100 annuallywere reported after 14 months.20 At baseline, 33% of on patient healthcare costs on average, and employeespatients had HbA1c levels between 4.4% and 6.4%; after typically saved $600.24 Another North Carolina compa-14 months, 67% of patients enrolled demonstrated ny instituted a similar program, which covered aboutHbA1c levels within this range. The mean HbA1c of the 150 individuals with diabetes. In 3 years, the programgroup improved by 1.4 percentage points. Significant resulted in savings of approximately $5115 per patient.25improvements from baseline were observed for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and LDL-C.20 Physician Involvement The economic impact of the Asheville Project was As noted, diabetes and its associated conditions rep-evaluated by comparing insurance claims and prescrip- resent a complex constellation that requires proactive,tion drug claims for the 12 months before and after the thoughtful clinical intervention. Treatment often re-Vol 4, No 6 l September/October 2011 www.AHDBonline.com l American Health & Drug Benefits l 381
  • BUSINESS quires significant management support and education, Several modifications of this approach have been and may optimally include medical nutrition therapy, devised, although details in the literature are few. An smoking-cessation guidance, as well as other services. A antiobesity drug rimonabant was marketed in Sweden recent web-based survey of 300 primary care physicians according to a finding that it could be cost-effective for and endocrinologists revealed that most physicians feel patients whose body mass index (BMI) exceeded 35 kg/m2 they are underreimbursed for services they provide to or for those with a BMI >28 kg/m2 plus dyslipidemia or patients with diabetes, resulting in less time spent with type 2 diabetes. A value-based pricing scheme was devel- each patient.26 The consequence of this perceived limi- oped, but it was in effect only through the end of 2008, tation in time prevents physicians from providing com- and no follow-up details are found in the literature. prehensive diabetes care. Merck and CIGNA developed a novel agreement Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which covers regarding the use of sitagliptin and a metformin and >2 million individuals in Iowa and South Dakota, devel- sitagliptin combination.29 Merck discounts the cost of oped a program to enhance clinical services for patients these agents to CIGNA with documentation of with diabetes.27 Wellmark partnered with physicians to improved blood glucose control, regardless of whether design all aspects of the program, including software the improvement results from the use of sitagliptin, the selection to identify patients who did not meet clinical metformin-sitagliptin combination, or other drugs. targets of optimal BP, lipid levels, and glycemic control. With this arrangement, Merck actually makes less Clinicians who achieved high levels of performance, money per drug used as health outcomes improve, but those who utilized EMRs and electronic prescribing, by placing these products favorably among CIGNA’s received additional compensation. Overall, Wellmark options for diabetes treatment, increased use of these found that physician-directed quality improvements agents is expected. resulted in better care for patients with diabetes and sig- An important limitation in understanding the nificant cost-savings. Currently, other payers are review- impact of this type of risk-sharing is that, unlike results ing ways to follow the Wellmark model with the goal of of controlled clinical trials that are generally widely achieving similar successful results. published, reports of postmarketing outcomes-based The Physician Consortium for Performance Im- approaches, typically based on private agreements provement (PCPI) is an interdisciplinary group con- between manufacturer and payers, are not often pub- vened by the American Medical Association that aims lished or disseminated. to improve patient health and safety by development and implementation of evidence-based clinical perform- Value-Based Insurance Design ance measures.28 The performance measures created Value-based insurance design (VBID) is an innova- focus on outcomes and group-related measures to gener- tive approach to benefit planning to reduce long-term ate composite information; they also incorporate best healthcare costs while improving health quality.5,10,30 It practices information and include results from testing involves changing the cost structure for plan participants projects, and ultimately support patient-centered, appro- to promote the use of services or treatments that result in priate care. Diabetes and hypertension are 2 of the many relatively high health benefits and to discourage use of conditions for which PCPI measure sets exist and are interventions with no or limited health benefits.6 being continually updated and refined. Development of Briefly, VBID uses a so-called “clinically sensitive these measure sets is an important vehicle by which copay structure.”10 Patients with diabetes represent a physicians can guide provision of coordinated care deliv- potentially valuable population within which to study ery systems to enhance patient outcomes and utilize eco- this approach, because previous work has demonstrated nomic resources most efficiently. relatively poor adherence with antidiabetic drug therapy, and a consistent relationship showing diminished med- Value-Based Pricing/Risk-Sharing ication adherence with increasing copays.10 Poor adher- Value-based pricing, or risk-sharing, represents a ence is associated with poor glycemic control. VBID for novel approach to reimbursement based on patient out- patients with diabetes aims to increase adherence and comes.29 In the most common type of risk-sharing treatment compliance by decreasing drug copays.10 agreement, the manufacturer assumes the risk of the The Milliman Group performed a modeling experi- drug providing benefit to patients. Either the cost of ment to assess 3 different VBID copay tier structures, the ineffective drug is refunded to the payer, or an equiv- comparing them with a standard structure in which the alent amount of drug is provided to another patient at no copay is $10 for generic drugs, $25 for preferred brands, cost. The net effect is that the payer is responsible to pay and $40 for nonpreferred brands (Table 2).6 The options only for agents that result in improved health outcomes. modeled included a plan with no copay for any medica-382 l American Health & Drug Benefits l www.AHDBonline.com September/October 2011 l Vol 4, No 6
  • Strategies to Enhance Outcomes in Diabetestion ($0/0/0), one in which there was the same copayregardless of preferred status ($10/10/10), and one that Table 2 Cost and Adherence Impact of 3 Benefit Designs for Patients with Type 2 Diabetesreflects the usual copay structure, although at markedlylower copays ($0/12.5/30).6 Plan Standard VBID1 VBID2 VBID3 The analysis demonstrated that all these VBID plans Copay structureincreased medication adherence as well as costs to the Generic/preferred 10/25/40 0/12.5/30 0/0/0 10/10/10payer. Increased payer costs result from lower copays brand/nonpreferredrequired from patients with diabetes, as well as from fill- brand, $ing of prescriptions by patients who previously were notobtaining their medications.6 The Milliman report did Net copaymentnot further analyze models to predict the cost-savings Per patient per 60 79 102 80that might result from improved glycemic control month, $achieved with increased medication adherence afterreduction of copays. Results of such modeling exercises PMPM, $ 2.16 2.82 3.65 2.85would be very informative and could further guide PMPM increment NA 0.67 1.49 0.69rational program development to enhance outcomes and to base, $control costs. Virtual adherence Pitney Bowes implemented a limited VBID programfor employees and beneficiaries with diabetes or vascular Patients adherent, % 49 60 69 57disease.30 Copays were eliminated for cholesterol-lower- Increment to base, % 0 22 41 16ing statins, and copays were reduced for patients whowere prescribed the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel for Copays are listed by tier 1/tier 2/tier 3. Model uses data on theblood-clotting prevention. Results on drug adherence actuarial impact of copays. Virtual population is based on afrom the Pitney Bowes group were evaluated together typical employee population.with data from comparable patients covered by another NA indicates not applicable; PMPM, per member per month;plan without VBID.30 VBID, value-based insurance design. Eliminating copays for statins promoted stabilization Reprinted with permission from Fitch K, et al. Value-basedof statin use and encouraged adherence; statin use con- insurance designs for diabetes drug therapy: actuarial and implementation considerations. Milliman Client Report.tinued the typical decline in use in the control group. December 1, 2008.Adherence to statins was 2.8% higher by patients inthe Pitney Bowes group than in the control group.Adherence to clopidogrel was stabilized with copay diabetes-related services increased 16% in year 1 andreduction, with 4% higher adherence for Pitney Bowes 32% in year 2 from baseline, although these changespatients compared with controls. Implementation of this were not significant.31 Of note, emergency departmentVBID plan for statins and a clot-inhibiting drug resulted visits decreased in year 1, although expenditures forin modest improvements in medication adherence.30 office visits increased in both years. As shown in Figure Nair and colleagues reported on utilization and 2, patients who adhered to drug therapy required farexpenditures in a population of patients with diabetes fewer emergency department visits overall.31from a healthcare industry employer.31 Expenditures This analysis indicates that although implementationand drug prescriptions filled were tracked for a 9-month of VBID by reducing drug copays increases prescriptionbaseline period and 2 full years after initiation of the medication adherence, other measures may be necessaryprogram. A total 225 patients with diabetes were con- to effect the changes that result in meaningful improve-tinuously enrolled (mean age, 49 years); 52% had dys- ments in clinical outcomes. For example, these approach-lipidemia, and 68% had hypertension.31 es may include patient and provider education and tech- The VBID plan introduced for this study had all dia- niques to aid compliance with treatment, potentialbetes drugs and testing supplies at tier 1; retail copay was components to an integrated disease management pro-$10 and mail-order copay was $20. Investigators found a gram. Furthermore, economic gains resulting in improvedmean increase of 9% for any diabetes-related prescrip- adherence to diabetes treatment, with resultant benefitstion in year 1, with a smaller increase of 5.5% in year 2. to clinical outcomes, may require a longer-term view.Medication adherence increased between 7% and 8%during year 1, but decreased slightly during the second Future Directions in Diabetesyear of the study. Pharmacy expenditures increased by Interdisciplinary Cooperation, Engagementnearly 50% in both years. Total medical expenditures for As healthcare-related costs in the United StatesVol 4, No 6 l September/October 2011 www.AHDBonline.com l American Health & Drug Benefits l 383
  • BUSINESSFigure 2 Medication Adherence and Emergency Care Utilization assessment); after 1 year, HbA1c levels declined markedly for many participants.10 A quality collaborative, the Institute for Clinical Nonadherent Systems Improvement, is sponsored by 6 health plans 0.25 Adherent 0.23 in Minnesota, including HealthPartners, which covers >1 million individuals.33 This group defined “optimal 0.20 diabetes care” for its members; features include BP Mean visits PMPY, N <130/80 mm Hg, LDL-C <100 mg/dL, HbA1c <7%, no 0.15 tobacco use, and daily aspirin use for individuals aged 41 to 75 years. Minnesota Community Measurement 0.11 operates a website that tracks patient progress and 0.10 identifies clinics whose patients successfully achieve 0.06 optimal diabetes care. Initially, <4% of patients 0.05 0.05 0.04 achieved all 5 of these diabetes care goals, but after sev- 0.03 eral years the statewide average indicated that 17.5% of 0 patients with diabetes were receiving optimal care.33 Preperiod Year 1 Year 2 In addition to publicly reporting clinical indicators Observation period of quality of care, HealthPartners worked with individ- ual employers to provide annual health assessments,PMPY indicates per member per year. devise workplace wellness programs, and institute tele-Adapted with permission from Nair KV, et al. Am Health Drug phone-based counseling and support services. TheBenefits. 2009;2:14-24. innovative, multifaceted approach of HealthPartners provides just one example of creative programming that can be developed to aid in management and pro- have spiraled in an explosive fashion, many stakehold- vide support to encourage beneficial health behaviors ers have actively been seeking creative approaches to and improve diabetes treatment. maximize the value of healthcare. A diverse array of strategies have been proposed, including consumer-dri- Potential Cost-Savings: Large-Scale Interventions ven health plans, wellness and prevention programs, Better disease control for patients with diabetes will go pay-for-performance initiatives, and use of health infor- far toward improving morbidity and mortality and con- mation technology to collect, measure, and analyze trolling disease-related expenditures. UnitedHealth Group data. Although economic incentives to patients, such identified 4 interventions that could ultimately result in as VBID, may increase adherence, such programs alone a 10-year net savings of up to $250 billion and up to 10 seem to provide only modest gains. million fewer individuals with prediabetes or diabetes. An approach that uses a combination of strategies Initiatives to promote weight loss in overweight and designed to impact patients’ health-related behaviors obese persons can reduce the incidence of prediabetes across a variety of modalities may provide a route to and diabetes; modeling studies indicate that a 5% weight substantial improvements both in health outcomes loss by overweight or obese individuals could translate and, ultimately, in health-related expenditures. The into $45 billion in projected health system cost-savings Diabetes Ten Cities Challenge used an integrated dis- over a decade.1 ease management approach together with elimination Reversing prediabetes, preventing disease progression of drug copays, educational initiatives, acceptance of and the ultimate development of complications, is evidence-based guidelines, and community-based another important goal. Previous trials have shown that pharmacist coaching.32 In a cohort of 573 patients with adherence to intensive lifestyle interventions can reduce diabetes, this program demonstrated an average reduc- the incidence of diabetes by 58% among prediabetic tion of $1079 in annual total healthcare costs per patients; this could diminish the prevalence of diabetes patient, and mean HbA1c levels decreased from 7.5% to by 8% and result in cumulative health system cost-sav- 7.1% (P = .002).32 ings of up to $105 billion.1 Caterpillar’s employees with diabetes enrolled in a Improving medical compliance by patients with dia- disease management program that included economic betes can reduce complications and improve clinical out- incentives (elimination of copays for medications for comes, leading to an estimated cost-savings of $34 billion diabetes and associated conditions; reduction in annual over 10 years. Intensive lifestyle interventions among insurance premiums with participation in health risk patients with diabetes to control overweight and obesity384 l American Health & Drug Benefits l www.AHDBonline.com September/October 2011 l Vol 4, No 6
  • Strategies to Enhance Outcomes in Diabeteswill further facilitate clinical improvement and may con- Diabetes will continue to represent a major and grow-tribute to an additional $88 billion in cost-savings. ing source of morbidity, mortality, and spiraling health- care costs. Novel strategies to prevent diabetes, slow thePayers’ Key Role in Improving Outcomes transition from prediabetes to diabetes, and delay disease The diabetes population is a medically complex pop- progression to forestall the development of complica-ulation that requires more aggressive case management tions are necessary to improve health outcomes for theand medical intervention. Many payers have imple- increasing numbers of patients affected by these condi-mented innovative approaches to improve health out- tions as well as to control related healthcare expendi-comes and per member per month costs for diabetes tures. It is clear that these efforts will need to be com-and at-risk populations. At the same time, payers are prehensive and multidisciplinary, engaging patients,limited in how they can effectively engage noncompli- physicians, diabetes educators, nutritionists, care man-ant patients with diabetes to change their lifestyle and agers, and payers in complex cooperative endeavors. Iimprove their overall medical care. With the advent of EMRs and accountable care Author Disclosure Statementorganizations, payers, physicians, and patients will likely Ms Greenapple reported no conflicts of interest.have greater coordination of care, adherence to guide-lines, and aligned incentives. Patients and their families References 1. UnitedHealth Center for Health Reform & Modernization. The united states ofwill need ongoing case management and monitoring to diabetes: challenges and opportunities in the decade ahead. Working paper 5,prevent further progression of the disease and its associ- November 2010. www.unitedhealthgroup.com/hrm/UNH_WorkingPaper5.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2011.ated complications. Physicians need the tools and incen- 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Fact Sheet. 2007.tives to continue to educate and monitor ongoing treat- www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2007.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2010. 3. National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse. Diabetes Prevention Program.ment planning. Future models must take the successes of http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/preventionprogram/DPP.pdf. Accessed Augustprior initiatives and ensure that current and future high- 31, 2011. 4. Long AN, Dagogo-Jack S. Comorbidities of diabetes and hypertension: mechanismrisk patients are engaged into the healthcare system. and approach to target organ protection. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2011;13:344-351. Payers in particular may need to reexamine how 5. American Diabetes Association. Complications of diabetes in the United States. http://schoolwalk.diabetes.org/swfd/swfd_mshs_attach.pdf. Accessed April 7, 2009.they approach care of patients with diabetes.34 The 6. Fitch K, Iwasaki K, Pyenson B. Value-based insurance designs for diabetes drugDiabetes Prevention and Control Alliance is a partner- therapy: actuarial and implementation considerations. Milliman Client Report. December 1, 2008. www.sph.umich.edu/vbidcenter/publications/pdfs/vbid-diabetes-ship between the CDC, the YMCA, UnitedHealth drug-therapy-RR12-01-08.pdf. Accessed September 7, 2011.Group, and Walgreens that aims to reduce the risk of 7. Fraze T, Jiang J, Burgess J. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Hospital stays for patients with diabetes, 2008. Statistical brief #93. August 2010. www. hcup-us.developing diabetes by encouraging lifestyle modifica- ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb93.pdf. Accessed September 7, 2011.tions. Their goals include identification of prediabetic 8. Koro CE, Bowlin SJ, Bourgeois N, Fedder DO. Glycemic control from 1988 to 2000 among US adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes: a preliminary report. Diabetes Care.individuals, contacting and screening them, and 2004;27:17-20.enrolling them in a program designed to support 9. Cramer JA. A systemic review of adherence with medications for diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:1218-1224.lifestyle changes. In addition, pharmacists are trained 10. Arevalo JD. Perspectives in value-based insurance design for patients with dia-to provide support with regard to diabetes education, betes: assessment and application. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2011;4:27-33. 11. Nguyen Q, Nguyen L, Felicetta J. Evaluation and management of diabetes mel-medication management, behavioral interventions, litus. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2008;1:39-48.and monitoring for complications. 12. Aicher TD, Boyd SA, McVean M, Celeste A. Novel therapeutics and targets for the treatment of diabetes. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2010;3:209-229. 13. Rosenzweig JL, Taitel MS, Norman GK, et al. Diabetes disease management inConclusion Medicare Advantage reduces hospitalizations and costs. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16: e157-e162. To effect meaningful change, improve health out- 14. Aggressive diabetes management: evolving paradigms/innovative solutions.comes, and maximize cost-effectiveness, novel programs Takeda slide set. www.thechroniccarecollaborative.com/Data/Sites/2/PDFFile/ AGGRESSIVE_DIABETES_MANAGEMENT_Evolving_Paradigms_Innovative_to engage patients with diabetes should seek to combine Solutions_Virtual_Conference_Slides.pdf. Accessed September 7, 2011.educational initiatives; support for lifestyle modifica- 15. Naydeck BL,Pearson JA, Ozminkowski RJ, et al. The impact of Highmark employee wellness programs on 4-year healthcare costs. J Occup Environ Med. 2008;tions, including smoking cessation; encouragement of 50:146-156.exercise programs; nutritional counseling; health aware- 16. Ralston JD, Hirsch IB, Hoath J, et al. Web-based collaborative care for type 2 dia- betes: a pilot randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2009;32:234-239.ness reminders to promote foot and eye examinations; 17. Kent S. The Asheville Project: walking the tightrope to better health. Pharmacyand regular HbA1c, lipid, and BP monitoring, together Times. 1998;suppl:9-10. 18. Spillers C. The Asheville Project: using existing resources to prepare pharmacistswith financial incentives to support patients behavioral- for an expanded role. Pharmacy Times. 1998;suppl:30-31.ly and economically. These wide-ranging interdiscipli- 19. Bunting B, Horton B. The Asheville Project: taking a fresh look at the pharmacy practice model. Pharmacy Times. 1998;suppl:11-18.nary cooperative initiatives may result in improved 20. Cranor CW. Outcomes of the Asheville Diabetes Care Project. Pharmacy Times.glycemic control and a reduced risk of the long-term 1998;suppl:19-25. 21. Cranor CW, Bunting BA, Christensen DB. The Asheville Project: long-termcomplications of diabetes with their attendant effects on clinical and economic outcomes of a community pharmacy diabetes care program.morbidity and mortality. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash). 2003;43:173-184. ContinuedVol 4, No 6 l September/October 2011 www.AHDBonline.com l American Health & Drug Benefits l 385
  • BUSINESS 22. Kertsz L. Copay waiver programs cut health costs, improve productivity. Business 28. Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement: ahead of the curve. www. Insurance. May 10, 2009. www.businessinsurance.com/article/20090510/ISSUE01/ ama-assn.org/resources/doc/cqi/pcpi-brochure.pdf. Accessed September 7, 2011. 100027603#crit=kertesz. Accessed September 7, 2011. 29. Hunter CA, Glasspool J, Cohen RS, Keskinaslan. A literature review of risk- 23. Bunting BA, Smith BH, Sutherland SE. The Asheville Project: clinical and eco- sharing agreements. J Korean Acad Managed Care. 2010;2:1-9. nomic outcomes of a community-based long-term medication therapy management 30. Choudhry NK, Fischer MA, Avorn J, et al. At Pitney Bowes, value-based insur- program for hypertension and dyslipidemia. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2008;48:23-31. ance design cut copayments and increased drug adherence. Health Aff (Millwood). 24. Esola L. Asheville, NC, spawns a movement while improving the health of resi- 2010;29:1995-2001. dents. Business Insurance. March 14, 2010. www.businessinsurance.com/article/ 31. Nair KV, Miller K, Saseen J, et al. Prescription copay reduction program for dia- 20100314/ISSUE07/303149993&template=preprint. Accessed September 7, 2011. betic employees: impact on medication compliance and healthcare costs and utiliza- 25. Wojcik J. Employer sees clear results. Business Insurance. April 22, 2007. tion. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2009;2:14-24. www.businessinsurance.com/article/20070422/ISSUE01/100021708&template= 32. Fera T, Bluml BM, Ellis WM. Diabetes Ten City Challenge: final economic and printart. Accessed September 7, 2011. clinical results. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2009;49:383-391. 26. Pozniak A, Olinger L, Shier V. Physicians’ perceptions of reimbursement as a bar- 33. Butcher L. Multifaceted diabetes program pays off for HealthPartners. Manag rier to comprehensive diabetes care. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2010;3:31-40. Care. 2009;18:36-40. 27. Diamond F. Empowered physicians are key to diabetes program’s success. Manag 34. Kuznar W. Payers lead healthcare reform toward prevention of chronic disease. Care. 2009;January:44-46. www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0901/0901.planwatch. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2010;3(suppl 5):S10. www.ahdbonline.com/sites/default/ html. Accessed September 7, 2011. files/AHDB0410_0.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2011. STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE We Must All Engage in the Diabetes Challenge: A Lifelong Journey, with No Silver Bullet MEDICAL/PHARMACY DIRECTORS: In her vide the structured framework necessary to effectively article, Ms Greenapple provided an extensive list of manage diabetes. In this article, Ms Greenapple dis- successful strategies to go into full battle with the ever- cusses many examples of innovative payers who took growing type 2 diabetes giant in an effort to produce the initiative and developed novel diabetes manage- better outcomes for patients with this disease. So, why ment programs that led to better outcomes by decreas- is the rate of diabetes continuing to skyrocket? The ing hemoglobin (Hb) A1c, blood pressure, and lipid medical literature is filled with many articles and vol- levels, as well as weight. umes indicating that good glycemic control is key to There is no silver bullet to diabetes management, diabetes management. and the onus does not fall entirely on the payer’s shoul- Recommendations from health plans regarding dia- ders. An integrated approach is absolutely necessary: betes management start with suggesting to members to all stakeholders must step up and get engaged for suc- change their diet, increase their exercise, and for those cessful management to become sustainable. Perhaps who smoke, quit smoking. For the majority of individ- the introduction of accountable care organizations uals, however, these 3 functions likely represent the (ACOs) and ACO-like groups will motivate the most difficult goals to accomplish successfully long- healthcare community to implement more aggressive term, with or without diabetes. diabetes management interventions. Aggressive inter- After members unsuccessfully attempt these vention in the prediabetes population puts a stake in behavioral modifications, the next payer answer is to the ground toward reversing the ever-increasing trend provide a plethora of pharmacotherapy options for of diabetes prevalence in this country. Of course, the providers to choose from for their patients. These, ultimate elements of successful diabetes management however, remain just that—a list of options. Payers are patient commitment and accountability. must become more active in engaging providers to For health plans not already engaged, this is a grand implement more structured diabetes management ini- opportunity to motivate their members, providers, and tiatives. Gone are the days of simply making antidia- retail pharmacists to take charge and make a difference. betes drugs available at the preferred lowest branded We need a healthier nation, and it starts with aligning copayment, thereby relieving the payer of any further all stakeholders. To paraphrase an old saying, the suc- involvement. cess of diabetes management in reducing weight, Payer reimbursement for a diabetes office visit and HbA1c levels, blood pressure, and cholesterol is a life- the cost differential of the prescribed drug is just a long journey, not a destination. “paper exercise.” Have we become mere transactions? Our healthcare delivery system deserves more: it hinges Charles E. Collins, Jr, MS, MBA on the payer environment. If we are in this diabetes Vice President, Client Strategy fight together, then we should demand payers to pro- Fusion Medical Communications386 l American Health & Drug Benefits l www.AHDBonline.com September/October 2011 l Vol 4, No 6