Klaus W. Lemke

Comorbidity: Implications for the Importance of Primary Care in ‘Case’ Management

BACKGROUND Although comorbidity is very common in the population, little is known about the types of health service that are used by people with comorbid conditions. METHODS Data from claims on the nonelderly were classified by diagnosis and extent of comorbidity, using a case-mix measure known as the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups, to study variation in extent of comorbidity and resource utilization. Visits of patients (adults and children) with 11 conditions were classified as to whether they were to primary care physicians or to other specialists, and whether they involved the chosen condition or other conditions. RESULTS Comorbidity varied within each diagnosis; resource use depended on the degree of comorbidity rather than the diagnosis. When stratified by degree of comorbidity, the number of visits for comorbid conditions exceeded the number of visits for the index condition in almost all comorbidity groups and for visits to both primary care physicians and to specialists. The number of visits to primary care physicians for both the index condition and for comorbid conditions almost invariably exceeded the number of visits to specialists. These patterns differed only for uncommon conditions in which specialists played a greater role in the care of the condition, but not for comorbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS In view of the high degree of comorbidity, even in a nonelderly population, single-disease management does not appear promising as a strategy to care for patients. In contrast, the burden is on primary care physicians to provide the majority of care, not only for the target condition but for other conditions. Thus, management in the context of ongoing primary care and oriented more toward patients’ overall health care needs appears to be a more promising strategy than care oriented to individual diseases. New paradigms of care that acknowledge actual patterns of comorbidities as well as the need for close coordination between generalists and specialists require support.

Comorbidity and the Use of Primary Care and Specialist Care in the Elderly

PURPOSE The impact of comorbidity on use of primary care and specialty services is poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between morbidity burden, comorbid conditions, and use of primary care and specialist services METHODS The study population was a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries, taken from 1999 Medicare files. We analyzed the number of ambulatory face-to-face patient visits to primary care physicians and specialists for each diagnosis, with each one first considered as the “main” one and then as a comorbid diagnosis to another. Each patient was categorized by extent of total morbidity burden using the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Group case-mix system. RESULTS Higher morbidity burden was associated with more visits to specialists, but not to primary care physicians. Patients with most diagnoses had more visits, both to primary care and specialist physicians for comorbid diagnoses than for the main diagnosis itself. Although patients, especially those with high morbidity burdens, generally made more visits to specialists than to primary care physicians, this finding was not always the case. For patients with 66 diagnoses, primary care visits for those diagnoses exceeded specialist visits in all morbidity burden groups; for patients with 87 diagnoses, specialty visits exceeded primary care visits in all morbidity burden groups. CONCLUSION In the elderly, a high morbidity burden leads to higher use of specialist physicians, but not primary care physicians, even for patients with common diagnoses not generally considered to require specialist care. This finding calls for a better understanding of the relative roles of generalists and specialists in the US health services system.

Ambulatory specialist use by nonhospitalized patients in us health plans: Correlates and consequences

Approximately 7 of 10 (and 95% of the elderly) people in US health plans see one or more specialists in a year. Controlling for extent of morbidity, discontinuity of primary care physician visits is associated with seeing more different specialists. Having a general internist as the primary care physician is associated with more different specialists seen. Controlling for differences in the degree of morbidity, receiving care from multiple specialists is associated with higher costs, more procedures, and more medications, independent of the number of visits and age of the patient.

Health care costs, utilization and patterns of care following Lyme disease.

Background Lyme disease is the most frequently reported vector borne infection in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control have estimated that approximately 10% to 20% of individuals may experience Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome – a set of symptoms including fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and neurocognitive complaints that persist after initial antibiotic treatment of Lyme disease. Little is known about the impact of Lyme disease or post-treatment Lyme disease symptoms (PTLDS) on health care costs and utilization in the United States. Objectives 1) to examine the impact of Lyme disease on health care costs and utilization, 2) to understand the relationship between Lyme disease and the probability of developing PTLDS, 3) to understand how PTLDS may impact health care costs and utilization. Methods This study utilizes retrospective data on medical claims and member enrollment for persons aged 0-64 years who were enrolled in commercial health insurance plans in the United States between 2006-2010. 52,795 individuals treated for Lyme disease were compared to 263,975 matched controls with no evidence of Lyme disease exposure. Results Lyme disease is associated with

Patient Sharing Among Physicians and Costs of Care: A Network Analytic Approach to Care Coordination Using Claims Data

2,968 higher total health care costs (95% CI: 2,807-3,128, p<.001) and 87% more outpatient visits (95% CI: 86%-89%, p<.001) over a 12-month period, and is associated with 4.77 times greater odds of having any PTLDS-related diagnosis, as compared to controls (95% CI: 4.67-4.87, p<.001). Among those with Lyme disease, having one or more PTLDS-related diagnosis is associated with

Development and validation of a model for predicting inpatient hospitalization

3,798 higher total health care costs (95% CI: 3,542-4,055, p<.001) and 66% more outpatient visits (95% CI: 64%-69%, p<.001) over a 12-month period, relative to those with no PTLDS-related diagnoses. Conclusions Lyme disease is associated with increased costs above what would be expected for an easy to treat infection. The presence of PTLDS-related diagnoses after treatment is associated with significant health care costs and utilization.

Predictive models of the risk of hospital admission and re-admission: current and future development

BACKGROUNDImproving care coordination is a national priority and a key focus of health care reforms. However, its measurement and ultimate achievement is challenging.OBJECTIVETo test whether patients whose providers frequently share patients with one another—what we term ‘care density’—tend to have lower costs of care and likelihood of hospitalization.DESIGNCohort studyPARTICIPANTS9,596 patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) and 52,688 with diabetes who received care during 2009. Patients were enrolled in five large, private insurance plans across the US covering employer-sponsored and Medicare Advantage enrolleesMAIN MEASURESCosts of care, rates of hospitalizationsKEY RESULTSThe average total annual health care cost for patients with CHF was

Comorbid condition care quality in cancer survivors: role of primary care and specialty providers and care coordination

29,456, and

The application of ACG predictive models to the English population for the purposes of funding allocation

14,921 for those with diabetes. In risk adjusted analyses, patients with the highest tertile of care density, indicating the highest level of overlap among a patient’s providers, had lower total costs compared to patients in the lowest tertile (

Risk Adjustment in Health Insurance Exchanges for Individuals With Mental Illness

3,310 lower for CHF and