Bartel, Gregory A.

Introduction: The H1N1 (subtype hemagglutinin 1 neuraminidase 1) influenza pandemic of 2009 was associated with a large increase in demand for primary care office visits. However, many patients with H1N1 symptoms or exposure could be assessed and treated with telephone protocols. Methods: Specific H1N1 influenza telephone protocols were developed by Mayo Clinic physicians using Centers for Disease Control recommendations. Using symptom calls to a primary care practice in the United States, we captured nurse telephone triage recommendations, telephone antiviral prescriptions, and what callers would have done without telephone advice. We retrospectively analyzed all symptom calls from July 2009 through January 2010. Results: Call volume was 5,596 calls monthly during the peak influenza months, which was 56% above the monthly average of 3,595 calls for the nonpeak months ( p < 0.001). The calls during October 2009 were 111% over the nonpeak months ( p < 0.001). In October 2009, telephone triage nurses gave 412 prescriptions for antivirals accounting for 5.4% of calls and 39% of all telephonic prescriptions for that month. In the peak H1N1 month of October, there were 1,522 callers who intended to stay home for their care. For the same month, triage nurses suggested 3,250 of the callers stay home. For an October 2009 appointment capacity of 35,126 visit slots, a potential 5% capacity was preserved. Conclusions: A telephone triage solution for the acute demands of influenza H1N1 demonstrated how patients had needs met telephonically while preserving medical access for others.

Retail medicine clinics have become widely available. However, few studies have been published that compare retail clinic costs of care to standard medical visits for similar patients. The purpose of this study was to compare standard medical costs during a 6-month period after visiting a retail medical clinic to care received in a conventional medical office setting. Medical records of primary care patients (both adults and children) seen in a large group practice in Minnesota in 2008 were analyzed for this study. Two groups of patients were studied: those who used a retail walk-in clinic (N = 141) and a comparison group who used regular office care for same-day, acute visits (N = 137). Patients treated for 5 common conditions (pink eye, sore throat, viral illness, bronchitis, and cough) were selected. The dependent variables were standard costs using federal rates and the rank of standard costs. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to adjust for differences between groups. Median costs did not differ between sites ($126.30 for usual care and $88.10 for retail, P = 0.139); mean cost ranks were 132.5 for usual care and 115.6 for retail ( P = 0.088). After adjusting for previous visit history, age, and sex, patients who received care in the retail setting had lower standard costs and lower cost rank than patients who received usual care (b = −52.9 [ P = 0.006] and b = −24.5 [ P = 0.021], respectively). After selection of cases with common conditions and adjustment for unequal variances, age, sex, and number of office visits in the previous 6 months, our retail clinic appeared to reduce medical costs for patients during the 6-month period after the index visit. ( Population Health Management 2009;12:333–335)