Angstman, Kurt B.

As retail clinics provide a less costly alternative for health care, it would be reasonable to expect an increase in multiple (repeat) retail visits by those patients who may have expenses for receiving primary care. If costs were not a significant factor, then repeat visits should not be significantly different between these patients and those with coverage for primary care visits. The hypothesis for this study was that patients with the potential for out-of-pocket expenses would have a higher frequency of repeat retail clinic visits within 180 days compared to those with primary care coverage. A retrospective chart review was conducted of 5703 patients utilizing a retail clinic in Rochester, Minnesota from January 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009. The first visit to the retail clinic was considered the index visit and the chart was reviewed for repeat retail clinic visits within the next 180 days. Using a multiple logistic regression model, the odds of a pediatric patient ( N =2344) having a repeat retail visit within 180 days of the index visit were not significantly impacted by insurance coverage ( P =0.4209). Of the 3359 adult patients, those with unknown coverage had a 25.6% higher odds ratio of repeat retail clinic visits than those with insurance coverage (odds ratio 1.2557, confidence interval 1.0421–1.5131). This study suggested that when cost is an issue, the adult patient may favor retail clinics for episodic, low-acuity health care. In contrast, the pediatric population did not, suggesting that other factors, such as convenience, may play more of a role in the choice of episodic health care for this age group. ( Population Health Management 2012;15:358–361)

The purpose of this study was to compare return visits made by patients within 2 weeks after using retail nurse practitioner clinics to return visits made by similar patients after using standard medical office clinics. Retail medicine clinics have become widely available. However, their impact on return visit rates compared to standard medical office visits for similar patients has not been extensively studied. Electronic medical records of adult primary care patients seen in a large group practice in Minnesota in 2009 were analyzed for this study. Patients who were treated for sinusitis were selected. Two groups of patients were studied: those who used one of 2 retail walk-in clinics staffed by nurse practitioners and a comparison group who used one of 4 regular office clinics. The dependent variable was a return office visit to any site within 2 weeks. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for case-mix differences between groups. Unadjusted odds of return visits were lower for retail clinic patients than for standard office care patients. After adjustment for case mix, patients with more outpatient visits in the previous 6 months had higher odds of return visits within 2 weeks (2–6 prior visits: odds ratio [OR]=1.99, P =0.00; 6 or more prior visits: OR=6.80, P =0.00). The odds of a return visit within 2 weeks were not different by clinic type after adjusting for propensity to use services (OR=1.17, P =0.28). After adjusting for case mix differences, return visit rates did not differ by clinic type. ( Population Health Management 2012;15:216–219)

Major depressive disorder is common in primary care. Depression Improvement Across Minnesota—Offering a New Direction (DIAMOND), using a collaborative care model, was first implemented in March 2008 starting with 5 clinics and expanding to more than 70 clinics statewide by 2010. This was intended to improve depression management and to augment the relationship between the patient, the primary care provider, and the psychiatrist. Prior retrospective studies have demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of our program. This study was designed to examine those patients who were in clinical remission (defined as a Patient Health Questionnaire–9 [PHQ-9] score <5) at 6 months (180 days) after enrollment in collaborative care management. By determining the subsequent PHQ-9 data that were obtained, a PHQ-9 response curve was developed for those patients who did improve. The pilot study demonstrated that there appeared to be rapid response to depression treatment, evident by the first month of treatment and more pronounced in severely depressed patients. Also, it demonstrated that in the patients who did respond, there was no any difference in the remission rates over the study period when evaluated by the initial severity of the depression.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force and the National Osteoporosis Foundation recommend routine osteoporosis screening for women aged 65 years or older. Previous studies have shown that the use of a clinical decision-support tool significantly improves screening rates. In a recently published study, a statistically significant improvement was found in the screening rates for eligible women with use of the tool. To evaluate whether a clinical decision-support tool independently predicts completion of osteoporosis screening tests and to identify predictors of screening completion, we examined the records of 2462 female patients who were eligible for osteoporosis screening but had no prior baseline screening and who were seen in our primary care practices in 2007 and 2008. Patient and provider characteristics and clinic visit type were identified, and their association with screening test completion was statistically analyzed using both univariate and multivariate models. Screening completion rates increased significantly from 2007 to 2008. Factors associated with increased likelihood of screening completion included race, marital status, residence, presence of comorbidity (cancer, rheumatologic disease), and the year and type of visit. Screening was less likely for women aged 80 years or older. The use of a point-of-care decision-support tool not only improved osteoporosis screening rates significantly but appeared to be an independent predictor of screening completion. It potentially can facilitate the systematic and effective delivery of preventive health services to patients in the primary care setting. ( Population Health Management 2011;14:243–247)

In 2008, the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI) in Minnesota implemented a model of collaborative care management (CCM) for treatment of depression in primary care. This resulted in significant improvements on both clinical response and remission over usual care, although an increase in utilization metrics has been observed. Mental health comorbidities have previously been significantly associated with an increased likelihood of not responding to initial treatment. This retrospective study hypothesized that patients with mental health comorbidities are more likely to be associated with patients who were readmitted into CCM with recurrent depression. A total of 145 patients who had completed CCM were studied; of these, 32 were diagnosed with recurrent depression and were readmitted to CCM, and 113 were in remission for at least 4 months. There were no statistically significant demographic differences between the 2 groups. The initial screening GAD-7 score for anxiety was significantly increased in the readmission group (12.81 vs 9.20, P = .001) as was the average length of treatment from initial diagnosis to remission (168.09 vs 120.99 days, P = .002). All other initial screening tests were not different between the groups. When controlling for the independent variables by multiple logistic regression, the odds ratio for GAD-7 was 1.1156 (CI = 1.0.192 to 1.2212, P = .0177) and for days of treatment in CCM was 1.0123 (CI = 1.0041 to 1.0206, P = .0033). Patients who are readmitted to CCM for recurrent depression have a statistically increased risk of associated anxiety and a longer treatment course than those who have remained in remission for at least 4 months.

Postpartum depression (PPD) has emerged as an important issue for pediatricians and family practitioners because of detrimental effects on children. PPD occurs in 10% to 22% of women who have recently given birth, but fewer than half of cases are recognized. Despite the impact of PPD, many primary care clinicians do not have systemic screening approaches implemented. This paper will review the development of a screening protocol for PPD in a multispecialty clinic, with the implementation utilizing depression care managers and the preliminary results of our process. Of the 333 screened examinations during the 4-month study, 38.1% (n = 127) were performed for the 2-month well child examination; 33.6% (n = 112) were for the 4-month examination, with 28.2% (n = 94) being performed for the 6-month well child examination. Only 15 (4.5%) were positive for possible depression with a screening compliance rate of 47.9%. No significant difference was noted in the timing of the well child visit with a positive screening test result, nor was there any difference in family medicine versus pediatric colleagues in the utilization of the screening or diagnosis of PPD. Implementation of PPD screening in a multispecialty clinic can be effective, given utilization of depression care managers.

The collaborative care management (CCM) model has been demonstrated to be significantly more effective compared to usual care (UC) in depression management although an initial increase in cost measures was seen. In this paper, cost measures as well as clinical response were analyzed on patients with available follow-up data at six months. Records of 219 patients with follow-up data in CCM group and 119 in UC group were reviewed. At six months, there was a statistically significant clinical response rate among patients in CCM compared to UC group ( P < 0.0001). Likewise, 65% in CCM group was “symptom-free” at 6 months vs. 31.9% in UC group ( P < 0.0001). Among the responders in both groups, there was no statistical difference in cost measures. However, cost measures were significantly higher among non-responders compared to responders within CCM. Between the two models, the non-responders in UC had lower cost measures than the non-responders under CCM.

As medical providers seek new ways to control costs, online visits have begun to receive serious consideration. The purpose of this study was to compare the odds of being a cost outlier during a 6-month period after either an online visit or a standard drop-in visit 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 had an online visit ( N = 390) and a comparison group who had regular office care for same-day, acute visits ( N = 376). Case types were classified as either complex or common, with common being defined as treatment for pinkeye, sore throat, viral illness, bronchitis, or cough. Outliers were defined as patients for whom standard costs exceeded the 75 th percentile during a 6-month period after the index visit. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for differences between groups. The percentage of online visitors who were cost outliers was 21.2 (versus 28.5 in the standard visit group). Median standard costs were $161 for online visits and $219 for same-day acute visits. The adjusted odds of being a cost outlier was lower for the online visit group than for the standard visit group (odds ratio [OR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.35–0.77) after adjusting for number of visits in the previous 6 months, age, sex, and case type. Outpatient visits in the previous 6 months were positively related to outlier status (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.17–1.29). Online visits appeared to reduce medical costs for patients during a 6-month period after the visit. ( Population Health Management 2010;13:59–63)

A collaborative care model (CCM) has been implemented for management of depression. This paper studies the impact that the CCM had on cost measures for the period of six months after initial diagnosis of depression compared to patients receiving usual care (UC). There was a significant increase in the CPT costs for the six months following diagnosis in the CCM group ($451.35 vs. $323.50, P < 0.001). The average CPT cost rank and CPT cost differential were also significantly increased in the CCM group. The adjusted means of the CPT costs were (when controlling for prior utilization) $452.11 for the CCM group and $322.09 for UC (P < 0.001). In the CCM group; there were 161 patients (73.5%) that achieved a clinical response for their depression compared to the UC group, which had a 15.1% (18/119) response rate (P < 0.001). There also was a significant difference between the groups in those who were symptoms free of their depression (PHQ-9 score < 5), with the CCM having 59.4% of the patients symptom-free compared to 10.9% of the UC group (P < 0.001). In this group of patients, CCM is associated with markedly improved clinical outcomes for depression, however with a modest short-term increase in CPT costs.