Cambon Jesse, Cordier Tristan, Munnich Elizabeth L, Renda Andrew, Kapur Bobby, Hoxhaj Shkelzen, Williams Meredith
Analytics Consultant with Humana, Louisville, KY, during this study.
Principal Data Scientist, Humana.
Am Health Drug Benefits. 2018 Apr;11(2):86-94.
The impact of messaging campaigns on influencing urgent care- and emergent care-seeking behaviors, including the use of in-network providers, is not well-understood. Although out-of-network healthcare utilization can have negative financial consequences for patients in narrow network Affordable Care Act plans, individuals with time-sensitive medical conditions, and especially patients visiting the emergency department, may not think about out-of-network issues. Inappropriate or avoidable emergency department visits can also create unnecessary costs for patients.
To evaluate the impact of 5 messaging strategies to educate individuals about the use of in-network providers and when care should be sought in the emergency department, urgent care center, or other sites of care.
Using a retrospective analysis, individuals aged ≥18 years who were enrolled in an individually purchased Affordable Care Act-compliant Humana plan as of July 1, 2015, were randomized to 1 of 5 messaging arms (e-mail, magnet mailer with or without e-mail, and key-tag mailer with or without e-mail) or to a control group. The outreach was implemented and evaluated in 2 distinct, geographically defined populations of Orlando, Palm Beach, and Tampa, Florida (Population 1); and Atlanta, Georgia, and San Antonio and Austin, Texas (Population 2). The relative number of each emergency department, urgent care, and out-of-network visits during follow-up was modeled using negative binomial regression. Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate the risk for ≥1 of each visit type (assessed separately) and high emergency department utilization (defined as ≥3 visits during follow-up) relative to the control, while accounting for variable follow-up time.
The relative numbers of each visit type assessed were not significantly different for any message group compared with the control in either population. The risk for an emergency department visit was 4% lower in the e-mail arm of Population 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-0.99; = .005) and 7% lower in the e-mail/key-tag arm of Population 1 (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.97; = .001). The risk for high emergency department utilization was significantly reduced by the key-tag, magnet, and e-mail/key-tag strategies in Population 1, but no impact was found in Population 2.
Despite the mixed results, the study provides new insights into how different messaging strategies could be used to educate patients and influence healthcare utilization decisions by people with health insurance.
信息宣传活动对影响紧急护理和急诊护理寻求行为(包括使用网络内医疗机构)的作用尚未得到充分理解。尽管在窄网络的《平价医疗法案》计划中,使用网络外医疗服务可能会给患者带来负面的经济后果,但患有时间敏感型疾病的个体,尤其是前往急诊科就诊的患者,可能不会考虑网络外的问题。不适当或可避免的急诊科就诊也会给患者带来不必要的费用。
评估5种信息宣传策略对教育个体使用网络内医疗机构以及何时应在急诊科、紧急护理中心或其他护理场所寻求治疗的影响。
采用回顾性分析,将截至2015年7月1日参加个人购买的符合《平价医疗法案》的Humana计划且年龄≥18岁的个体随机分为5个信息宣传组之一(电子邮件组、有或无电子邮件的磁性邮件组、有或无电子邮件的钥匙扣邮件组)或对照组。在佛罗里达州奥兰多、棕榈滩和坦帕(人群1)以及佐治亚州亚特兰大、得克萨斯州圣安东尼奥和奥斯汀(人群2)这两个不同的、按地理位置划分的人群中实施并评估宣传活动。使用负二项回归模型对随访期间每个急诊科、紧急护理和网络外就诊的相对数量进行建模。使用Cox比例风险模型计算相对于对照组,每种就诊类型(分别评估)中≥1次就诊以及高急诊科利用率(定义为随访期间≥3次就诊)的风险,同时考虑可变的随访时间。
在两个人群中,与对照组相比,任何信息组评估的每种就诊类型的相对数量均无显著差异。在人群2的电子邮件组中,急诊科就诊风险降低了4%(风险比[HR],0.96;95%置信区间[CI],0.94 - 0.99;P = 0.005),在人群1的电子邮件/钥匙扣组中降低了7%(HR,0.93;95%CI,0.89 - 0.97;P = 0.001)。在人群1中,钥匙扣、磁性和电子邮件/钥匙扣策略显著降低了高急诊科利用率的风险,但在人群2中未发现影响。
尽管结果参差不齐,但该研究为如何利用不同的信息宣传策略教育患者并影响有医疗保险人群的医疗服务利用决策提供了新的见解。