Thanks to Rich Elmore at Heath Technology News for his recent coverage of Vermedx® and the recent studies showing its impact.
Rich does a great job covering both the business and health sides of HIT and his column is a must-read, always.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Cost savings from Vermedx® decision support
The American Journal of Managed Care has their web site back up, so here is the link to our new article:
The Vermedx® Diabetes Information System Reduces Healthcare Utilization
Benjamin Littenberg, MD; Charles D. MacLean, MDCM; Karl Zygarowski, BS; Barbara H. Drapola, RN; James A. Duncan, MD; and Clifford R. Frank, MHSA
Am J Manag Care. 2009;15(3):166-170
Published Online: March 16, 2009 - 12:00:07 AM (CDT)
It shows that the savings estimated in the NIH clinical trial of Vermedx® are confirmed in an analysis of managed care claims paid. I posted the abstract and a key figure Sunday. Here is the table showing the savings that are generated when patients are enrolled in the Vermedx® Diabetes Information System.
The Vermedx® Diabetes Information System Reduces Healthcare Utilization
Benjamin Littenberg, MD; Charles D. MacLean, MDCM; Karl Zygarowski, BS; Barbara H. Drapola, RN; James A. Duncan, MD; and Clifford R. Frank, MHSA
Am J Manag Care. 2009;15(3):166-170
Published Online: March 16, 2009 - 12:00:07 AM (CDT)
It shows that the savings estimated in the NIH clinical trial of Vermedx® are confirmed in an analysis of managed care claims paid. I posted the abstract and a key figure Sunday. Here is the table showing the savings that are generated when patients are enrolled in the Vermedx® Diabetes Information System.
Table 2: Net savings per patient as a function of duration of the VDIS program
Duration
(months)
Monthly
savings
Annual
Savings
Cumulative
savings
12
$80.96
$504.24
$504.24
24
$165.92
$1,523.76
$2,028.00
36
$250.88
$2,543.28
$4,571.28
48
$335.84
$3,562.80
$8,134.08
Savings are calculated net of the costs of the program.
For more information, please see www.Vermedx.com.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The Vermedx® Diabetes Information System Reduces Healthcare Utilization
The American Journal of Managed Care published our article last week. Unfortunately, their web site got hacked and the PDF is not yet available. However, here is the abstract and main figure to tide you over till the whole opus is downloadable.
The Vermedx® Diabetes Information System Reduces Healthcare Utilization
Benjamin Littenberg, MD; Charles D. MacLean, MDCM; Karl Zygarowski, BS; Barbara H. Drapola, RN, CCM, CPHQ; James A. Duncan, MD; and Clifford R. Frank, MHSA
Am J Manag Care March 2009;15(3)
Objective: To confirm the cost savings in a randomized clinical trial of the Vermedx Diabetes Information System (hereafter referred to as the Diabetes Information System [DIS]) in independently collected data using claims paid by a managed care insurer for patients with and without DIS participation.
Study Design: Longitudinal analysis of paid claims with concurrent and historical controls from October 2002 through October 2007.
Methods: Using locally weighted smoothing functions and linear regression analysis before and after commencement of the DIS, we compared the total claims paid per member per month for 153 patients using the DIS versus 870 control patients.
Results: For DIS patients, paid claims increased at a rate of $8.30 (95% confidence interval [CI], $1.12-$15.48) per month before the DIS started compared with −$3.92 (95% CI, −$9.50 to $1.67) after commencement of the DIS (P = .008). For control patients, the slope changed from $6.80 (95% CI, $3.78-$9.82) to $3.16 (95% CI, −$1.06 to $7.38) (P = .17). After commencement of the DIS, the slope of the claims in the DIS group is significantly lower than that of the control group (−$3.92 vs $3.16, P = .046). The mean estimated savings range from $504 per patient in year 1 of operations to $3563 in year 4. The cumulative net savings reach $8134 in 4 years.
Conclusions: Participation in the DIS is associated with substantial reductions in claims paid, net of the costs of the intervention. The cost savings reported in the randomized clinical trial of the DIS are reproduced in an independent data set.
The Vermedx® Diabetes Information System Reduces Healthcare Utilization
Benjamin Littenberg, MD; Charles D. MacLean, MDCM; Karl Zygarowski, BS; Barbara H. Drapola, RN, CCM, CPHQ; James A. Duncan, MD; and Clifford R. Frank, MHSA
Am J Manag Care March 2009;15(3)
Objective: To confirm the cost savings in a randomized clinical trial of the Vermedx Diabetes Information System (hereafter referred to as the Diabetes Information System [DIS]) in independently collected data using claims paid by a managed care insurer for patients with and without DIS participation.
Study Design: Longitudinal analysis of paid claims with concurrent and historical controls from October 2002 through October 2007.
Methods: Using locally weighted smoothing functions and linear regression analysis before and after commencement of the DIS, we compared the total claims paid per member per month for 153 patients using the DIS versus 870 control patients.
Results: For DIS patients, paid claims increased at a rate of $8.30 (95% confidence interval [CI], $1.12-$15.48) per month before the DIS started compared with −$3.92 (95% CI, −$9.50 to $1.67) after commencement of the DIS (P = .008). For control patients, the slope changed from $6.80 (95% CI, $3.78-$9.82) to $3.16 (95% CI, −$1.06 to $7.38) (P = .17). After commencement of the DIS, the slope of the claims in the DIS group is significantly lower than that of the control group (−$3.92 vs $3.16, P = .046). The mean estimated savings range from $504 per patient in year 1 of operations to $3563 in year 4. The cumulative net savings reach $8134 in 4 years.
Conclusions: Participation in the DIS is associated with substantial reductions in claims paid, net of the costs of the intervention. The cost savings reported in the randomized clinical trial of the DIS are reproduced in an independent data set.
Figure 1: Claims paid per member per month estimated by non-parametric locally weighted smoothing. The vertical line represents the start date for VDIS patients and a randomly chosen date for control patients.
Friday, March 13, 2009
IBM's "Google Earth for the Body"
IBM has a new interface idea for the medical record: a humanoid avatar. It's a 3D image of a human body, with the patient's data linked to the various body parts. Users click on the heart to get cardiac reports, the kidney to see renal information, etc. They tried it out in a Danish hospital and report good results.
On the face of it (actually, the pictures I saw had no face), its a really cool technology, bit its hard to see what problem its solving. Do doctors and nurses need that level of help organizing information? In my experience, anatomic thinking is not where we fall down. How can this technology help us see the systems and connections among the organs? The out-of-body factors (environment and interpersonal relationships) and microscopic forces (genes and proteins) that drive so much of health don't have an obvious place in this model.
One potential upside: it could be a great way to educate patients about their health.
What do you think about using this technology to improve care?
On the face of it (actually, the pictures I saw had no face), its a really cool technology, bit its hard to see what problem its solving. Do doctors and nurses need that level of help organizing information? In my experience, anatomic thinking is not where we fall down. How can this technology help us see the systems and connections among the organs? The out-of-body factors (environment and interpersonal relationships) and microscopic forces (genes and proteins) that drive so much of health don't have an obvious place in this model.
One potential upside: it could be a great way to educate patients about their health.
What do you think about using this technology to improve care?
Friday, January 30, 2009
ePrescribing Increases Errors
A recent report in the open-access journal BMC Biomedical Informatics and Decision Making describes the experience of 3 large pharmacies in Sweeden. They found, as have others, that a sizable fraction of prescriptions need clarification before they can be dispensed. "Clarification" means the pharmacist cannot safely and reliably fill the order without contacting the prescriber. This is a good practical definition of "error" in this setting. These errors represent re-work for the prescriber, delay in care for the patient, and increased costs to the system. Some of them also represent potentially dangerous actions that put the patient at risk for illness, injury or death.
One of the main reasons to change from hand-written prescriptions to ePrescribing is to reduce the need for clarifications and the errors they represent. Unfortunately, the Sweedish team found that ePrescriptions were substantially more likely to need clarification than the old-fashioned ones. 2.0% for the electronic scripts vs. 1.2% for the older type.
Many of the errors could be traced to lack of standardization across ePrescribing systems. The authors also called for more training of users. However, anytime a system requires extensive training, that means it has too many inherent failure modes. For ePrescribing to truly save lives and money, the interfaces to the users need to be intuitive, easy-to-use, and supportive of the user's tasks. Until then, ePrescribing, like Computerized-Provider-Order-Entry, will just be another failure mode.
One of the main reasons to change from hand-written prescriptions to ePrescribing is to reduce the need for clarifications and the errors they represent. Unfortunately, the Sweedish team found that ePrescriptions were substantially more likely to need clarification than the old-fashioned ones. 2.0% for the electronic scripts vs. 1.2% for the older type.
Many of the errors could be traced to lack of standardization across ePrescribing systems. The authors also called for more training of users. However, anytime a system requires extensive training, that means it has too many inherent failure modes. For ePrescribing to truly save lives and money, the interfaces to the users need to be intuitive, easy-to-use, and supportive of the user's tasks. Until then, ePrescribing, like Computerized-Provider-Order-Entry, will just be another failure mode.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Confidentiality concerns may delay health IT investment
According to Robert Pear in today's New York Times, a wrangle over the confidentiality of health information could delay a $20 billion federal investment in Health IT. Some of the proposals seem pretty smart, like outlawing the sale of health records without the patient's permission.
Others strike me as seriously flawed, such as not allowing the routine transfer of electronic health information for care of the patient without specific permission. (Although HIPPA does not require this permission for care, the early proposals did. Even now, many folks still believe that they cannot transfer medical records to the patient's doctor without a specific permission - causing endless delays, confusion, and rework.) If interpreted too strictly, we could be in the position of knowing some information that could improve a patient's health or even save a life, but be constrained from acting on it. Public Health IT, in particular, could be seriously compromised - think tracking infectious diseases, but not being able to tell patients who might have been exposed.
A more difficult proposal is to allow patients to segregate some of their medical records as too embarrassing to allow out even with the confidentiality rules used for general medical information. I can certainly understand that information related to mental health, sexual behavior, paternity and a host of other issues needs to be handled with care. However, I believe that 1) all health care information deserves that level of care and 2) mental health, in particular, has suffered as medicine's step-child due to assumptions that it is somehow "different" or "special." Bringing these issues into the medical fold may be very benficial, as it was for cancer and diabetes, which are no longer "shameful."
The problems of data security and confidentiality that have been widely publicized (leaking health records to the press, for instance) do call for action. However, the best action would be serious enforcement of laws and standards that currently exist, rather than an extensive re-write.
Others strike me as seriously flawed, such as not allowing the routine transfer of electronic health information for care of the patient without specific permission. (Although HIPPA does not require this permission for care, the early proposals did. Even now, many folks still believe that they cannot transfer medical records to the patient's doctor without a specific permission - causing endless delays, confusion, and rework.) If interpreted too strictly, we could be in the position of knowing some information that could improve a patient's health or even save a life, but be constrained from acting on it. Public Health IT, in particular, could be seriously compromised - think tracking infectious diseases, but not being able to tell patients who might have been exposed.
A more difficult proposal is to allow patients to segregate some of their medical records as too embarrassing to allow out even with the confidentiality rules used for general medical information. I can certainly understand that information related to mental health, sexual behavior, paternity and a host of other issues needs to be handled with care. However, I believe that 1) all health care information deserves that level of care and 2) mental health, in particular, has suffered as medicine's step-child due to assumptions that it is somehow "different" or "special." Bringing these issues into the medical fold may be very benficial, as it was for cancer and diabetes, which are no longer "shameful."
The problems of data security and confidentiality that have been widely publicized (leaking health records to the press, for instance) do call for action. However, the best action would be serious enforcement of laws and standards that currently exist, rather than an extensive re-write.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)