Jie Huang

Bio: Jie Huang is an academic researcher from Kaiser Permanente. The author has contributed to research in topics: Emergency department & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 23, co-authored 64 publications receiving 2117 citations. Previous affiliations of Jie Huang include Harvard University & Emory University.

Unintended Consequences of Caps on Medicare Drug Benefits

Abstract: Background Little information exists about the consequences of limits on prescription-drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries. Methods We compared the clinical and economic outcomes in 2003 among 157,275 Medicare+Choice beneficiaries whose annual drug benefits were capped at $1,000 and 41,904 beneficiaries whose drug benefits were unlimited because of employer supplements. Results After adjusting for individual characteristics, we found that subjects whose benefits were capped had pharmacy costs for drugs applicable to the cap that were lower by 31 percent than subjects whose benefits were not capped (95 percent confidence interval, 29 to 33 percent) but had total medical costs that were only 1 percent lower (95 percent confidence interval, −4 to 6 percent). Subjects whose benefits were capped had higher relative rates of visits to the emergency department (relative rate, 1.09 [95 percent confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.14]), nonelective hospitalizations (relative rate, 1.13 [1.05 to 1.21]), and death (re...

Patient Characteristics Associated With Choosing a Telemedicine Visit vs Office Visit With the Same Primary Care Clinicians.

Abstract: Importance Video or telephone telemedicine can offer patients access to a clinician without arranging for transportation or spending time in a waiting room, but little is known about patient characteristics associated with choosing between telemedicine or office visits Objective To examine patient characteristics associated with choosing a telemedicine visit vs office visit with the same primary care clinicians Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study included data from 1 131 722 patients who scheduled a primary care appointment through the Kaiser Permanente Northern California patient portal between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018 All completed primary care appointments booked via the patient portal were identified Only index visits without any other clinical visits within 7 days were included to define a relatively distinct patient-initiated care-seeking episode Visits for routine physical, which are not telemedicine-eligible, were excluded Data were analyzed from July 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019 Main Outcomes and Measures Patient choice between an office, video, or telephone visit Relative risk ratios (RRRs) for patient sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, neighborhood socioeconomic status, language preference), technology access (neighborhood residential internet, mobile portal use), visiting the patient’s own personal primary care clinician, and in-person visit barriers (travel-time, parking, cost-sharing), associated with choice of video or telephone telemedicine (vs office visit) Results Of 2 178 440 patient-scheduled primary care visits scheduled by 1 131 722 patients, 86% were scheduled as office visits and 14% as telemedicine visits, with 7% of the telemedicine visits by video Choosing telemedicine was statistically significantly associated with patient sociodemographic characteristics For example, patients aged 65 years and over were less likely than patients aged 18 to 44 years to choose telemedicine (RRR, 024; 95% CI, 022-026 for video visit; RRR 055; 95% CI, 054-057 for telephone visit) Choosing telemedicine was also statistically significantly associated with technology access (patients living in a neighborhood with high rates of residential internet access were more likely to choose a video visit than patients whose neighborhoods had low internet access: RRR, 110; 95% CI, 106-114); as well as in-person visit barriers (patients whose clinic had a paid parking structure were more likely to choose a telemedicine visit than patients whose facility had free parking: RRR, 170; 95% CI, 141-205 for video visit; and RRR, 173, 95% CI, 161-186 for telephone visit) Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study, patients usually chose an in-person visit when scheduling an appointment online through the portal Telemedicine may offer the potential to reach vulnerable patient groups and improve access for patients with transportation, parking, or cost barriers to clinic visits

Medication Adherence: Its Importance in Cardiovascular Outcomes

Abstract: Medication adherence usually refers to whether patients take their medications as prescribed (eg, twice daily), as well as whether they continue to take a prescribed medication. Medication nonadherence is a growing concern to clinicians, healthcare systems, and other stakeholders (eg, payers) because of mounting evidence that it is prevalent and associated with adverse outcomes and higher costs of care. To date, measurement of patient medication adherence and use of interventions to improve adherence are rare in routine clinical practice. The goals of the present report are to address (1) different methods of measuring adherence, (2) the prevalence of medication nonadherence, (3) the association between nonadherence and outcomes, (4) the reasons for nonadherence, and finally, (5) interventions to improve medication adherence.

Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America

Abstract: America's health care system has become too complex and costly to continue business as usual. Best Care at Lower Cost explains that inefficiencies, an overwhelming amount of data, and other economic and quality barriers hinder progress in improving health and threaten the nation's economic stability and global competitiveness. According to this report, the knowledge and tools exist to put the health system on the right course to achieve continuous improvement and better quality care at a lower cost.The costs of the system's current inefficiency underscore the urgent need for a systemwide transformation. About 30 percent of health spending in 2009--roughly $750 billion--was wasted on unnecessary services, excessive administrative costs, fraud, and other problems. Moreover, inefficiencies cause needless suffering. By one estimate, roughly 75,000 deaths might have been averted in 2005 if every state had delivered care at the quality level of the best performing state. This report states that the way health care providers currently train, practice, and learn new information cannot keep pace with the flood of research discoveries and technological advances.About 75 million Americans have more than one chronic condition, requiring coordination among multiple specialists and therapies, which can increase the potential for miscommunication, misdiagnosis, potentially conflicting interventions, and dangerous drug interactions. Best Care at Lower Cost emphasizes that a better use of data is a critical element of a continuously improving health system, such as mobile technologies and electronic health records that offer significant potential to capture and share health data better. In order for this to occur, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, IT developers, and standard-setting organizations should ensure that these systems are robust and interoperable. Clinicians and care organizations should fully adopt these technologies, and patients should be encouraged to use tools, such as personal health information portals, to actively engage in their care.This book is a call to action that will guide health care providers; administrators; caregivers; policy makers; health professionals; federal, state, and local government agencies; private and public health organizations; and educational institutions.

Prescription drug cost sharing: associations with medication and medical utilization and spending and health.

Abstract: ContextPrescription drugs are instrumental to managing and preventing chronic disease. Recent changes in US prescription drug cost sharing could affect access to them.ObjectiveTo synthesize published evidence on the associations among cost-sharing features of prescription drug benefits and use of prescription drugs, use of nonpharmaceutical services, and health outcomes.Data SourcesWe searched PubMed for studies published in English between 1985 and 2006.Study Selection and Data ExtractionAmong 923 articles found in the search, we identified 132 articles examining the associations between prescription drug plan cost-containment measures, including co-payments, tiering, or coinsurance (n = 65), pharmacy benefit caps or monthly prescription limits (n = 11), formulary restrictions (n = 41), and reference pricing (n = 16), and salient outcomes, including pharmacy utilization and spending, medical care utilization and spending, and health outcomes.ResultsIncreased cost sharing is associated with lower rates of drug treatment, worse adherence among existing users, and more frequent discontinuation of therapy. For each 10% increase in cost sharing, prescription drug spending decreases by 2% to 6%, depending on class of drug and condition of the patient. The reduction in use associated with a benefit cap, which limits either the coverage amount or the number of covered prescriptions, is consistent with other cost-sharing features. For some chronic conditions, higher cost sharing is associated with increased use of medical services, at least for patients with congestive heart failure, lipid disorders, diabetes, and schizophrenia. While low-income groups may be more sensitive to increased cost sharing, there is little evidence to support this contention.ConclusionsPharmacy benefit design represents an important public health tool for improving patient treatment and adherence. While increased cost sharing is highly correlated with reductions in pharmacy use, the long-term consequences of benefit changes on health are still uncertain.

Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries

Abstract: The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.

Trends in the Use of Telehealth During the Emergence of the COVID-19 Pandemic - United States, January-March 2020.

Abstract: In February 2020, CDC issued guidance advising persons and health care providers in areas affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to adopt social distancing practices, specifically recommending that health care facilities and providers offer clinical services through virtual means such as telehealth.* Telehealth is the use of two-way telecommunications technologies to provide clinical health care through a variety of remote methods.† To examine changes in the frequency of use of telehealth services during the early pandemic period, CDC analyzed deidentified encounter (i.e., visit) data from four of the largest U.S. telehealth providers that offer services in all states.§ Trends in telehealth encounters during January-March 2020 (surveillance weeks 1-13) were compared with encounters occurring during the same weeks in 2019. During the first quarter of 2020, the number of telehealth visits increased by 50%, compared with the same period in 2019, with a 154% increase in visits noted in surveillance week 13 in 2020, compared with the same period in 2019. During January-March 2020, most encounters were from patients seeking care for conditions other than COVID-19. However, the proportion of COVID-19-related encounters significantly increased (from 5.5% to 16.2%; p<0.05) during the last 3 weeks of March 2020 (surveillance weeks 11-13). This marked shift in practice patterns has implications for immediate response efforts and longer-term population health. Continuing telehealth policy changes and regulatory waivers might provide increased access to acute, chronic, primary, and specialty care during and after the pandemic.