Health systems rely on commercial prediction algorithms to identify and help patients with complex health needs. We show that a widely used algorithm, typical of this industry-wide approach and affecting millions of patients, exhibits significant racial bias: At a given risk score, Black patients are considerably sicker than White patients, as evidenced by signs of uncontrolled illnesses. Remedying this disparity would increase the percentage of Black patients receiving additional help from 17.7 to 46.5%. The bias arises because the algorithm predicts health care costs rather than illness, but unequal access to care means that we spend less money caring for Black patients than for White patients. Thus, despite health care cost appearing to be an effective proxy for health by some measures of predictive accuracy, large racial biases arise. We suggest that the choice of convenient, seemingly effective proxies for ground truth can be an important source of algorithmic bias in many contexts.

/pdf/dissecting-racial-bias-in-an-algorithm-used-to-manage-the-3w9n49km45.pdf

Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations

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.

Medication Adherence: Its Importance in Cardiovascular Outcomes

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.

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

In the United States, approximately 14 million people have had cancer and more than 1.6 million new cases are diagnosed each year. However, more than a decade after the Institute of Medicine (IOM) first studied the quality of cancer care, the barriers to achieving excellent care for all cancer patients remain daunting. Care often is not patient-centered, many patients do not receive palliative care to manage their symptoms and side effects from treatment, and decisions about care often are not based on the latest scientific evidence. The cost of cancer care also is rising faster than many sectors of medicine--having increased to $125 billion in 2010 from $72 billion in 2004--and is projected to reach $173 billion by 2020. Rising costs are making cancer care less affordable for patients and their families and are creating disparities in patients' access to high-quality cancer care. There also are growing shortages of health professionals skilled in providing cancer care, and the number of adults age 65 and older--the group most susceptible to cancer--is expected to double by 2030, contributing to a 45 percent increase in the number of people developing cancer. The current care delivery system is poorly prepared to address the care needs of this population, which are complex due to altered physiology, functional and cognitive impairment, multiple coexisting diseases, increased side effects from treatment, and greater need for social support. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis presents a conceptual framework for improving the quality of cancer care. This study proposes improvements to six interconnected components of care: (1) engaged patients; (2) an adequately staffed, trained, and coordinated workforce; (3) evidence-based care; (4) learning health care information technology (IT); (5) translation of evidence into clinical practice, quality measurement and performance improvement; and (6) accessible and affordable care. This report recommends changes across the board in these areas to improve the quality of care. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis provides information for cancer care teams, patients and their families, researchers, quality metrics developers, and payers, as well as HHS, other federal agencies, and industry to reevaluate their current roles and responsibilities in cancer care and work together to develop a higher quality care delivery system. By working toward this shared goal, the cancer care community can improve the quality of life and outcomes for people facing a cancer diagnosis.

/pdf/delivering-high-quality-cancer-care-charting-a-new-course-2u1fq5ml3k.pdf

Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis

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.

/pdf/prescription-drug-cost-sharing-associations-with-medication-3gkob0unzd.pdf

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

OBJECTIVES
The study examined a commercial accountable care organization (ACO) population and then assessed the impact of an integrated care management program on medical spending and clinical event rates.


STUDY DESIGN
Retrospective cohort study of high-risk individuals (n = 487) in a population of 365,413 individuals aged 18 to 64 years within the Mass General Brigham health system who were part of commercial ACO contracts with 3 large insurers between 2015 and 2019.


METHODS
Using medical spending claims and other enrollment data, the study assessed the demographic and clinical characteristics, medical spending, and clinical event rates of patients in the ACO and its high-risk care management program. The study then examined the impact of the program using a staggered difference-in-difference design with individual-level fixed effects and compared outcomes of those who had entered the program with those of similar patients who had not entered.


RESULTS
The commercially insured ACO population was healthy on average but included several hundred high-risk patients (n = 487). After adjustment, patients within the ACO's integrated care management program for high-risk patients had lower monthly medical spending (by $1361 per person per month) as well as lower emergency department visit and hospitalization rates compared with similar patients who had yet to start the program. Accounting for early ACO departure decreased the magnitude of the program effects as expected.


CONCLUSIONS
Commercial ACO populations may be healthy on average but still include some high-risk patients. Identifying which patients might benefit from more intensive care management could be critical for reaping the potential savings.

Tacking upwind: reducing spending among high-risk commercially insured patients.

The elderly account for the majority of medical spending in many countries, raising concerns about potentially unnecessary spending, especially during the final months of life. Using a well-defined starting point (hospitalization for an initial acute myocardial infarction) with evidence-based postevent treatments, we examined age trends in treatments in the US and Norway, two countries with high levels of per capita medical spending. After accounting for comorbidities, we found marked decreases within both countries in the use of invasive treatments with age (for example, less use of percutaneous coronary interventions and surgery) and the use of relatively inexpensive medications (for example, less use of anticholesterol [statin] drugs for which generic versions are widely available). The treatment decreases with age were larger in Norway compared with those in the US. The less frequent treatment of the oldest of the old, without even use of basic medications, suggests potential age-related bias and a disconnect with the evidence on treatment value. Hospital organization and payment in both countries should incentivize greater equity in treatment use across ages.

Myocardial Infarction Care Among The Elderly: Declining Treatment With Increasing Age In Two Countries.

In 2021 the American Rescue Plan Act increased premium subsidies for people purchasing insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplaces and provided zero-premium Marketplace plans that covered 94 percent of medical care costs (silver 94 plans) to recipients of unemployment compensation. Using data on adult enrollees in on- and off-Marketplace individual plans in California in 2021, we found that 41 percent reported incomes at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level and that 39 percent reported living in households receiving unemployment compensation. Overall, 72 percent of enrollees reported having no difficulty paying premiums, and 76 percent reported that out-of-pocket expenses did not affect their seeking of medical care. The majority of enrollees eligible for plans with cost-sharing subsidies were enrolled in Marketplace silver plans (56-58 percent). Many of these enrollees, however, may have missed opportunities for premium or cost-sharing subsidies: 6-8 percent enrolled in off-Marketplace plans and were more likely to have difficulty paying premiums than those in Marketplace silver plans, and more than one-quarter enrolled in Marketplace bronze plans and were more likely to delay care because of cost than those in Marketplace silver plans. In the coming era of expanded Marketplace subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, helping consumers identify high-value and subsidy-eligible plans could mitigate remaining affordability problems.

Mary Price

Papers

Tacking upwind: reducing spending among high-risk commercially insured patients.

Myocardial Infarction Care Among The Elderly: Declining Treatment With Increasing Age In Two Countries.

The Affordability Of Individual-Market Health Insurance In California Under The American Rescue Plan Act, 2021.