Currently Viewing:
The American Journal of Managed Care January 2014
Patient-Centered Medical Home Transformation With Payment Reform: Patient Experience Outcomes
Leonie Heyworth, MD, MPH; Asaf Bitton, MD, MPH; Stuart R. Lipsitz, ScD; Thad Schilling, MD, MPH; Gordon D. Schiff, MD; David W. Bates, MD, MSc; and Steven R. Simon, MD, MPH
Process of Care Compliance Is Associated With Fewer Diabetes Complications
Felicia J. Bayer, PhD; Deron Galusha, MS; Martin Slade, MPH; Isabella M. Chu, MPH; Oyebode Taiwo, MBBS, MPH; and Mark R. Cullen, MD
Evidence-Based Guidelines to Determine Follow-up Intervals: A Call for Action
Emilia Javorsky, MPH; Amanda Robinson, MD; and Alexa Boer Kimball, MD, MPH
Currently Reading
Electronic Health Risk Assessment Adoption in an Integrated Healthcare System
Diana S. M. Buist, PhD, MPH; Nora Knight Ross, MA; Robert J. Reid, MD, PhD; and David C. Grossman, MD, MPH
The Effects of Federal Parity on Substance Use Disorder Treatment
Susan H. Busch, PhD; Andrew J. Epstein, PhD; Michael O. Harhay, MPH; David A. Fiellin, MD; Hyong Un, MD; Deane Leader Jr, DBA, MBA; and Colleen L. Barry, PhD, MPP
Evaluation of Electronic Medical Record Administrative Data Linked Database (EMRALD)
Karen Tu, MD, MSc; Tezeta F. Mitiku, BSc, MSc; Noah M. Ivers, MD; Helen Guo, BSc, MSc; Hong Lu, PhD; Liisa Jaakkimainen, MD, MSc; Doug G. Kavanagh, BSEng, MD; Douglas S. Lee, MD, PhD; and Jack V. Tu, MD, PhD
Specialist Participation in Healthcare Delivery Transformation: Influence of Patient Self-Referral
Oluseyi Aliu, MD, MS; Gordon Sun, MD, MS; James Burke, MD, MS; Kevin C. Chung, MD, MS; and Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP
Optimal Management of Diabetes Among Overweight and Obese Adults
Denison S. Ryan, MPH; Karen J. Coleman, PhD, MS; Jean M. Lawrence, ScD, MPH, MSSA; Teresa N. Harrison, SM; and Kristi Reynolds, PhD, MPH
Why Are Medicare and Commercial Insurance Spending Weakly Correlated?
Laurence C. Baker, PhD; M. Kate Bundorf, PhD; and Daniel P. Kessler, JD, PhD

Electronic Health Risk Assessment Adoption in an Integrated Healthcare System

Diana S. M. Buist, PhD, MPH; Nora Knight Ross, MA; Robert J. Reid, MD, PhD; and David C. Grossman, MD, MPH
Significant additional outreach and engagement strategies and incentives are likely required to increase adoption and ongoing use of health risk assessment tools among target populations.
The eHRA completers were more likely than noncompleters to be female (64.6% vs 56.9%), to be middle-aged (41- 65 years, 64.3%  vs 59.2%), and to have had a well-care visit (31.3% vs 27.7%). Based on comparisons from the Wellness Inventory, there  as no difference between completers and Group Health members as a whole in health status, body mass  index, physical activity,  or diabetes; in contrast, completers were less likely to be current smokers (8.1% vs 15.7%28), have depression (15.2% vs  3.1%28), or have hypertension (17.8% vs 27.3%28).

The majority of respondents indicated their health was good (37.0%), very good (39.3%), or excellent (13.1%) (Table 2).  Approximately one-third of respondents fell into each body mass index category. One in 5 (21.8%) reported they were physically inactive. Fewer than 10% (8.1%) were current smokers or had a moderate (4.8%) or high (0.6%) Alcohol Use Disorders Identification  est score. Diabetes was  reported by 7.6% of the respondents. Just over 15% reported being depressed; among  hese, 53.8% had mild, 24.5% moderate, and 21.0% severe depression. Hypertension was slightly more prevalent (17.8%), with  41.0% having poor control (>140/90 mm Hg or >130/80 mm Hg with diabetes).

Time to eHRA Completion

Among individuals who completed any eHRA during the study period, 17% had completed it within 3 months of its implementation, 4% within 9 months, and 66% within 15 months (Figure). A minority (17.6%) of completers completed 2 or more eHRAs.

DISCUSSION

The eHRA uptake rate was slow but reasonably constant over implementation and resulted in just over 20% of individuals with  registered Web portal access completing the eHRA over a 31-month period (8.8% of all potentially enrolled and eligible subjects). Understanding whether individuals who complete eHRAs are representative of underlying populations is relevant for several reasons. First, if eHRAs are to be used to characterize the health status of enrolled populations, it is important to understand how individuals who complete these assessments differ from those who do not; without this knowledge, health systems could make a biased  assessment of the health status of their covered populations and could poorly target resources. Second, understanding selection  factors for completion will be critical for assessing whether use of these tools leads to improved health outcomes and population health. Finally, characterizing individuals who do not complete these tools provides an opportunity for reaching broader audiences for higher completion rates.

Consistent with prior literature,29 we found that women, middle-aged individuals, and individuals with recent well-care visits and fewer  omorbid conditions were most likely to complete the assessment. Possible reasons for these findings are that younger people tend to be in good health and less concerned about their health status,30 while older people may feel that significant   improvements in health outcomes are not possible in the late stages of life.31 Or this finding may reflect patients’ interest in properly managing their risk factors.32

During the study period, Group Health members had to carry out a 2-step process to complete their eHRA: first they had to sign up to use the secure Web patient portal and then  they had to sign onto the website to complete their questionnaire. Also at the time of  this study, the eHRA was only available in English, potentially limiting access for those with other primary languages. The  additional steps required to complete the eHRA could have further influenced the profile of completers, but appeared to have little  ssociation with who completed the eHRA among potentially eligible respondents. Despite these additional steps required to complete the eHRA, there were only a few notable differences in the prevalence of conditions and lifestyle risks between completers and Group Health members in general.28

The eHRA represents an innovation in preventive care because it uses self-reported data on health risks and chronic condition management to provide recommendations that are shared with the patients and their providers and healthcare teams by integrating information from the Web portal with the EMR. Paper HRAs or eHRAs can be used to assist with clinical management by providers  and population management by medical groups and health plans; they also can be used by employers to improve population health.  Risk stratification of populations requires comprehensive diagnostic information, which includes integrating information from  diagnoses, laboratory values, pharmacy fills, and prior use patterns. For HRAs to improve population health, there needs to be broad uptake by patients to augment the medical record data with self-reported data and their use needs to be tied to patient and provider action that leads to improved outcomes.

Though eHRAs are not a new concept in clinical preventive care, their use has not taken root systematically in most healthcare systems. Health risk assessments have been used extensively by employers as part of worksite wellness programs to promote  health risk reductions among employees. The Community Preventive Services Task Force endorses the use of eHRAs as part of  these programs.15,33 In 2012, as part of new guidance regarding the requirements for annual wellness visits,16 the CMS has  stipulated that a comprehensive HRA should be offered as a routine part of covered annual wellness visits for all Medicare beneficiaries. However, little is known about the characteristics of people who voluntarily complete these assessments and how they differ from the characteristics of people who do not. It is an important priority to evaluate the types of additional training and   resources that are needed by healthcare teams and systems to use HRAs to improve patient outcomes needs. Another high priority is to examine whether HRAs can provide actionable information for healthcare teams to improve health outcomes through patient action and provider engagement.

Financial incentives have been shown to improve uptake of risk assessment tools in worksite settings, but far less is known about  the role of incentives in delivery systems.34 We found the clinics with the highest response rates used direct outreach from the  physician’s office (telephone or e-mail) to patients, requesting completion of the eHRA as part of clinical care and population  management. Most of the individuals completed their first eHRA in the fourth quarter of 2006 and the third quarter of 2007, as the result of special promotions by Group Health Cooperative. The first peak (3-5 months after implementation) corresponded to the introduction of the Health Profile Questionnaire within Group Health staff. The second peak (13-15 months) corresponded to a clinic-level contest giving extra incentives for completing questionnaires. While these types of incentives may increase uptake, it is unknown whether increasing uptake alone will lead to improved receipt of preventive services and improved overall outcomes. 

CONCLUSION

Significant additional outreach, engagement strategies, and incentives are likely required by health systems to increase adoption  and ongoing use of an eHRA among target populations. Among patients in an integrated health system, the demographic and health risk profile of early eHRA adopters (completers) was primarily characterized by age and sex, a recent well-care visit, and fewer comorbid conditions. These types of risk assessment tools have the potential to address and integrate the interests of  patients and other stakeholders, including employers, clinical teams, and health plans, as long as they can provide actionable information for patients and healthcare teams with linkages to effective programs to mitigate health risks. Future research on the uptake of risk assessment tools in primary care should also address whether the use of these tools leads to increased uptake of activities that improve health outcomes in moderate-risk and high-risk individuals.

Author Affiliations: From Group Health Cooperative (DSMB, NKR, RJR, DCG), Seattle, WA.

Funding Source: Data collection was supported by the Group Health Research Institute’s Development Fund.

Author Disclosures: The authors (DSMB, NKR, RJR, DCG) report no relationship or financial interest with any entity that would pose a conflict of interest with the subject matter of this article.

Authorship Information: Concept and design (DSMB, NKR, RJR, DCG); analysis and interpretation of data (DSMB, NKR, RJR, DCG); drafting of the manuscript (DSMB, NKR); critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content (DSMB, NKR, RJR, DCG); statistical analysis (NKR); obtaining funding (DSMB, NKR, RJR, DCG); and supervision (DSMB, RJR).

Address correspondence to: Diana S. M. Buist, PhD, MPH, Group Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Ave, Ste 1600, Seattle, WA 98101. E-mail: buist.d@ghc.org.
1. Powers KA, Rehrig ST, Jones DB. Financial impact of obesity and bariatric surgery. Med Clin North Am. 2007;91(3):321-338, ix.

2. Maciejewski ML, Smith VA, Livingston EH, et al. Health care utilization and expenditure changes associated with bariatric surgery. Med Care. 2010;48(11):989-998.

3. Daviglus ML, Liu K, Yan LL, et al. Relation of body mass index in young adulthood and middle age to Medicare expenditures in older age. JAMA. 2004;292(22):2743-2749.

4. Pan SY, DesMeules M. Energy intake, physical activity, energy balance, and cancer: epidemiologic evidence. Methods Mol Biol. 2009;472:191-215.

5. Pronk NP, Goodman MJ, O’Connor PJ, Martinson BC. Relationship between modifiable health risks and short-term health care charges. JAMA. 1999;282(23):2235-2239.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chronic diseases and health promotion. http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/overview/index .htm#1. Updated August 13, 2012. Accessed August 28, 2012.

7. Cawley J, Meyerhoefer C. The medical care costs of obesity: an instrumental variables approach. J Health Econ. 2012;31(1):219-230.

8. American Diabetes Association, National Institute of Diabetes,Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes  [published correction appears in Diabetes Care. 2002;25(5):947].Diabetes Care. 2002;25(4):742-749.

9. Vila PM, Booske BC, Wegner MV, Remington PL. Preventable causes of death in Wisconsin, 2004. WMJ. 2007;106(7):373-379.

10. Clark CM, Fradkin JE, Hiss RG, Lorenz RA, Vinicor F, Warren-Boulton E. Promoting early diagnosis and treatment of type 2 diabetes: the National Diabetes Education Program. JAMA. 2000;284(3):363-365.

11. Mayo Clinic Health Solutions. Mayo Clinic Health Assessment: Overview. http://www.mayoclinichealthsolutions.com/products/Health-Assessment.cfm. Published 2010. Accessed October 1, 2011.

12. RAND Corporation. Evidence Report and Evidence-Based Recommendations: Health Risk Appraisals and Medicare. http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/2007/RAND_RP1225.pdf. Published 2003. Accessed October 1, 2011.

13. Rubenstein L, Shekelle PG, Tucker JS, et al. Health Risk Appraisals and Medicare. Evidence Report prepared for the US Department of Health and Human Services. Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 2003. Contract 500-98-0281.

14. Anderson DR, Staufacker MJ. The impact of worksite-based health risk appraisal on health-related outcomes: a review of the literature. Am J Health Promot. 1996;10(6):499-508.

15. Soler RE, Leeks KD, Razi S, et al; Task Force on Community Preventive Services. A systematic review of selected interventions for worksite health promotion: the assessment of health risks with feedback. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(2)(suppl):S237-S262.

16. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Program; Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2012. Report CMS-1524-P. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC. http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/ERxIncentive/downloads/2012_NPRM_PFS_Proposed_Rule508.pdf. Published July 19, 2011. Accessed August 28, 2012.

17. Nelson EC, Hvitfeldt H, Reid R, et al. Using Patient-Reported Information to Improve Health Outcomes and Health Care Value: Case Studies from Dartmouth, Karolinska, and Group Health. Lebanon, NH: The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth-Hitchcock, Group Health Research Institute, Karolinska Institute; 2012.

18. Group Health Cooperative. Group Health website. http://www.ghc.org/. Published 2012. Accessed June 1, 2012.

19. Ralston JD, Carrell D, Reid R, Anderson M, Moran M, Hereford J. Patient web services integrated with a shared medical record: patient use and satisfaction. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(6):798-806.

20. Fishman PA, Goodman MJ, Hornbrook MC, Meenan RT, Bachman DJ, O’Keeffe Rosetti MC. Risk adjustment using automated ambulatory pharmacy data: the RxRisk model. Med Care. 2003;41(1):84-99.

21. Group Health Cooperative. Group Health Clinical Guidelines. http://www.ghc.org/healthAndWellness/?item=/common/healthAndWellness/careDecisions/yourCare/guidelines.html. Published 2012. Accessed July 11, 2012.

22. McDowell I. Single item health indicators. In: Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2006:578-587.

23. International Physical Activity Questionnaire. International Physical Activity Questionnaire website. https://sites.google.com/site/theipaq/home. Published 2011. Accessed October 1, 2011.

24. Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle JC, Saunders JB, Monteiro MG. AUDIT: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, Department of Mental Health and Substance Dependence; 2001.

25. Bohn MJ, Babor TF, Kranzler HR. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification  Test (AUDIT): validation of a screening instrument for use in medical settings. J Stud Alcohol. 1995;56(4):423-432.

26. World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health. http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/en/index.html. Published 2011. Accessed July 11, 2012.

27. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606-613.

28. Reid RJ. The Group Health Wellness Initiative: a Final Report to the Group Health Community Foundation. Seattle, WA: Group Health Cooperative Center for Health Studies; 2007.

29. Bower JA, Saadat MA, Whitten C. Effect of liking, information and consumer characteristics on purchase intention and willingness to pay more for a fat spread with a proven health benefit. Food Qual Prefer. 2003;14:65-74.

30. Pollay RW. Targeting youth and concerned smokers: evidence from Canadian tobacco industry documents. Tob Control. 2000;9(2):136-147.

31. Phillips EM, Schneider JC, Mercer GR. Motivating elders to initiate  and maintain exercise. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(7)(suppl 3):S52-S57.

32. Lindsey E. Health within illness: experiences of chronically ill/ disabled people. J Adv Nurs. 1996;24(3):465-472.

33. Guide to Community Preventive Services. Assessment of Health Risks With Feedback to Change Employees’ Health. http://www.thecommunityguide.org/worksite/ahrf.html. Last updated December 3, 2011. Accessed July 11, 2012.

34. Galbraith J. Designing the Innovating Organization. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Effective Organizations; 1999.
PDF
 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2019 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up