Search

IMPORTANCE: Many organizations are adopting intensive outpatient care programs for high-need patients, yet little is known about their effectiveness in integrated systems with established patient-centered medical homes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how augmenting the Veterans Affairs (VA) medical home (Patient Aligned Care Teams [PACT]) with an Intensive Management program (ImPACT) influences high-need patients’ costs, health care utilization, and experience. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized clinical trial at a single VA facility. Among 583 eligible high-need outpatients whose health care costs or hospitalization risk were in the top 5% for the facility, 150 were randomly selected for ImPACT; the remaining 433 received standard PACT care. INTERVENTIONS: The ImPACT multidisciplinary team addressed health care needs and quality of life through comprehensive patient assessments, intensive case management, care coordination, and social and recreational services. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary difference-in-difference analyses examined changes in health care costs and acute and extended care utilization over a 16-month baseline and 17-month follow-up period. Secondary analyses estimated the intervention’s effect on ImPACT participants (using randomization as an instrument) and for patients with key sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. ImPACT participants’ satisfaction and activation levels were assessed using responses to quality improvement surveys administered at baseline and 6 months. RESULTS: Of 140 patients assigned to ImPACT, 96 (69%) engaged in the program (mean [SD] age, 68.3 [14.2] years; 89 [93%] male; mean [SD] number of chronic conditions, 10 [4]; 62 [65%] had a mental health diagnosis; 21 [22%] had a history of homelessness). After accounting for program costs, adjusted person-level monthly health care expenditures decreased similarly for ImPACT and PACT patients (difference-in-difference [SE] −$101 [$623]), as did acute and extended care utilization rates. Among respondents to the ImPACT follow-up survey (n = 54 [56% response rate]), 52 (96%) reported that they would recommend the program to others, and pre-post analyses revealed modest increases in satisfaction with VA care (mean [SD] increased from 2.90 [0.72] to 3.16 [0.60]; P = .04) and communication (mean [SD] increased from 2.99 [0.74] to 3.18 [0.60]; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Intensive outpatient care for high-need patients did not reduce acute care utilization or costs compared with standard VA care, although there were positive effects on experience among patients who participated. Implementing intensive outpatient care programs in integrated settings with well-established medical homes may not prevent hospitalizations or achieve substantial cost savings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02932228

Ethical conflicts are commonly encountered in the course of delivering end-of-life care in the ICU. Some ethical concerns have legal dimensions, including concerns about inappropriate hastening of death. Despite these concerns, many ICUs do not have explicit policies and procedures for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments. We describe a US Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigation of end-of-life care practices in our ICU. The investigation focused on care delivered to four critically ill patients with terminal diseases and an ICU nurse's concern that the patients had been subjected to euthanasia. The OIG investigation also assessed the validity of allegations that patient flow in and out of our ICU was inappropriately influenced by scheduled surgeries and that end-of-life care policies in our ICU were not clear. Although the investigation did not substantiate the allegations of euthanasia or inappropriate ICU patient flow, it did find that the policies that discuss end-of-life care issues were not clear and allowed for wide-ranging interpretations.

Objectives: The purpose of this cohort study was to evaluate measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), and varicella immunity among a population of adult employees receiving primary care in an employer-sponsored health center.Methods: Participants were eligible for MMR and varicella immunity screening if they were an employee receiving primary care in an employer-sponsored health center between January 1, 2019 and November 1, 2020 who could not provide proof of immunization and 1) had it recommended by their provider, 2) specifically requested immunity testing (often because they had heard of measles outbreaks in their country of origin), or 3) were seen for an immigration physical for their Green Card application.Results: Overall, 3494 patients were screened for their MMR immunity. Of these, 3057 were also screened for varicella immunity. Among these patients, 13.9% lacked measles immunity, 0.83% lacked immunity to all 3 components of MMR, and 13.2% lacked varicella immunity. Among the 262 patients who presented specifically for immunity screening, the rates of lacking immunity were higher for all conditions: 22.7% lacked measles immunity and 9.2% lacked varicella immunity.Conclusion: Given declines in immunizations during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is reason to be concerned that measles and varicella-associated morbidity and mortality may rise. Employers, especially those with large foreign-born populations or who require international travel may want to educate their populations about common contagious illnesses and offer immunity validation or vaccinations at no or low cost.