Search

BACKGROUND: The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) has been translated into digital formats. We report an economic evaluation of a digital DPP implemented in a large, integrated health care system. METHODS: Patients (n = 4148) were invited to participate in digital DPP based on clinical characteristics (HbA1c 5.7%-6.4% and body mass index = 30 kg/m2) assessed using electronic medical record data. Using a propensity score we matched (1:1) enrolled and not enrolled patients for a total of 784. We identified high-risk patients (ie, above the 50th percentile of risk; n = 202) by calculating each patient's 2-year of developing diabetes. We report the cost of the intervention and the costs of medical care over 12- and 24-month follow-up, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the cost per additional kilogram weight loss at 24 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, enrolled patients had lower total costs ($6,926, 95% CI $5,681-$8,171) than not enrolled patients ($7,538, 95% CI $6,293-$8,783). This pattern attenuated slightly at 24 months (enrolled = $16,255, 95% CI $14,097-$18,412; not enrolled = $16,688, 95% CI $14,531-$18,846). We found an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $81.92 per additional kilogram weight loss. For high-risk patients, the digital DPP group had, on average, lower costs and greater weight loss. We found a 55% chance of the digital DPP program being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $150 per additional kilogram of weight loss; at the same willingness-to-pay, there is a 60% chance in the high-risk subgroup. Limitations include the nonrandomized design and potential volunteer bias. CONCLUSION: Digital DPP had a favorable cost-effectiveness profile compared to other lifestyle interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this natural experiment study was to assess the effectiveness of a 12-month digital Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) for adults aged 65–75 years with prediabetes and obesity within a large, integrated health care system. Adjusting for propensity scores and covariates, patients who enrolled and participated in the digital DPP had a mean weight loss of 8.6 lb over 12 months and 5.7 lb by 24 months, compared with a steady, minimal weight loss of 1.3 lb over 12 months and 2.8 lb by 24 months among patients not enrolled. There was a significant difference in mean change in A1C between enrolled and nonenrolled patients over 12 months (−0.10%), but not by 24 months (−0.06%). Digital DPP appears to be an effective weight loss option and potential diabetes prevention intervention for older adults at high risk for type 2 diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic pain is common, disabling, and costly. Few clinical trials have examined cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions embedded in primary care settings to improve chronic pain among those receiving long-term opioid therapy.Objective: To determine the effectiveness of a group-based CBT intervention for chronic pain.Design: Pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02113592).Setting: Kaiser Permanente health care systems in Georgia, Hawaii, and the Northwest.Participants: Adults (aged ≥18 years) with mixed chronic pain conditions receiving long-term opioid therapy.Intervention: A CBT intervention teaching pain self-management skills in 12 weekly, 90-minute groups delivered by an interdisciplinary team (behaviorist, nurse, physical therapist, and pharmacist) versus usual care.Measurements: Self-reported pain impact (primary outcome, as measured by the PEGS scale [pain intensity and interference with enjoyment of life, general activity, and sleep]) was assessed quarterly over 12 months. Pain-related disability, satisfaction with care, and opioid and benzodiazepine use based on electronic health care data were secondary outcomes.Results: A total of 850 patients participated, representing 106 clusters of primary care providers (mean age, 60.3 years; 67.4% women); 816 (96.0%) completed follow-up assessments. Intervention patients sustained larger reductions on all self-reported outcomes from baseline to 12-month follow-up; the change in PEGS score was -0.434 point (95% CI, -0.690 to -0.178 point) for pain impact, and the change in pain-related disability was -0.060 point (CI, -0.084 to -0.035 point). At 6 months, intervention patients reported higher satisfaction with primary care (difference, 0.230 point [CI, 0.053 to 0.406 point]) and pain services (difference, 0.336 point [CI, 0.129 to 0.543 point]). Benzodiazepine use decreased more in the intervention group (absolute risk difference, -0.055 [CI, -0.099 to -0.011]), but opioid use did not differ significantly between groups.Limitation: The inclusion of only patients with insurance in large integrated health care systems limited generalizability, and the clinical effect of change in scores is unclear.Conclusion: Primary care-based CBT, using frontline clinicians, produced modest but sustained reductions in measures of pain and pain-related disability compared with usual care but did not reduce use of opioid medication.Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health insurance plans are increasingly offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but few studies have compared the outcomes of different program models (eg, invitation strategies). Methods: This study compares the outcomes of 2 health plan–based mailed FIT program models. In the first program (2016), FIT kits were mailed to all eligible enrollees; in the second program (2018), FIT kits were mailed only to enrollees who opted in after an outreach phone call. Participants in this observational study included dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees who were aged 50 to 75 years and were due for CRC screening (1799 in 2016 and 1906 in 2018). Six‐month FIT completion rates, implementation outcomes (eg, mailed FITs sent and reminders attempted), and program‐related health plan costs for each program are described. Results: All 1799 individuals in 2016 were sent an introductory letter and a FIT kit. In 2018, all 1906 were sent an introductory letter, and 1905 received at least 1 opt‐in call attempt, with 410 (21.5%) sent a FIT. The FIT completion rate was 16.2% (292 of 1799 [95% CI, 14.5%‐17.9%]) in 2016 and 14.6% (278 of 1906 [95% CI, 13.0%‐16.2%]) in 2018 (P =.36). The overall implementation costs were higher in 2016 ($40,156) than 2018 ($34,899), with the cost per completed FIT slightly higher in 2016 ($138) than 2018 ($126). Conclusions: An opt‐in mailed FIT program achieved FIT completion rates similar to those of a program mailing to all dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees. Lay Summary: Health insurance plans can use different program models to successfully mail fecal test kits for colorectal cancer screening to dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees, with nearly 1 in 6 enrollees completing fecal testing. In this study, a health insurance plan demonstrates its ability to deliver 2 different mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program models, with vendors used to manage some program elements. These mailed FIT programs began to close gaps in colorectal cancer screening rates in the health plan's dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of a Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) in both in-person and digital health-care settings has been increasing. The purpose of this article is to describe the protocol of a mixed-methods, natural experiment study designed to evaluate the implementation of DPP in a large, integrated health system. METHODS: Kaiser Permanente Northwest patients who were 19 to 75 years with prediabetes (hemoglobin A1c or glycated hemoglobin, 5.7-6.4) and obesity (body mass index = 30 kg/m2) were invited, via the Kaiser Permanente Northwest patient portal, to participate in the digital (n = 4124) and in-person (n = 2669) DPP during 2016 through 2018. Primary (weight) and secondary (hemoglobin A1c or glycated hemoglobin level) outcome data will be obtained from electronic health records. A cost-effectiveness analysis as well as qualitative interviews with patients (enrolled and not enrolled in the DPP) and stakeholders will be conducted to examine further implementation, acceptability, and sustainability. CONCLUSION: The mixed-methods, natural experiment design we will use to evaluate Kaiser Permanente Northwest's implementation of the digital and in-person DPP builds on existing evidence related to the effectiveness of these two DPP delivery modes and will contribute new knowledge related to best practices for implementing and sustaining the DPP within large health systems over the long term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]