Search

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab029.].

OBJECTIVE: We examined correlates of registration and utilization of the Veteran Health Administrations (VHA) personal health record (PHR), My HealtheVet (MHV), among a national cohort of veterans living with HIV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using VHA administrative data, we matched veterans with HIV who registered for MHV in fiscal year 2012-2018 (n = 8589) to 8589 veterans with HIV who did not register for MHV. We compared demographic and geographic characteristics, housing status, comorbidities, and non-VHA care between MHV registrants and nonregistrants to identify correlates of MHV registration. Among registrants, we examined the association between these characteristics and MHV tool use (prescription refill, record download, secure messaging, view labs, and view appointments). RESULTS: MHV registrants were more likely to be younger, women, White, and to have bipolar disorder, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis than nonregistrants. Having a substance use disorder (SUD) diagnosis or a higher Elixhauser score was associated with lower odds of MHV registration. Among registrants, women were less likely to use prescription refill. Patients who were at risk of homelessness in the past year were less likely to use secure messaging and, along with those who were homeless, were less likely to use view labs and prescription refill. Bipolar disorder and depression were associated with increased secure messaging use. Diagnoses of SUD and alcohol use disorder were both associated with lower rates of prescription refill. DISCUSSION: Among veterans living with HIV, we identified significant differences in PHR registration and utilization by race, sex, age, housing status, and diagnosis.

Objective: To determine the budget impact of implementing multidisciplinary complex pain clinics (MCPCs) for Veterans Health Administration (VA) patients living with complex chronic pain and substance use disorder comorbidities who are on risky opioid regimens. Data Sources and Study Setting: We measured implementation costs for three MCPCs over 2 years using micro‐costing methods. Intervention and downstream costs were obtained from the VA Managerial Cost Accounting System from 2 years prior to 2 years after opening of MCPCs. Study Design: Staff at the three VA sites implementing MCPCs were supported by Implementation Facilitation. The intervention cohort was patients at MCPC sites who received treatment based on their history of chronic pain and risky opioid use. Intervention costs and downstream costs were estimated with a quasi‐experimental study design using a propensity score‐weighted difference‐in‐difference approach. The healthcare utilization costs of treated patients were compared with a control group having clinically similar characteristics and undergoing the standard route of care at neighboring VA medical centers. Cancer and hospice patients were excluded. Data Collection/Extraction Methods: Activity‐based costing data acquired from MCPC sites were used to estimate implementation costs. Intervention and downstream costs were extracted from VA administrative data. Principal Findings: Average Implementation Facilitation costs ranged from $380 to $640 per month for each site. Upon opening of three MCPCs, average intervention costs per patient were significantly higher than the control group at two intervention sites. Downstream costs were significantly higher at only one of three intervention sites. Site‐level differences were due to variation in inpatient costs, with some confounding likely due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. This evidence suggests that necessary start‐up investments are required to initiate MCPCs, with allocations of funds needed for implementation, intervention, and downstream costs. Conclusions: Incorporating implementation, intervention, and downstream costs in this evaluation provides a thorough budget impact analysis, which decision‐makers may use when considering whether to expand effective programming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]