The Impact of an Online Disease Management Program on Medical Costs among Health Plan Members

Abstract

Purpose.

This study evaluated the economic impact of an online disease management program within a broader population health management strategy.

Design.

A retrospective, quasi-experimental, cohort design evaluated program participants and a matched cohort of nonparticipants on 2003–2007 claims data in a mixed model.

Sample.

The study was conducted through Highmark Inc, Blue Cross Blue Shield, covering 4.8 million members in five regions of Pennsylvania. Overall, 413 online self-management program participants were compared with a matched cohort of 360 nonparticipants.

Measures.

The costs and claims data were measured per person per calendar year. Total payments were aggregated from inpatient, outpatient, professional services, and pharmacy payments. The costs of the online program were estimated on a per-participant basis. All dollars were adjusted to 2008 values.

Intervention.

The online intervention, implemented in 2006, was a commercially available, tailored program for chronic condition self management, nested within the Blues on Call^SM condition management strategy.

Analysis.

General linear modeling (with covariate adjustment) was used. Data trends were also explored using second-order polynomial regressions.

Results.

Health care costs per person per year were $757 less than predicted for participants relative to matched nonparticipants, yielding a return on investment of $9.89 for every dollar spent on the program.

Conclusions.

This online intervention showed a favorable and cost-effective impact on health care cost.

Keywords

Disease Management Self-Management Costs Health Care Claims Prevention Research Manuscript format: research Research purpose: intervention testing/program evaluation Study design: quasi-experimental with a matched comparison group Outcome measure: financial/economic Setting: clinical/health care Health focus: medical self care Strategy: skill building/behavior change Target population age: adults seniors Target population circumstances: education/income level geographic location and race/ethnicity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS): Justification for budget estimates for appropriations committees, fiscal year 2001. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/about/cj2001/meps01a.htm. Accessed September 1, 2009.

Cherry

Hing

Woodwell

Rechtsteiner

. National ambulatory medical care survey: 2006 summary—national health statistics reports, no 3. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2008. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr003.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2009.

Boult

Altmann

Gilbertson

Kane

. Disability in the 21st century: future effects of controlling fatal and non-fatal disease. Am J Public Health. 1966;86:1388–1393.

S-Y

Green

. Projection of Chronic Illness Prevalence and Cost Inflation. Washington, DC: RAND Corp; October 2000.

Mollica

Gillespie

. Care coordination for people with chronic conditions. Partnership for Solutions; 2003. Available at: http://www.partnershipforsolutions.org/DMS/files/Care_coordination.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2009.

Goetzel

Long

Ozminkowski

. Health, absence, disability, and presenteeism cost estimates of certain physical and mental health conditions affecting US employers. J Occ Env Med. 2004;46:398–412.

Davis

Collins

Doty

. Health and Productivity Among U.S. Workers. New York, NY: The Commonwealth Fund; 2005.

Kuehn

. Reports warn of primary care shortages. JAMA. 2008;300:1872–1875.

Mattke

Seid

. Evidence for the effect of disease management: is $1 billion a year a good investment? Am J Manag Care. 2007;13:670–676.

10.

Chan

Cooke

. Pharmacotherapy after myocardial infarction: disease management versus usual care. Am J Manag Care. 2008;14:352–358.

11.

Galbreath

Smith

Wood

. Assessing the value of disease management: impact of 2 disease management strategies in an underserved asthma population. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;101:599–607.

12.

Kominski

Morisky

Afifi

Kotlerman

. The effect of disease management on utilization of services by race/ethnicity: evidence from the Florida Medicaid program. Am JManag Care. 2008;14:168–172.

13.

Buntin

Jain

Mattke

Lurie

. Who gets disease management? J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(5):649–655.

14.

Linden

Adams

Roberts

. Strengthening the case for disease management effectiveness: unhiding the hidden bias. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12:140–147.

15.

Goetzel

Ozminkowski

Villagra

Duffy

. Return on investment in disease management: a review. Health Care Financing Review. 2005;26:1–19.

16.

Lau

. Study questions effectiveness of disease management. Investor's Business Daily. October 3, 2005.

17.

WHO European Working Group on Health Promotion Evaluation. Health promotion evaluation: recommendations to policy-makers. Available at: http://www.infosihat.gov.my/artikelHP/bahanrujukan/HEandPenilaian/HP%20Evaluation.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2009.

18.

Schwartz

Chesney

Irvine

Keefe

. The control group dilemma in clinical research: applications for psychosocial and behavioral medicine trials. Psychomatic Med. 1997;59:362–371.

19.

Schwartz

Trask

Shanmugham

Townsend

. Conducting psychological research in medical settings: challenges, limitations, and recommendations for effectiveness research. Prof Psychol Res Pr. 2004;35:500–508.

20.

Lorig

Sobel

Stewart

. Evidence suggesting that a chronic disease self-management program can improve health status while reducing utilization and costs: a randomized trial. Med Care. 1999;37:5–14.

21.

Lorig

Ritter

Stewart

. Chronic disease self-management program: 2-year health status and health care utilization outcomes. Med Care. 2001;39:1217–1223.

22.

Lorig

Sobel

Ritter

. Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease. Eff Clin Pract. 2001;4:256–262.

23.

Stanford Patient Education Center. Chronic disease self-management program. Available at: http://patienteducation.stanford.edu. Accessed June 5, 2009.

24.

Bandura

. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: WH Freeman; 1997.

25.

Bergstralh

Kosanke

. Computerized matching of controls: section of biostatistics, technical report 56—Mayo Foundation as provided in %MATCH (an SAS macro to match cases with controls), 1995. Available at: http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/mayo/research/biostat/sasmacros.cfm. Accessed September 1, 2009.

26.

US Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics. All Urban Consumer Not Seasonally Adjusted: US City Average. Available at: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=cu. Accessed September 1, 2009.

27.

Charlson

Pompei

Ales

McKenzie

. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis. 1987;40:373–383.

28.

Fireman

Bartlett

Selby

. Can disease management reduce health care costs by improving quality? Health Affairs. 2004;23:63–75.

29.

Maciejewski

Maynard

. Diabetes-related utilization and costs for inpatient and outpatient services in the Veterans Administration. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:b69–b73.

30.

RAND Corp. Improving chronic illness care evaluation (ICICE). Available at: http://www.rand.org/health/projects/icice/. Accessed September 1, 2009.