Utilization management

Abstract: Importance Despite epidemic rates of addiction and death from prescription opioids in the United States, suggesting the importance of providing alternatives to opioids in the treatment of pain, little is known regarding how payers’ coverage policies may facilitate or impede access to such treatments. Objective To examine coverage policies for 5 nonpharmacologic approaches commonly used to treat acute or chronic low back pain among commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance plans, plus an additional 6 treatments among Medicaid plans. Design, Setting, and Participants Cross-sectional study of 15 commercial, 15 Medicaid, and 15 Medicare Advantage health plans for the 2017 calendar year in 16 states representing more than half of the US population. Interviews were conducted with 43 senior medical and pharmacy health plan executives from representative plans. Main Outcomes and Measures Medical necessity and coverage status for the treatments examined, as well as the use of utilization management tools and cost-sharing magnitude and structure. Results Commercial and Medicare insurers consistently regarded physical and occupational therapy as medically necessary, but policies varied for other therapies examined. Payers most commonly covered physical therapy (98% [44 of 45 plans]), occupational therapy (96% [43 of 45 plans]), and chiropractic care (89% [40 of 45 plans]), while transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (67% [10 of 15 plans]) and steroid injections (60% [9 of 15 plans]) were the most commonly covered among the therapies examined for Medicaid plans only. Despite evidence in the literature to support use of acupuncture and psychological interventions, these therapies were either not covered by plans examined (67% of all plans [30 of 45] did not cover acupuncture) or lacked information about coverage (80% of Medicaid plans [12 of 15] lacked information about coverage of psychological interventions). Utilization management tools, such as prior authorization, were common, but criteria varied greatly with respect to which conditions and what quantity and duration of services were covered. Interviewees represented 6 Medicaid managed care organizations, 2 Medicare Advantage or Part D plans, 9 commercial plans, and 3 trade organizations (eg, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association). Interviews with plan executives indicated a low level of integration between the coverage decision-making processes for pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for chronic pain. Conclusions and Relevance Wide variation in coverage of nonpharmacologic treatments for low back pain may be driven by the absence of best practices, the administrative complexities of developing and revising coverage policies, and payers’ economic incentives. Such variation suggests an important opportunity to improve the accessibility of services, reduce opioid use, and ultimately improve the quality of care for individuals with chronic, noncancer pain while alleviating the burden of opioid addiction and overdose.

Abstract: Utilization review, the assessment of the appropriateness and efficiency of hospital care through review of the medical record, and utilization management, deliberate action by payers or hospital administrators to influence providers of hospital services to increase the efficiency and effectiveness with which services are provided, are valuable but relatively unfamiliar strategies for containing hospital costs. The purpose of this synthesis is to increase awareness of the scope of and potential for these approaches among health services managers and administrators, third-party payers, policy analysts, and health services researchers. The synthesis will assist the reader to trace the conceptual context and the historical development of utilization review from unstructured methods using individual physicians' professional judgment to structured methods using explicit criteria; to establish the context of utilization review and clarify its uses; to understand the concepts and tools used in assessing the efficiency of hospital use; and to select, design, and evaluate utilization review and utilization management programs. The extent of inappropriate (medical unnecessary) hospital utilization and the factors associated with it are described. Implications for managers, providers, and third-party payers in targeting utilization review and in designing and evaluating utilization management programs are discussed.

Abstract: We compare healthcare spending in public and private Medicare using newly available claims data from Medicare Advantage (MA) insurers. MA insurer revenues are 30 percent higher than their healthcare spending. Adjusting for enrollee mix, healthcare spending per enrollee in MA is 9 to 30 percent lower than in traditional Medicare (TM), depending on the way we define "comparable" enrollees. Spending differences primarily reflect differences in healthcare utilization, with similar reductions for "high value" and "low value" care, rather than healthcare prices. We present evidence consistent with MA plans encouraging substitution to less expensive care and engaging in utilization management. (JEL H11, H42, H51, I11, I13).

Abstract: Background There have been no studies of interventions to reduce test utilization in the coronary care unit. Objective To determine whether a 3-part intervention in a coronary care unit could decrease utilization without affecting clinical outcomes. Methods Practice guidelines for routine laboratory and chest radiographic testing were developed by a multidisciplinary team, using evidence-based recommendations when possible and expert opinion otherwise. These guidelines were incorporated into the computer admission orders for the coronary care unit at a large teaching hospital, and educational efforts were targeted at the house staff and nurses. Utilization during the 3-month intervention period was compared with utilization during the same 3 months in the prior year. The hospital's medical intensive care unit, which did not receive the specific intervention, provided control data. Results During the intervention period, there were significant reductions in utilization of all chemistry tests (from 7% to 40%). Reductions in ordering of complete blood counts, arterial blood gas tests, and chest radiographs were not statistically significant. After controlling for trends in the control intensive care unit, however, the reductions in arterial blood gas tests ( P = .04) and chest radiographs ( P P Conclusion The utilization management intervention was associated with significant reductions in test ordering without a measurable change in clinical outcomes.