A Patient Centered Intervention to Improve Health and Reduce Medicaid Costs
NCT ID: NCT01602848
Last Updated: 2018-05-02
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
200 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2009-08-31
2013-11-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Intervening With and Improving Care for Patients at Risk for Frequent Hospital Admissions
NCT01292096
Improving Hospital-to-Home Care Transitions for High-risk Younger Adult Patients
NCT02532296
Implementation and Evaluation of A Health Innovation to Support Medicaid-Insured Individuals Following Hospitalization
NCT05714605
Hospital Outcomes: Intervention in Moderately III Patients
NCT00256659
Recovery Legal Care Clinical Trial
NCT06618794
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The work proposed for this application will address this gap in the literature through the use of a group-randomized trial design using quantitative to evaluate outcomes. This proposal is a logical extension of our previous work: for the past three years, we have been conducting research on improving care coordination for this patient population via in-depth needs assessment, model program development, and implementation of a pilot initiative at a safety net hospital for a limited number of patients to determine feasibility. Most recently, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) was awarded one of seven New York State Department of Health Chronic Illness Demonstration Project (CIDP) grants of over $5 million and spanning 3 years, to expand this work to enroll and intervene with similar high-risk patients throughout the system.
In order to evaluate the impact of the CIDP initiative, the intervention is currently designed as a group-randomized trial that will track and compare the health care utilization and costs in intervention and control groups using Medicaid claims data. However, no provision has been made for contacting or characterizing control group members, or for surveying control group members regarding issues such as depression, social support, behavioral health needs, or satisfaction with current care, leaving the question of which intervention components correlate with changes in health services utilization unanswered. The ability of the evaluation to analyze the effect of important factors we anticipate will be improved by this innovative care redesign initiative (e.g., social support, housing status) on health services utilization is thus sharply curtailed, limiting the outcomes being studied to those derivable from administrative claims data.
We thus propose to conduct an in-depth evaluation of the HHC CIDP enrollees to determine whether specific outcomes related to health, functional status, and quality of life resulting from a patient-centered, intensive care coordination and management intervention correlate with improved linkage to primary care while reducing hospitalizations and emergency department visits. We will then relate these benefits to program costs using standard cost-effectiveness analysis techniques.
Our program model is innovative in its approach, employing Care Management Teams comprised of social workers, community based care managers, and dedicated clinicians who work to meet patients' needs in both the health care setting and the community.
Specific Aim 1
To compare changes in outcomes related to health status, quality of life, and care satisfaction between high-risk intervention patients and controls using quantitative and qualitative methods.
Associated hypotheses Compared to baseline assessments administered at the time of enrollment, 1.1 Intervention patients will have measurable improvements in health status as measured by the SF-12 and the PHQ-9 at 12-month follow-up. Enrollees will have measurable improvements in quality of life as measured by the Perceived Availability of Support scale, the CHAOS scale, and housing status at 12- and 24-month follow-up.
1.2 Intervention patients will have measurable improvements in personal satisfaction with health care as measured by the PSQ-18 at 12 and 24-month follow-up.
Specific Aim 2
To determine if improvements in linkage to primary care (defined as 3 visits to the same clinic within 12 months), and reduced use of acute care services (emergency department visits and hospital admissions) are associated with improved health status, quality of life, and personal satisfaction with health care .
Associated hypotheses 2.1 Improvements in measures of health status are associated with improved linkage to primary care and reductions in use of acute care services.
2.2 Improvements in measures of quality of life are associated with improved linkage to primary care and reductions in use of acute care services.
2.3 Improvements in measures of personal satisfaction are associated with improved linkage to primary care and reductions in use of acute care services.
Specific Aim 3
To understand the economic impact of the intervention by measuring its component financial and societal costs, and to perform a cost- effectiveness analysis for primary and secondary outcomes.
Associated hypotheses 3.1 The overall reduction in health care costs will meet or exceed the cost of the intervention accounting for all intervention-related costs.
3.2 The intervention will have favorable value compared to alternative uses of healthcare resources for this priority population.
3.2.a. The cost of the intervention per hospitalization averted (and associated mortality) will be favorable.
3.2.b The cost of the intervention per improvement in QALY will be favorable
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Intervention enrollee
HIgh risk fee for service Medicaid recipients identified as eligible by the New York State Dept of Health and enrolled in the intensive care management and coordination intervention
Intensive care management and coordination
Care Management Teams comprised of social workers, community based care managers, and dedicated clinicians work to meet patients' needs in both the health care setting and the community. The CIDP model incorporates motivational interviewing, harm reduction, access to housing through our community partners utilizing a Housing First approach, and provides cellular phones for patients when needed, to better enable regular communication with program staff.
Eligible, not enrolled
Medicaid fee-for-service patients who are identified as eligible for the intervention but are not enrolled. These patients receive usual services provided by Medicaid.
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Intensive care management and coordination
Care Management Teams comprised of social workers, community based care managers, and dedicated clinicians work to meet patients' needs in both the health care setting and the community. The CIDP model incorporates motivational interviewing, harm reduction, access to housing through our community partners utilizing a Housing First approach, and provides cellular phones for patients when needed, to better enable regular communication with program staff.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
New York State Department of Health
OTHER_GOV
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Maria C Raven, MD, MPH, MSc
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
NYU SOM, HHC, UCSF
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Central Office, Office of Medical and Professional Affairs
New York, New York, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Raven MC, Billings JC, Goldfrank LR, Manheimer ED, Gourevitch MN. Medicaid patients at high risk for frequent hospital admission: real-time identification and remediable risks. J Urban Health. 2009 Mar;86(2):230-41. doi: 10.1007/s11524-008-9336-1. Epub 2008 Dec 12.
Raven MC, Carrier ER, Lee J, Billings JC, Marr M, Gourevitch MN. Substance use treatment barriers for patients with frequent hospital admissions. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010 Jan;38(1):22-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2009.05.009. Epub 2009 Jun 21.
Billings J, Mijanovich T. Improving the management of care for high-cost Medicaid patients. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007 Nov-Dec;26(6):1643-54. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.26.6.1643.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
09-08-243-05-G
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.