Advertisement

Disease Management and Health Outcomes

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 159–173 | Cite as

Treatment of Pneumonias in a Managed-Care Organisation

The Impact of a Treatment Guideline Promotion on Physician Prescribing Behaviour
Original Research Article

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate a pneumonia disease management programme in a naturalistic setting.

Design and Setting: A 300 000 member managed-care organisation introduced an antibacterial treatment guideline designed to change antibacterial prescribing by physicians. A relational database was created to measure changes in healthcare resources, use of antibacterials and health event profiles. One year of data before and after promoting the treatment guideline was compared.

Intervention: The primary disease management intervention was the promotion of the guideline through mailings and face-to-face interventions by 2 disease management specialists.

Participants: All patients with pneumonia diagnoses on the medical claims database were included in the analysis.

Results: The study demonstrated that medical costs increased by 5 to 10% after the treatment guideline was implemented. Health event analysis demonstrated changes in antibacterial prescribing and average cost per antibacterial selected. In both years, the highest success rate was with the amoxicillin group. Although there were fewer patients, doxycycline also had success rates of at least 70%. The econometric model demonstrated that holding other variables constant, including patient age and the presence of any comorbidities, treatment with amoxicillin was associated with a statistically significant reduction in health event costs.

Conclusions: The study identified the need for validating treatment guidelines with results from actual practice. The data also demonstrate the use and importance of measuring clinical and economic outcomes from disease management interventions by using databases readily available within most managed-care organisations. In addition, the econometric model was useful in comparing different drug groups with these retrospective data.

Keywords

Adis International Limited Clarithromycin Cefaclor Cefprozil Cinoxacin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gurnee MC, DaSilva RV. Constructing disease state management programs. Manag Care Pharm Pract 1995 Jul/Aug: 30–8Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zalta E, Eichner H, Henry M. Implications of disease management in the future of managed care. Med Interface 1994; 66–9, 78Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armstrong EP, Langley PC. Disease management programs. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1996; 53: 53–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brabowski H, Mullins CD. Pharmacy benefit management, cost-effectiveness analysis and drug formulary decisions. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 535–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holdford DA. Barriers to disease management. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1996; 53: 2093–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zitter M. Disease management: a new approach to health care. Med Interface 1994 Aug: 70-6Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harris Jr JM. Disease management: new wine in new bottles? Ann Intern Med 1996; 124: 838–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Landis NT. Disease management entries multiply, diversify. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1995; 52: 1268, 1271–2Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Epstein RS, Sherwood LM. From outcomes research to disease management: a guide for the perplexed. Ann Intern Med 1996; 124: 832–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schectman JM, Kanwal NK, Schroth WS, et al. The effect of an education and feedback intervention on group-model and network-model health maintenance organization physician prescribing behavior. Med Care 1995; 33: 139–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Summers KH. Measuring and monitoring outcomes of disease management programs. Clin Ther 1996; 18: 1341–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ellrodt G, Cook DJ, Lee J, et al. Evidence-based disease management. JAMA 1997; 278: 1687–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Curtiss FR. Lessons learned from projects in disease management in ambulatory care. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1997; 54: 2217–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sisk JE. How are health care organizations using clinical guidelines? Health Affairs 1998; 17: 91–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gehlback SH, Wilkinson WE, Hammond WE, et al. Improving drug prescribing in a primary care practice. Med Care 1984; 22: 193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Armstrong EP. Monitoring and evaluating disease management: information requirements. Clin Ther 1996; 18: 1327–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    American Thoracic Society. Guidelines for the initial management of adults with community-acquired pneumonia: diagnosis, assessment of severity, and initial antimicrobial therapy. Am Rev Respir Dis 1993; 148: 1418–26Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anderson G, Esmonde TS, Coles S, et al. Acomparative safety and efficacy study of Clarithromycin and erythromycin sterate in community-acquired pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27 Suppl. A: 117–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chien SM, Pichotta P, Siepman N, et al. Treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized study comparing Clarithromycin with erythromycin. Chest 1993; 103: 697–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gray J. Treatment of pneumonia in the elderly: pharmacological considerations. Semin Respir Infect 1990; 5: 295–302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hyslop DL. Efficacy and safety of loracarbef in the treatment of pneumonia. Am J Med 1992; 92: 65S–9SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wijnands GJ. Diagnosis and interventions in lower respiratory tract infections. Am J Med 1992; 92: 91S–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yangco BG, Lowe J, Nolen TM, et al. A multicenter trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cefuroxime axetil and Cefaclor in pneumonia of adults. Clin Ther 1990; 12: 440–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fine MJ, Auble TE, Yealy DM, et al. A prediction rule to identify low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 243–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stone RA, Obrosky DS, Singer DE, et al. Propensity score adjustment for pretreatment differences between hospitalized and ambulatory patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Med Care 1995; 33: AS56–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lave JR, Fine MJ, Sankey SS, et al. Hospitalized pneumonia. Outcomes, treatment patterns, and costs in urban and rural areas. J Gen Intern Med 1996; 11:415–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hasley PB, Albaum MN, Li YH, et al. Do pulmonary radiographic findings at presentation predict mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia? Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 2206–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bartlett JG, Mundy LM. Community-acquired pneumonia. N Engl Med 1995; 333: 1618–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Minogue ME, Coley CM, Fine MJ, et al. Patients hospitalized after initial outpatient treatment for community-acquired pneumonia. Ann Emerg Med 1998; 31: 376–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Metlay JP, Fine MJ, Schulz R, et al. Measuring symptomatic and functional recovery in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. J Gen Intern Med 1997; 12: 423–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Whittle J, Lin CJ, Lave JR, et al. Relationship of provider characteristics to outcomes, process, and costs of care for community-acquired pneumonia. Med Care 1998; 36: 977–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Metlay JP, Schulz R, Li YH, et al. Influence of age on symptoms at presentation in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 1453–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Halm EA, Fine MJ, Marrie TJ, et al. Time to clinical stability in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. Implications for practice guidelines. JAMA 1998; 279: 1452–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Metlay JP, Kapoor WN, Fine MJ. Does this patient have community-acquired pneumonia? Diagnosing pneumonia by history and physical examination. JAMA 1997; 278: 1440–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meehan TP, Fine MJ, Krumholz HM, et al. Quality of care, process, and outcomes in elderly patients with pneumonia. JAMA 1997; 278: 2080–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fine MJ, Hough LJ, Medsger AR, et al. The hospital admission decision for patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Results from the pneumonia patient outcomes research team cohort study. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 36–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fine MJ, Medsger AR, Stone RA, et al. The hospital discharge decision for patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 47–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gleason PP, Kapoor WN, Stone RA, et al. Medical outcomes and antimicrobial costs with the use of the American Thoracic Society Guidelines for outpatients with community-acquired pneumonia. JAMA 1997; 278: 32–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bartlett JG, Breiman RF, Mandell LA, et al. Community-acquired pneumonia in adults: guidelines for management. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 26:811–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gilbert K, Gleason PP, Singer DE, et al. Variations in antimicrobial use and cost in more than 2,000 patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Med 1998; 104: 17–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cunha B. The antibiotic treatment of community-acquired, atypical, and nosocomial pneumonias. Med Clin North Am 1995; 79:581–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cunha BA. Community-acquired pneumonia. Cost-effective antimicrobial therapy. Postgrad Med 1996; 99: 109–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Davey PG. Cost management in community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. Am J Med 1995; 99 Suppl. 6B: 20S–23SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Armstrong EP, Manuchehri F. Ambulatory care databases for managed care organizations. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1997; 54: 1973–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Beto JA, Geraci MC, Marshall PA, et al. Pharmacy computer prescription databases: methodologic issues of access and confidentiality. Ann Pharmacother 1992; 26: 686–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Selby JV. Linking automated databases for research in managed care settings. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 719–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Armstrong EP, Langley PC. The impact of a disease management intervention on the treatment of infectious disease in a managed care organization. Dis Manage. In pressGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schulman KA, Yabroff KR, Kong J, et al. A claims data approach to defining an episode of care. Health Serv Res 1999; 34: 603–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lewis NJW, Patwell JT, Briesacher BA. The role of insurance claims databases in drug therapy outcomes research. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4: 323–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lohr KN. Use of insurance claims data in measuring quality of care. Int JTech Assess 1990; 6: 263–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kennedy P. A guide to econometrics. 4th ed. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press, 1998Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Langley PC. The technology of metered-dose inhalers and treatment costs in asthma: a retrospective study of breath actuation versus traditional press-and-breathe inhalers. Clin Ther 1999; 21: 236–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Thomson R, Lavender M, Maadhok R. How to ensure that guidelines are effective. BMJ 1995; 311: 237–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, et al. Users’ guide to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA 1995; 274: 1800–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Granata AV, Hillman AL. Competing practice guidelines: using cost-effectiveness analysis to make optimal decisions. Ann Intern Med 1998; 128: 56–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wilson MC, Hayward RS, Tunis SR, et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VIII. How to use clinical practice guidelines. B. What are the recommendations and will they help you in caring for your patients? JAMA 1995; 274: 1630–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Worrall G, Chaulk P, Freake D. The effects of clinical practice guidelines on patient outcomes in primary care: a systematic review. Can Med Assoc 1997; 156: 1705–12Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Weiner JP, Starfield BH, Steinwachs DM, et al. Development and application of a population-oriented measure of ambulatory care case-mix. Med Care 1991; 29: 452–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Starfield B, Mumford L. Ambulatory care groups: a categorization of diagnoses for research and management. Health Serv Res 1991; 26:53–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    McNeil BJ, Pedersen SH, Gatsonis C. Current issues in profiling quality of care. Inquiry 1992; 29: 298–307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Motheral BR, Fairman KA. The use of claims databases for outcomes research: rationale, challenges, and strategies. Clin Ther 1997; 19: 346–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    McDonald CJ, Overhage M, Dexter P, et al. A framework for capturing clinical data sets from computerized sources. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 675–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Arnold RG, Kotsanos JG, Motheral B, et al. Panel 3: methodological issues in conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations — retrospective and claims database studies. Value Health 1999; 2: 82–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Weiner JP, Parente ST, Garnick DW, et al. Variation in officebased quality. A claims-based profile of care provided to medicare patients with diabetes. JAMA 1995; 273: 1503–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Iezzoni LI. Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 666–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Chrischilles EA. The contribution of epidemiology to pharmacoeconomic research. Drug Inf J 1992; 26: 219–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hornberger J, Wrone E. When to base clinical policies on observational versus randomized trial data. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 697–703PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Glauber HS, Brown JB. Use of health maintenance organization data bases to study pharmacy resource usage in diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 1992; 15: 870–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Else BA, Armstrong EP, Cox ER. Data sources for pharmacoeconomic and health services research. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1997; 54: 2601–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ray WA. Policy and program analysis using administrative databases. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 712–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Quam L, Ellis LBM, Venus P, et al. Using claims data for epidemiologic research. The concordance of claims-based criteria with the medical record and patient survey for identifying a hypertensive population. Med Care 1993; 131: 498–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Palmer RH. Process-based measures of quality: the need for detailed clinical data in large health care databases. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127:733–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Larson LN, Bjornson DC. Interface between pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomic s in managed care pharmacy. J Manage Care Pharm 1996; 2: 282–9Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Weiner JP, Powe NR, Steinwachs DM, et al. Applying insurance claims data to assess quality of care: a compilation of potential indicators. Qual Rev Bull 1990; 16: 424–38Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Piecoro LT, Wang LS, Dixon WS, et al. Creating a computerized database from administrative claims data. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999; 56: 1326–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Quenzer RW, Pettit KG, Arnold RJG, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of selected antibiotics in lower respiratory tract infection. Am J Manage Care 1997; 3: 1027–36Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Harrison DL, Draugalis JR. Critically evaluating research methods: an introduction. Manage Care Med 1996; 3: 23–7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of PharmacyThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pharmacy Practice, School of PharmacyUniversity of Colorado Health Sciences CenterDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations