Demonstrating a positive return on investment for a prenatal program at a managed care organization. An economic analysis

California's Comprehensive Perinatal Services Program and birth outcomes

Introduction

California's Medicaid (Medi-Cal) sponsors Comprehensive Perinatal Services Program (CPSP), a program with enhanced perinatal care for women (more education, nutritional supplements, and psychosocial counseling/support). Past evaluations of CPSP's effectiveness in birth outcomes were limited to pilot programs and yielded mixed results.

Methods

We used 2012-2016 California's statewide data about singleton live births with any receipt of prenatal care (N = 2,385,811) to examine whether Medi-Cal with CPSP enrollment was associated with lower odds of preterm birth (PTB), spontaneous PTB, and low birthweight (LBW) than non-CPSP births. With three binary variables of PTB, spontaneous PTB, and LBW as the response variables, three multilevel logistic models were used to compare the outcomes of participants enrolled in Medi-Cal with CPSP against those with private insurance, adjusting for maternal factors and county-level covariates.

Results

Logistic models showed that participants enrolled to Medi-Cal with CPSP [n (%) = 89,009 (3.7)] had lower odds of PTB, spontaneous PTB and LBW, respectively, as compared with those with private insurance [n (%) = 1,133,140 (47.2)]. Within the Medi-Cal sub-population, the CPSP enrollment was associated with lower odds of PTB, SPTB and LBW than Medicaid beneficiaries without CPSP [n (%) = 967,094 (40.3)].

Discussion

With statewide data, these findings revealed a robust link between CPSP enrollment and better birth outcomes. Expanding access to comprehensive prenatal services could be an important strategy to improve birth outcomes.

Incentives for increasing prenatal care use by women in order to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes

BACKGROUND

Prenatal care is recommended during pregnancy as a method to improve neonatal and maternal outcomes. Improving the use of prenatal care is important, particularly for women at moderate to high risk of adverse outcomes. Incentives are sometimes utilized to encourage women to attend prenatal care visits.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether incentives are an effective tool to increase utilization of timely prenatal care among women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2015) and the reference lists of all retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs that utilized direct incentives to pregnant women explicitly linked to initiation and frequency of prenatal care were included. Incentives could include cash, vouchers, coupons or products not generally offered to women as a standard of prenatal care. Comparisons were to no incentives and to incentives not linked directly to utilization of care. We also planned to compare different types of interventions, i.e. monetary versus products or services.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and methodological quality. Two review authors independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 studies (19 reports), six of which we excluded. Five studies, involving 11,935 pregnancies were included, but only 1893 pregnancies contributed data regarding our specified outcomes. Incentives in the studies included cash, gift card, baby carrier, baby blanket or taxicab voucher and were compared with no incentives. Meta-analysis was performed for only one outcome 'Return for postpartum care' and this outcome was not pre-specified in our protocol. Other analyses were restricted to data from single studies.Trials were at a moderate risk of bias overall. Randomization and allocation were adequate and risk of selection bias was low in three studies and unclear in two studies. None of the studies were blinded to the participants. Blinding of outcome assessors was adequate in one study, but was limited or not described in the remaining four studies. Risk of attrition was deemed to be low in all studies that contributed data to the review. Two of the studies reported or analyzed data in a manner that was not consistent with the predetermined protocol and thus were deemed to be at high risk. The other three studies were low risk for reporting bias. The largest two of the five studies comprising the majority of participants took place in rural, low-income, homogenously Hispanic communities in Central America. This setting introduces a number of confounding factors that may affect generalizability of these findings to ethnically and economically diverse urban communities in developed countries.The five included studies of incentive programs did not report any of this review's primary outcomes: preterm birth, small-for-gestational age, or perinatal death.In terms of this review's secondary outcomes, pregnant women receiving incentives were no more likely to initiate prenatal care (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.38, one study, 104 pregnancies). Pregnant women receiving incentives were more likely to attend prenatal visits on a frequent basis (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.38, one study, 606 pregnancies) and obtain adequate prenatal care defined by number of "procedures" such as testing blood sugar or blood pressure, vaccinations and counseling about breastfeeding and birth control (mean difference (MD) 5.84, 95% CI 1.88 to 9.80, one study, 892 pregnancies). In contrast, women who received incentives were more likely to deliver by cesarean section (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.30, one study, 979 pregnancies) compared to those women who did not receive incentives.Women who received incentives were no more likely to return for postpartum care based on results of meta-analysis (average RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.64, two studies, 833 pregnancies, Tau² = 0.81, I² = 98%). However, there was substantial heterogeneity in this analysis so a subgroup analysis was performed and this identified a clear difference between subgroups based on the type of incentive being offered. In one study, women receiving non-cash incentives were more likely to return for postpartum care (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.47, 240 pregnancies) than women who did not receive non-cash incentives. In another study, women receiving cash incentives were less likely to return for postpartum care (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62, 593 pregnancies) than women who did not receive cash incentives.No data were identified for the following secondary outcomes: frequency of prenatal care; pre-eclampsia; satisfaction with birth experience; maternal mortality; low birthweight (less than 2500 g); infant macrosomia (birthweight greater than 4000 g); or five-minute Apgar less than seven.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The included studies did not report on this review's main outcomes: preterm birth, small-for-gestational age, or perinatal death. There is limited evidence that incentives may increase utilization and quality of prenatal care, but may also increase cesarean rate. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to fully evaluate the impact of incentives on prenatal care initiation. There are conflicting data as to the impact of incentives on return for postpartum care. Two of the five studies which accounted for the majority of women in this review were conducted in rural, low-income, overwhelmingly Hispanic communities in Central America, thus limiting the external validity of these results.There is a need for high-quality RCTs to determine whether incentive program increase prenatal care use and improve maternal and neonatal outcomes. Incentive programs, in particular cash-based programs, as suggested in this review and in several observational studies may improve the frequency and ensure adequate quality of prenatal care. No peer-reviewed data have been made publicly available for one of the largest incentive-based prenatal programs - the statewide Medicaid-based programs within the United States. These observational data represent an important starting point for future research with significant implications for policy development and allocation of healthcare resources. The disparate findings related to attending postpartum care should also be further explored as the findings were limited by the number of studies. Future large RCTs are needed to focus on the outcomes of preterm birth, small-for-gestational age and perinatal outcomes.

Opening the door to coordination of care through teachable moments

The challenge for care coordination is to identify members at a moment in time when they are receptive to intervention and provide the appropriate care management services. This manuscript describes a pilot program using inbound nurse advice calls from members to engage them in a care management program including disease management (DM). Annual medical claims diagnoses were used to identify members and their associated disease conditions. For each condition group for each year, nurse advice call data were used to calculate inbound nurse advice service call rates for each group. A pilot program was set up to engage inbound nurse advice callers in a broader discussion of their health concerns and refer them to a care management program. Among the program results, both the call rate by condition group and the correlation between average costs and call rates show that higher cost groups of members call the nurse advice service disproportionately more than lower cost members. Members who entered the DM programs through the nurse advice service were more likely to stay in the program than those who participated in the standard opt-in program. The results of this pilot program suggest that members who voluntarily call in to the nurse advice service for triage are at a "teachable moment" and highly motivated to participate in appropriate care management programs. The implication is that the nurse advice service may well be an innovative and effective way to enhance participation in a variety of care management programs including DM.

The business case for preconception care: methods and issues

Only a limited number of economic evaluations have addressed the costs and benefits of preconception care. In order to persuade health care providers, payers, or purchasers to become actively involved in promoting preconception care, it is important to demonstrate the value of doing so through development of a “business case”. Perceived benefits in terms of organizational reputation and market share can be influential in forming a business case. In addition, it is standard to include an economic analysis of financial costs and benefits from the perspective of the provider practice, payer, or purchaser in a business case. The methods, data needs, and other issues involved with preparing an economic analysis of the likely financial return on investment in preconception care are presented here. This is accompanied by a review or case study of economic evaluations of preconception care for women with recognized diabetes. Although the data are not sufficient to draw firm conclusions, there are indications that such care may yield positive financial benefits to health care organizations through reduction in maternal and infant hospitalizations. More work is needed to establish how costs and economic benefits are distributed among different types of organizations. Also, the optimum methods of delivering preconception care for women with diabetes need to be evaluated. Similar assessments should also be conducted for other forms of preconception care, including comprehensive care.

The state of cost-effectiveness analysis in American managed care

In 1996, the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine published detailed recommendations for the conduct and use of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of medical technologies. These recommendations were expected to promote the use of CEA to inform the resource allocation decisions of a diverse audience including, among others, American managed care organizations. Yet, nearly 10 years later, the limited explicit use of CEA in the USA remains a prominent discussion topic, with few signs of resolution. Its limited use within managed care is especially striking given the industry's stated interest in efficient healthcare and historically unstable finances in the face of continually rising healthcare costs.

The insufficiency of evidence to establish the business case for quality

PURPOSE

To determine whether a positive financial return on investment for quality-enhancing interventions is more likely for particular health conditions, in specific organizational settings, or with the use of particular interventions.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic search of MEDLINE.

DATA EXTRACTION

Search keywords included: business case, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, return on investment, costs, cost savings, quality, quality improvement, and program evaluation.

RESULTS

Only 15 of 1968 articles identified contained sufficient information on both the costs of implementing quality-enhancing interventions and the resultant changes in costs of care or revenues to permit the calculation of a return on investment.

CONCLUSIONS

Scant attention is currently paid in the quality-of-care literature to the cost of implementing quality-enhancing interventions. To understand which quality-enhancing interventions are likely to produce positive returns on investments, data collection and analysis must include tracking the investment and operating costs of implementing the intervention as well as the changes in revenues and costs that result from the intervention.