Lifestyle Medicine Reimbursement: A Proposal for Policy Priorities Informed by a Cross-Sectional Survey of Lifestyle Medicine Practitioners

Lifestyle medicine (LM) is a rapidly emerging clinical discipline that focuses on intensive therapeutic lifestyle changes to treat chronic disease, often producing dramatic health benefits. In spite of these well-documented benefits of LM approaches to provide evidence-based care that follows current clinical guidelines, LM practitioners have found reimbursement challenging. The objectives of this paper are to present the results of a cross-sectional survey of LM practitioners regarding lifestyle medicine reimbursement and to propose policy priorities related to the ability of practitioners to implement and achieve reimbursement for these necessary services. Results from a closed, online survey in 2019 were analyzed, with a total of n = 857 included in this analysis. Results were descriptively analyzed. This manuscript articulates policy proposals informed by the survey results. The study sample was 58% female, with median age of 51. A minority of the sample (17%) reported that all their practice was LM, while 56% reported that some of their practice was LM. A total of 55% of practitioners reported not being able to receive reimbursement for LM practice. Of those survey respondents who provided an answer to the question of what would make the practice of LM easier (n = 471), the following suggestions were offered: reimbursement overall (18%), reimbursement for more time spent with patients (17%), more support from leadership (16%), policy measures to incentivize health (13%), education in LM for practitioners (11%), LM-specific billing codes and billing knowledge along with better electronic medical record (EMR) capabilities and streamlined reporting/paperwork (11%), and reimbursement for the extended care team (10%). Proposed policy changes focus on three areas of focus: (1) support for the care process using a LM approach, (2) reimbursement emphasizing outcomes of health, patient experience, and delivering person-centered care, and (3) incentivizing treatment that produces disease remission/reversal. Rectifying reimbursement barriers to lifestyle medicine practice will require a sustained effort from health systems and policy makers. The urgency of this transition towards lifestyle medicine interventions to effectively address the epidemic of chronic diseases in a way that can significantly improve outcomes is being hindered by current reimbursement policies and models.

Lifestyle Medicine Shared Medical Appointments

Chronic diseases pose many challenges to health care providers and the health care system from a human capital, logistic, and financial perspective. To overcome these challenges, efficient and effective health care delivery models that address multiple chronic conditions need to be leveraged. Shared medical appointments are one potential solution to address these issues. This article offers a brief history of group visits and shared medical appointments and reviews the available data regarding their outcomes. It describes the benefits of using lifestyle medicine as the primary therapeutic modality within a shared medical appointment to treat, reverse, and prevent chronic disease. Key considerations and action steps for the implementation of lifestyle medicine shared medical appointments (LMSMAs) are outlined and the potential delivery of these services via telehealth is explored.

Impact of Collaborative Shared Medical Appointments on Diabetes Outcomes in a Family Medicine Clinic

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a collaborative diabetes shared medical appointment on patient outcomes in an urban family medicine practice.

Methods

Fifty-nine patients were enrolled to participate in multiple shared medical appointments (SMAs) over 12 months. Baseline data included hemoglobin (A1C), lipids, systolic blood pressure (SBP), weight, adherence to American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines, and surveys, including the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID-2) scale and the Spoken Knowledge in Low Literacy in Diabetes Scale (SKILLD). A1C and SBP were evaluated at each visit. Lipid control was assessed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Adherence to ADA guidelines, SKILLD and PAID-2 survey scores, and number of antihyperglycemic and antihypertensive medications were also evaluated at 12 months.

Results

Thirty-eight patients completed the study. Compared with baseline, A1C and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels decreased significantly over 12 months ( P < .001 and P = .004, respectively). More patients became compliant with the ADA guidelines throughout the course of the study. Specifically, more patients achieved the LDL-C goal of ≤100 mg/dL (2.59 mmol/L; P < .001), were prescribed appropriate antihypertensive medications ( P < .001) and aspirin ( P < .001), and received the pneumonia vaccine ( P < .001). PAID-2 and SKILLD survey scores also significantly improved over the course of the study ( P ≤ .001 and P = .003, respectively).

Conclusion

Short-term interdisciplinary SMAs decreased A1C and LDL-C, improved patient adherence to ADA guidelines, improved emotional distress related to diabetes, and increased knowledge of diabetes.

What is the evidence for the effectiveness, appropriateness and feasibility of group clinics for patients with chronic conditions? A systematic review

Background

Group clinics are a form of delivering specialist-led care in groups rather than in individual consultations.

Objective

To examine the evidence for the use of group clinics for patients with chronic health conditions.

Design

A systematic review of evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) supplemented by qualitative studies, cost studies and UK initiatives.

Data sources

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1999 to 2014. Systematic reviews and RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Additional searches were performed to identify qualitative studies, studies reporting costs and evidence specific to UK settings.

Review methods

Data were extracted for all included systematic reviews, RCTs and qualitative studies using a standardised form. Quality assessment was performed for systematic reviews, RCTs and qualitative studies. UK studies were included regardless of the quality or level of reporting. Tabulation of the extracted data informed a narrative synthesis. We did not attempt to synthesise quantitative data through formal meta-analysis. However, given the predominance of studies of group clinics for diabetes, using common biomedical outcomes, this subset was subject to quantitative analysis.

Results

Thirteen systematic reviews and 22 RCT studies met the inclusion criteria. These were supplemented by 12 qualitative papers (10 studies), four surveys and eight papers examining costs. Thirteen papers reported on 12 UK initiatives. With 82 papers covering 69 different studies, this constituted the most comprehensive coverage of the evidence base to date. Disease-specific outcomes – the large majority of RCTs examined group clinic approaches to diabetes. Other conditions included hypertension/heart failure and neuromuscular conditions. The most commonly measured outcomes for diabetes were glycated haemoglobin A1c(HbA1c), blood pressure and cholesterol. Group clinic approaches improved HbA1cand improved systolic blood pressure but did not improve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. A significant effect was found for disease-specific quality of life in a few studies. No other outcome measure showed a consistent effect in favour of group clinics. Recent RCTs largely confirm previous findings. Health services outcomes – the evidence on costs and feasibility was equivocal. No rigorous evaluation of group clinics has been conducted in a UK setting. A good-quality qualitative study from the UK highlighted factors such as the physical space and a flexible appointment system as being important to patients. The views and attitudes of those who dislike group clinic provision are poorly represented. Little attention has been directed at the needs of people from ethnic minorities. The review team identified significant weaknesses in the included research. Potential selection bias limits the generalisability of the results. Many patients who could potentially be included do not consent to the group approach. Attendance is often interpreted liberally.

Limitations

This telescoped review, conducted within half the time period of a conventional systematic review, sought breadth in covering feasibility, appropriateness and meaningfulness in addition to effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and utilised several rapid-review methods. It focused on the contribution of recently published evidence from RCTs to the existing evidence base. It did not reanalyse trials covered in previous reviews. Following rapid review methods, we did not perform independent double data extraction and quality assessment.

Conclusions

Although there is consistent and promising evidence for an effect of group clinics for some biomedical measures, this effect does not extend across all outcomes. Much of the evidence was derived from the USA. It is important to engage with UK stakeholders to identify NHS considerations relating to the implementation of group clinic approaches.

Future work

The review team identified three research priorities: (1) more UK-centred evaluations using rigorous research designs and economic models with robust components; (2) clearer delineation of individual components within different models of group clinic delivery; and (3) clarification of the circumstances under which group clinics present an appropriate alternative to an individual consultation.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Tackling the growing diabetes burden in Sub-Saharan Africa: a framework for enhancing outcomes in stroke patients

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), more than 80% of worldwide diabetes (DM)-related deaths presently occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), and left unchecked these DM-related deaths will likely double over the next 20 years. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most prevalent and detrimental complication of DM: doubling the risk of CVD events (including stroke) and accounting for up to 80% of DM-related deaths. Given the aforementioned, interventions targeted at reducing CVD risk among people with DM are integral to limiting DM-related morbidity and mortality in LMIC, a majority of which are located in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, SSA is contextually unique: socioeconomic obstacles, cultural barriers, under-diagnosis, uncoordinated care, and shortage of physicians currently limit the capacity of SSA countries to implement CVD prevention among people with DM in a timely and sustainable manner. This article proposes a theory-based framework for conceptualizing integrated protocol-driven risk factor patient self-management interventions that could be adopted or adapted in future studies among hospitalized stroke patients with DM encountered in SSA. These interventions include systematic health education at hospital discharge, use of post-discharge trained community lay navigators, implementation of nurse-led group clinics and administration of health technology (personalized phone text messaging and home tele-monitoring), all aimed at increasing patient self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation for sustained adherence to therapies proven to reduce CVD event risk.

How to ask: older adults' preferred tools in health outcome prioritization

OBJECTIVE

To assess older adults' attitudes toward eliciting health outcome priorities.

METHODS

This observational cohort study of 356 community-living adults age ≥65 included three tools: (1) Health Outcomes: ranking four outcomes (survival, function, freedom from pain, and freedom from other symptoms); (2) Now vs. Later: rating importance of current versus future quality of life; (3) Attitude Scale: agreement with statements about health outcomes and current versus future health.

RESULTS

Whereas 41% preferred Health Outcomes, 40% preferred the Attitude Scale. Only 7-12% rated any tool as very hard or hard. In bivariate analysis, participants of non-white race and with lower education, health literacy, and functional status were significantly more likely to rate at least one of the tools as easy (p < .05). Across all tools, 17% of participants believed tools would change care. The main reason for thinking there would be no change was satisfaction with existing care (62%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is variability in how older persons wish to be asked about health outcome priorities. Few find this task difficult, and difficulty was not greater among participants with lower health literacy, education, or health status.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

By offering different tools, healthcare providers can help patients clarify their health outcome priorities.