Improving Patient-Centered Care Coordination for Children With Epilepsy: Version 2.0 Upgrade Required

Transcription

1 Current Literature In Clinical Science Improving Patient-Centered Care Coordination for Children With Epilepsy: Version 2.0 Upgrade Required Assessing Systems of Care for US Children With Epilepsy/Seizure Disorder. Kenney MK, Mann M. Epilepsy Res Treat 2013;2013:1 11. BACKGROUND: The proportion of US children with special health care needs (CSHCN) with epilepsy/seizure disorder who receive care in high-quality health service systems was examined. METHODOLOGY: We analyzed data for 40,242 CSHCN from the National Survey of CSHCN and compared CSHCN with epilepsy/seizure disorder to CSHCN without epilepsy/seizure disorder. Measures included attainment rates for 6 federal quality indicators with comparisons conducted using chi square and logistic regression methods. In addition, CSHCN with epilepsy/seizure disorder were compared to CSHCN without epilepsy/seizure disorder on the basis of 14 unmet health care needs. RESULTS: Lower attainment rates for receiving comprehensive care in a medical home and easily accessible community-based services were found for CSHCN with epilepsy/seizure disorder versus CSHCN without epilepsy/seizure disorder (medical home: 32% versus 43%; accessible community-based services: 50% versus 66%, resp.) in unadjusted analyses. Lower adjusted odds for these indicators as well as greater unmet need for specialists, dentistry, prescriptions, therapies, and mental health care were also found for CSHCN with epilepsy/seizure. CONCLUSIONS: Further efforts are needed to improve attainment of high-quality health care services for CSHCN with epilepsy/seizure disorders. Commentary Children living with active epilepsy experience more anxiety, depression, conduct problems, learning disabilities, less knowledge of epilepsy and its management, and greater perceived epilepsy-related stigma (1, 2). In addition, a large proportion of both children and adults in the United States with uncontrolled or refractory epilepsy are more likely to be uninsured, to have lower socioeconomic status, and to live in rural communities (3, 4). Furthermore, while about 20% of Americans live in rural areas, only 9% of the nation s physicians practice in these areas. Such disparities in this vulnerable population impact the ability to self-manage ongoing care needs and adhere to prescribed therapies, leading to increased utilization of urgent healthcare resources, such as emergency departments (5 7). These inequities highlight the need for efficient coordination of scarce resources, including 1) epilepsy subspecialty medical care, 2) complementary mental health services for patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders, and 3) community-based social services to accommodate a significant portion of this population. The recent study by Kenney and Mann (2013) provides a retrospective analysis demonstrating that children with special health care needs (CSHCN) and active or current epilepsy (CE), receive inadequate comprehensive care management Epilepsy Currents, Vol. 14, No. 3 (May/June) 2014 pp American Epilepsy Society compared with CSHCN without such a diagnosis. The authors examine whether the benchmark recommendations published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) are being met for providing comprehensive care to CSHCN with CE. These recommendations include a medical home mechanism where robust connectivity to community-based resources is crucial for providing comprehensive care. Such a scenario is also consistent with a patient-centered population health management (PHM) approach not explicitly stated in the article. The goal of PHM in this context is to significantly modify morbidity patterns by reducing health inequities among CSHCN with CE compared with CSHCN without CE. To address the limited access of this population to complementary community-based services across care domains, models must be designed to employ scalable technologybased patient- and family-centered care coordination. An emphasis must be placed on a collaborative team approach for coordination of specialized medical needs and psychosocial services. Such care models can potentially prevent emergency department visits and maintain these individuals in lowercost ambulatory settings, including rural healthcare clinics, Federally Qualified Health Centers, mental health clinics, and community social service agencies. A patient-centered philosophy is integral to successful deployment of medical home and PHM strategies and is beginning to drive health reform related payment incentives. The IOM describes patient-centered care as that which is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values, and ensuring that patient values guide 145

2 Improving Care for Children With Epilepsy all clinical decisions (8). Emerging remote telehealth access in the medical home and PHM concepts is considered an important component of addressing both patient-centered care and collaboration between providers. Telehealth can be variably defined but fundamentally includes video-conferencing capability (telemedicine) coupled with coordinated care services. Utilization of such information technology (IT) will enable patients to consult with specialists at tertiary care medical centers while efficiently interfacing with ondemand community-based wraparound psychosocial services. It is important to emphasize that telehealth is not the treatment, but rather a bridge possessing the capability of connecting resources with the patient in near real-time (9). The authors emphasize access to community-based coordinated care services. Emphasizing IT-assisted care coordination for CSHCN with active or current epilepsy will increase access and coordinated referrals to medical, mental health, and social services. The cost of such comprehensive care coordination that can result in improved patient outcomes remains uncertain as does the size of the patient load that can be managed by a given team of providers and collaborating coordination agencies. This financial burden will increase dramatically following full implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, when 18.2 million of the estimated 48 million uninsured individuals will acquire healthcare coverage (10). Increased efficiencies in healthcare delivery are urgently needed to enable limited resources to provide care for a large number of new patients, including those without coverage but potentially eligible for some form of government assistance. Utilization of PHM can potentially facilitate both prospective monitoring and effective interventions to efficiently address the large number of CSHCN with medically refractory epilepsy and comorbid conditions, such as developmental disabilities and mood disorders. PHM is currently in its infancy, and it is not clear whether PHM initiatives can reliably deliver better health outcomes. Researchers have not yet identified a set of effective methods for improving the health of whole populations, short of community-wide public health campaigns. This observation suggests that when large organizations choose to pursue a PHM initiative, close monitoring and evaluation will be critical to guide its evolution over time to maximize favorable outcomes. Furthermore, telehealth has been only recently shown to be effective in coordinating healthcare and saving time in areas where service access is scarce. However, there is a lack of data showing that telehealth services improve outcomes. The IOM has recently called for more evidence on telehealth outcomes regarding healthcare status. Kenney and Mann outline the limitations of their study, including the telephone survey mechanism by which data were collected for the CSHCN National Survey Instrument. Of importance, case status for CSHCN with current epilepsy was determined by parent report. The definition of CE assumes active epilepsy. In fact, such a lack of objective criteria for reporting cannot delineate refractory epilepsy or even represent active epilepsy at the time of reporting. In addition, the measurement of the unmet need was not based on an objective standard. The authors suggest that innovative strategies, such as medical homes, are critical for improving collaborations between providers and community services. In particular, connectivity-intensive outreach management mechanisms are required. For example, provider access to innovative IT communication protocols designed to quickly coordinate community-based social services and subspecialty care will challenge the current standard-of-care approach for evaluating and following CSHCN. Overall, this important study underlines the inadequacies in comprehensive care coordination for children with special health care needs and a diagnosis of epilepsy. The efficient bridging of medical providers with community-based services remains an unmet need. Further development of innovative high-quality care models for underserved vulnerable populations is necessary for effective implementation of healthcare reform. by Marvin A. Rossi, MD, PhD References 1. Austin JK, Perkins SM, Johnson CS, Fastenau PS, Byars AW, degrauw TJ, Dunn DW. Self-esteem and symptoms of depression in children with seizures: Relationships with neuropsychological functioning and family variables over time. Epilepsia 2010;51: Russ SA, Larson K, Halfon N. A national profile of childhood epilepsy and seizure disorder. Pediatrics 2012;129: Van Dis J. MSJAMA. Where we live: Health care in rural vs urban America. JAMA 2002;287:108. Abstract. 4. Begley C, Basu R, Lairson D, Reynolds T, Dubinsky S, Newmark M, Barnwell F, Hauser A, Hesdorffer D. Socioeconomic status, health care use, and outcomes: Persistence of disparities over time. Epilepsia 2011;52: Davis KL, Candrilli SD, Edin HM. Prevalence and cost of nonadherence with antiepileptic drugs in an adult managed care population. Epilepsia 2008;49: Faught RE, Weiner JR, Guerin A, Cunnington MC, Duh MS. Impact of nonadherence to antiepileptic drugs on health care utilization and costs: Findings from the RANSOM study. Epilepsia 2009;50: Manjunath R, Paradis PE, Parise H, Lafeuille MH, Bowers B, Duh MS, Lefebvre P, Faught E.. Burden of uncontrolled epilepsy in patients requiring an emergency room visit or hospitalization. Neurology 2012;79: Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21 st Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, March Accessed Feb 22, Rossi MA, Ehrens D, Monica N. Population Health Management (PHM) for Refractory Epilepsy and Psychiatric Co-morbidities: Deploying a PHM Delivery Model for Amplifying Patient Outreach,No , 2013, American Epilepsy Society Annual Meeting, Abstract. 10. Buettgens M, Kenney GM, Recht H, Lynch V. Eligibility for assistance and projected changes in coverage under the ACA: Variation across states. City, State: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Urban Institute, October Accessed Feb 22,

3 American Epilepsy Society Epilepsy Currents Journal Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest Instructions The purpose of this form is to provide readers of your manuscript with information about your other interests that could influence how they receive and understand your work. Each author should submit a separate form and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the submitted information. The form is in four parts. 1. Identifying information. Enter your full name. If you are NOT the main contributing author, please check the box no and enter the name of the main contributing author in the space that appears. Provide the requested manuscript information. 2. The work under consideration for publication. This section asks for information about the work that you have submitted for publication. The time frame for this reporting is that of the work itself, from the initial conception and planning to the present. The requested information is about resources that you received, either directly or indirectly (via your institution), to enable you to complete the work. Checking No means that you did the work without receiving any financial support from any third party that is, the work was supported by funds from the same institution that pays your salary and that institution did not receive third-party funds with which to pay you. If you or your institution received funds from a third party to support the work, such as a government granting agency, charitable foundation or commercial sponsor, check Yes. Then complete the appropriate boxes to indicate the type of support and whether the payment went to you, or to your institution, or both. 3. Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work. This section asks about your financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work. For example, if your article is about testing an epidermal growth factor receptor (DGFR) antagonist in lung cancer, you should report all associations with entities pursuing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in cancer in general, not just in the area of EGFR or lung cancer. Report all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid) directly to you or your institution on your behalf over the 36 months prior to submission of the work. This should include all monies from sources with relevance to the submitted work, not just monies from the entity that sponsored the research. Please note that your interactions with the work s sponsor that are outside the submitted work should also be listed here. If there is any question, it is usually better to disclose a relationship than not to do so. For grants you have received for work outside the submitted work, you should disclose support ONLY from entities that could be perceived to be affected financially by the published work, such as drug companies, or foundations supported by entities that could be perceived to have a financial stake in the outcome. Public funding sources, such as government agencies, charitable foundations or academic institutions, need not be disclosed. For example, if a government agency sponsored a study in which you have been involved and drugs were provided by a pharmaceutical company, you need only list the pharmaceutical company. 4. Other relationships Use this section to report other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work.

4 American Epilepsy Society Epilepsy Currents Journal Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest Section #1 Identifying Information 1. Today s Date: 5/14/ First Name Marvin Last Name Rossi Degree MD, PhD 3. Are you the Main Assigned Author? Yes No If no, enter your name as co-author: 4. Manuscript/Article Title: Improving Patient-Centered Care Coordination for Children With Epilepsy: Version 2.0 Upgrade Required 5. Journal Issue you are submitting for: 14.3 Section #2 The Work Under Consideration for Publication Did you or your institution at any time receive payment or services from a third party for any aspect of the submitted work (including but not limited to grants, data monitoring board, study design, manuscript preparation, statistical analysis, etc.)? Complete each row by checking No or providing the requested information. If you have more than one relationship just add rows to this table. Type No Money Paid to You Money to Your Institution* Name of Entity Comments** 1. Grant 2. Consulting fee or honorarium 3. Support for travel to meetings for the study or other purposes 4. Fees for participating in review activities such as data monitoring boards, statistical analysis, end point committees, and the like 5. Payment for writing or reviewing the manuscript 6. Provision of writing assistance, medicines, equipment, or administrative support. 7. Other * This means money that your institution received for your efforts on this study. ** Use this section to provide any needed explanation. Page 2 5/29/2014

5 Section #3 Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work. Place a check in the appropriate boxes in the table to indicate whether you have financial relationships (regardless of amount of compensation) with entities as described in the instructions. Use one line for each entity; add as many lines as you need by clicking the Add box. You should report relationships that were present during the 36 months prior to submission. Complete each row by checking No or providing the requested information. If you have more than one relationship just add rows to this table. Type of relationship (in alphabetical order) No Name of Entity Comments** 1. Board membership 2. Consultancy 3. Employment 4. Expert testimony 5. Grants/grants pending 6. Payment for lectures including service on speakers bureaus 7. Payment for manuscript preparation. 8. Patents (planned, pending or issued) 9. Royalties 10. Payment for development of educational presentations 11. Stock/stock options 12. Travel/accommodations/meeti ng expenses unrelated to activities listed.** 13. Other (err on the side of full disclosure) Money Paid to You Money to Your Institution* * This means money that your institution received for your efforts. ** For example, if you report a consultancy above there is no need to report travel related to that consultancy on this line. Section #4 Other relationships Are there other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work? No other relationships/conditions/circumstances that present a potential conflict of interest. Yes, the following relationships/conditions/circumstances are present: Thank you for your assistance. Epilepsy Currents Editorial Board Page 3 5/29/2014