×
Home Current Archive Editorial board
News Contact
Original Clinical Research

The Effect of a Customized Advocacy Product on Downstream Medical Expenditures and Utilization

By
Jessica Navratil-Strawn Orcid logo ,
Jessica Navratil-Strawn
Stephen Hartley ,
Stephen Hartley
Stephanie MacLeod ,
Stephanie MacLeod
Andrew Lindsay Orcid logo
Andrew Lindsay

Abstract

Background: The complexity of today’s healthcare system has led to the growth of an emerging healthcare function known as healthcare advocacy. A telephonic healthcare advocate or advisor can play an essential role in care coordination, a better understanding of health benefits, and ease in navigating the healthcare system. A healthcare advocate’s role may be filled by clinical staff (i.e., registered nurses), non-clinical staff, or both, with varying levels of training depending on the intended scope of service. Objective: With a higher number of employers seeking customized health advocacy programing, this study serves to determine if more favorable healthcare outcomes offset the additional operating costs associated with a more dedicated delivery system. Therefore, this study’s primary objective was to evaluate the impact of patient access to a customized health advocacy program on downstream medical costs and healthcare utilization compared to a control (CON) group without access to this service. The secondary aim was to provide information to employers on whether a higher investment in a more complex customized delivery model provides significant value compared to a less customized program. Methods: The study treatment (TRT) group included 89,372 individuals with access to a customized advocacy program for employees, while the CON group of 115,465 had access to a non-customized program. Key outcomes included total healthcare expenditures, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, and physician office visits 12 months after the advocacy start date compared to 6 months before the start date. Researchers evaluated the impact the customized advocacy intervention had on expenditures by comparing differences in pre- and post-expenditures between customized health advisor and non-customized health advisor groups after controlling for various demographic, socioeconomic, and health status characteristics. Inverse propensity score weighting helped minimize differences in characteristics between the TRT and CON groups. Results: With the customized advocacy product, healthcare expenditures increased by only $2.03 per member per month (PMPM) compared with a $26.35 PMPM larger increase for controls with a non-customized product. Also, customized health advisor participants experienced reduced hospital admissions and ER visits compared with the CON group. Conclusions: Study participants with access to customized healthcare advocacy services experienced significant healthcare cost savings, along with fewer ER visits, and reduced inpatient admissions compared with the CON group. Thus, these findings suggest that healthcare advocacy programs justify the increased delivery cost and can lead to reduced healthcare costs and utilization, along with the potential to improve health outcomes and quality of life.

References

1.
Hopkins J, Medicine. The power of a health care advocate. Copyright © 2019 The Johns Hopkins University, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, and Johns Hopkins Health System.
2.
Carter N, Valaitis RK, Lam A, Feather J, Nicholl J, Cleghorn L. Navigation delivery models and roles of navigators in primary care: a scoping literature review. BMC Health Services Research. 2018;18(1).
3.
4.
Available at: www.hafop. org/mission.htm.
5.
Available at: www.seniorpatientadvocates.com.
6.
Accolade Website. Driving healthcare savings and satisfaction. Available at: www. accolade.
7.
8.
Sharma AE, Knox M, Mleczko VL, Olayiwola JN. The impact of patient advisors on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research. 2017;17(1).
9.
Apter AJ, Morales KH, Han X, Perez L, Huang J, Ndicu G, et al. A patient advocate to facilitate access and improve communication, care, and outcomes in adults with moderate or severe asthma: Rationale, design, and methods of a randomized controlled trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2017;56:34–45.
10.
Efanov J, Papanastasiou C, Arsenault J, Moreau M, Pomey M, Higgins J. Contribution of patient-advisors during rehabilitation for replantation of digits improves patient-reported functional outcomes: A presentation of concept. Hand Surg Rehabil. :30060–4.
11.
Apter AJ, Wan F, Reisine S, Bogen DK, Rand C, Bender B, et al. Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of patient advocates for improving asthma outcomes in adults. Journal of Asthma. 2013;50(8):850–60.
12.
Valaitis RK, Carter N, Lam A, Nicholl J, Feather J, Cleghorn L. Implementation and maintenance of patient navigation programs linking primary care with community-based health and social services: a scoping literature review. BMC Health Services Research. 2017;17(1).
13.
DeGroff A, Gressard L, Glover-Kudon R, Rice K, Tharpe FS, Escoffery C, et al. Assessing the implementation of a patient navigation intervention for colonoscopy screening. BMC Health Services Research. 2019;19(1).
14.
Prieto-Centurion V, Basu S, Bracken N, Calhoun E, Dickens C, DiDomenico RJ, et al. Design of the patient navigator to Reduce Readmissions (PArTNER) study: A pragmatic clinical effectiveness trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications. 2019;15:100420.
15.
Raeside R, Partridge SR, Singleton A, Redfern J. Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Adolescents: eHealth, Co-Creation, and Advocacy. Medical Sciences. 2019;7(2):34.
16.
Fassihi F. Thrive health: A new venture connecting patient advocacy to well-being.
17.
Fassihi F. Thrive Health: a New Venture Connecting Patient Advocacy to Well-Being. International Journal of Community Well-Being. 2020;3(2):267–70.
18.
Natale‐Pereira A, Enard KR, Nevarez L, Jones LA. The role of patient navigators in eliminating health disparities. Cancer. 2011;117(S15):3541–50.
19.
Ramsey S, Whitley E, Mears VW, McKoy JM, Everhart RM, Caswell RJ, et al. Evaluating the cost‐effectiveness of cancer patient navigation programs: Conceptual and practical issues. Cancer. 2009;115(23):5394–403.
20.
Braun KL, Kagawa-Singer M, Holden AEC, Burhansstipanov L, Tran JH, Seals BF, et al. Cancer Patient Navigator Tasks across the Cancer Care Continuum. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. 2012;23(1):398–413.
21.
Seaberg D, Elseroad S, Dumas M, Mendiratta S, Whittle J, Hyatte C, et al. Patient Navigation for Patients Frequently Visiting the Emergency Department: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2017;24(11):1327–33.
22.
Slater JS, Parks MJ, Nelson CL, Hughes KD. The Efficacy of Direct Mail, Patient Navigation, and Incentives for Increasing Mammography and Colonoscopy in the Medicaid Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2018;27(9):1047–56.

Citation

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.