Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives

The 20Lighter Program is a physician-supervised weight loss intervention.  The program provides meal plans, dietary supplements, and offers participants daily interaction with a physician via a smart phone.  The program consists of three phases: a loading day, six weeks of low-calorie meal plan, and three weeks of transition to normal dietary intake.

Reduction in visceral fat and weight are the main outcomes measured in a population of 2,200 men and women who completed the program.   Maintenance of the weight loss was monitored 18 months after program completion.

Method/ Calculation

The data source is device-recorded body weight and visceral fat at baseline, 20 days, 40 days, and 60 days after program start.  Calculation of percentages was performed by the biomedical device.

A survey was sent to participants to assess their change in weight status 18 months after the program ended.

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings

Participants had statistically significant reduction in visceral fat, a recognized indicator of cardiovascular disease risk, at the 60-day measurement; this compared baseline measurement to the 60-day measurement.

Fifty seven percent of the participants responded to the 18-month follow-up survey.  The percentage of respondents who said they had maintained their weight loss or had lost more weight was 70%.

Limitations

The data is limited to people who completed the program, omitting those who dropped out.  Data was not shown about the initial enrolling group.

The survey response rate of 57% is high; non-respondents received three follow-up reminders which could strengthen the results.  No analysis was done about non-respondents to determine a pattern of non-response.

The follow-up survey was not a validated instrument, which makes the results less reliable than is ideal.

The analysis did not include actual medical costs incurred by program participants; thus, while certain disease risk factors may be lower, medical costs may or may not be changed as a result.

Alana Healthcare focuses on chronic disease management, with the goal of improving patient quality of life and reducing need for hospital care. Alana’s intervention for Congestive Heart Failure and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease reduced PMPM hospital costs significantly more for its participants than a comparison group who had no intervention. The comparison group was matched for disease acuity, risk score, age, and prior year’s spending.

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives

Alight Solutions estimates the Return On Investment of its Compass Healthcare Navigation Solution. The program directs insured plan members to lower-cost providers who meet quality standards. The program’s goal is to reduce medical costs while maintaining quality of care.

Method/ Calculation

The gross savings amount is calculated by taking the allowed amount of a participant’s pre-navigation medical services and subtracting the actual cost of his post-navigation services. The allowed amount comes from Alight’s claims database from the participating employer. This data base includes Alight’s current book of business. It also has service bundles
and episodes of care programmed so that valid comparisons can be made of costs.

The allowed amount is taken at the level of the provider, further customizing the estimate to the employer’s plan. If the member does not already have a provider for the service, the savings is calculated by taking the median allowed amount (calculated from Alight’s data base) minus the actual cost of the service the member chooses. The actual cost of the participant’s services come from the employer’s medical claims.

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings

Calculations are made for each participant and then aggregated into a total for the employer. The gross savings are then expressed as Per Employee Per Year (PEPY), including all covered employees, not just those who used the program.

Limitation

The savings are gross, not net of Alight’s program fees.

Allergychoices offers sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for allergy sufferers. Results from five research studies conducted at Allergy Associates of Lacrosse found that the number of physician visits, ER visits, hospitalizations, and absences from school/work all had significant decreases after two years of treatment. They also offered a validated quality of life measurement that showed statistically significant improvement in six of the seven domains measured after four months of treatment.

**Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Program Provider – Specialty Obstetrics**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives 

Midwife-led maternity care for low-risk pregnancies, such as that offered AABC Birth Center Care, has been shown to reduce various delivery complications, and in turn, cost less than other models.  For example, midwife-led care is correlated with lower incidence of cesarean section, pre-term, and low birthweight births. (Stapleton et al, Outcomes of Care in Birth Centers: Demonstration of a Durable Model, Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health, 2013;58:3–14). 

Method/ Calculation 

For a group of pregnant patients covered by Medicaid and using birth center services, AABC calculated the percentage of births that were performed by cesarean section; the percentage that were pre-term; and the percentage that were low birthweight babies.  AABC also calculated the total cost of the delivery and care for the mother-infant pair for the subsequent 12 months.

These measures were compared to a similar group of Medicaid-covered mothers who received usual care.  

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings 

The intervention group (“Birth Center” group) had significantly more positive birth outcomes than women in comparison groups who received care from typical Medicaid providers. Regardless of whether women gave birth at the Birth Center or in a hospital, infants born to Birth Center participants had an average clinical estimate of gestation that was almost half a week longer than that of infants born to comparison group women, were significantly less likely to be preterm than comparison group infants (6.3 percent vs. 8.5 percent), and were less likely to be born at low birthweight (5.9 percent vs. 7.4 percent). 

Rates of C-section deliveries were 17.5 percent for Birth Center group women compared to 29.0 percent for the usual care group. Finally, rates of vaginal birth after C-section (VBAC) were 24.6 percent for the intervention group compared to 12.5 percent for women in typical Medicaid prenatal care. 

Costs per mother-infant pair during birth and the following year were $2,000 lower for the intervention group than for the comparison group.  

Limitation 

Since enrollment in the intervention group was voluntary, selection bias may have led to the intervention group’s having other beneficial traits that led to better birth outcomes.  This is partly offset by including all intervention group participants in the group (intent-to-treat model), even if they had their delivery in a hospital.  

**Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Commercial Insurers**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives

Enhanced Personal Health Care for Primary Care Program (EPHC) is Anthem’s value-based, patient-centered care program. EPHC seeks to reduce per member per month costs through support of a care model.  

EPHC providers receive specialized support, enhanced data, resources and incentives that enable them to change the way they practice health care.

The program rewards doctors for delivering results – such as improved care coordination, reduced use of unnecessary medical services, better management of chronic diseases and lower costs.

Method/ Calculation

The analysis focused on one provider network, Tidewater Physicians Multispecialty Group (TPMG). The network of 220 primary medical and specialty care providers serves 500,000 patients annually from 88 locations in Southeastern Virginia.

Anthem compared member claims, administrative, demographic, risk, enrollment and attribution data between members exposed to EPHC and those that weren’t between 2014-2017. The analysis controlled for changes in member attribution and changes in eligibility. A time series regression model also controlled for numerous member, provider, and market level characteristics to isolate program effects.

Certain members were excluded, including those who were over the age of 65, were recent organ transplant recipients, or had total costs in the last 12 months greater than $250,000.

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings

The group exposed to EPHC spent $14.59 gross Per Member Per Month (PMPM) less over the time period than the comparison group. This savings of $14.59 PMPM constituted roughly 3.4% in overall spending. Results included reduced costs related to emergency room visits (23% of total savings, $450,000), reductions in hospital readmission rates (30%, $400,000), increases in generic drug dispense rates (3.8%, $530,000) and reductions in site-of-service costs for radiology tests (4.5%, $560,000 savings).

Limitations

None noted.

**Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Third Party Administrator**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives 

Apostrophe’s intervention identifies high-quality health care providers and negotiates rates with them. Insured plan members are encouraged to use these providers, through direct communication with member-patients and benefit design. The interventions’ goal is to reduce total costs for the health benefit plan, while maintaining or improving quality of care.

There is evidence to suggest that certain health care providers can provide more cost-effective care than others. For example, a 2015 systematic review found that physicians who receive training in cost-conscious care delivery offer high quality care at lower cost than physicians untrained in this topic. (Stammen et al, Training Physicians to Provide High-Value, Cost-Conscious Care A Systematic Review, JAMA. 2015;314(22):2384-2400. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.16353) 

Method/ Calculation 

Actual post-intervention costs for one year were compared to predicted costs.  Predicted costs had been set by the employer’s independent actuary.    

Findings / Outcome/ Savings 

Actual annual costs were 15% lower than predicted costs.  

Limitation 

The data reflect one year of experience, and the reduction is within normal fluctuation range for a 2,500-person group.  Additional years’ data could strengthen the correlation between the intervention and lower costs.  

The method for determining the quality of the providers is not clearly defined.  If the method is inconsistent or faulty, later years might show higher costs from the consequences of low-quality care. 

**Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Program Provider – Specialty Fertility**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives

ARC Fertility provides affordable, high-quality fertility care through its program of predictably priced, bundled, evidence-based treatment packages, refund guarantee and financing options. For employers, ARC Fertility’s fertility benefits incur no Per Employee Per Month or administrative fees, require payment only when services are utilized and deliver extensive educational value and concierge services.

The ARC program results in fewer multiple births than the national average, thereby increasing the number of healthy babies and decreasing the cost of health care for pregnancies and babies. 

Method/ Calculation

The applicant compared the percentage of treatment cycles resulting in twin births reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) by all clinics nationally with those reported by clinics within the ARC Network over a three-year time period.

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings

The ARC Network’s cycles consistently resulted in fewer births of twins over three years, compared to the national average. The ARC member multiple birth rate as a proportion of all births declined 3% from 2014 to 2015 (ARC: 12.4% to 10.1%; National: 12.8% to 11.2%) and a further 2.5% from 2015 to 2016 (ARC: 10.1% to 7.6%; National: 11.2% to 8.1%), an overall decline of 5.5%. As a network, ARC Members had reduced multiple births by 5%, which is ½% to 1% better than the national average.

Limitations

No adjustments were made to reflect differences between ARC Fertility patients and the SART benchmark population. 

Arche Healthcare is a medical device and healthcare service company addressing diabetic foot care, and the $30 billion cost of diabetes-related wounds and amputations. In an increasingly outcomes driven healthcare environment, Arche’s proprietary IT platforms offer healthcare providers, health plans and other healthcare stakeholders, seamless and compliant healthcare delivery tools to help prevent the 1st wound.

The model, informed by the latest evidenced-based research on diabetic foot health, demonstrates the results of a comprehensive Lower Extremity Amputation Prevention (LEAP) initiative and the clinical and economic impact that early risk identification and stratification can have on a diabetes population.

As is the case with “financial spreadsheet validation” according to the rules of the Validation Institute, users may change assumptions in order to model different impacts on prospective results.

BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina offers large employer groups a comprehensive population health management program. This program combines case management, utilization management, disease management, wellness efforts, patient centered medical homes and value based incentives. At the end of 2015, there were approximately 379,000 members eligible to participate in some aspect of population health management.
Using this integrated approach to population health, BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina achieved a chronic disease event rate for the large employer group that is below the National average and the State Government average.

BlueCross is the only health plan operating in South Carolina that has achieved event rates this favorable, measured validly. Because they reflect cost and health status, event rates are the most important outcomes for both the large employer as well as for its employees.

Further, in 2017, they validated all their major lines of business for 2016, making BlueCross of South Carolina the most carefully vetted health plan by the Validation Institute, with the most favorable validly measured outcomes, in the Southeast.

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives

Connect Healthcare Collaboration guides employers to choose health and wellness programs that have demonstrated measurable positive impact on costs and quality.  By implementing proven programs, employers should experience lower overall costs.  

Method / Calculation

The analysis compared Per Employee Per Year costs from a pre-implementation year to a post-implementation year.  Costs included medical benefits for all employees covered by the employer’s plan.  Costs for implementing the programs were netted against the savings.  

Findings / Outcome/ Savings

The post-implementation year’s medical costs (net of intervention costs) were statistically significantly lower than the pre-implementation year’s.  

Limitations 

Savings may be the result of multiple interventions, or combination of interventions; this analysis cannot differentiate at the program level.  

Having more than 12 months of cost data would provide a broader picture of the intervention’s long-term savings.  

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives 

Rx ‘n Go is an alternative pharmacy program that helps pioneering employer groups reduce prescription medication benefit cost (for both the plan and members), add relevant member health benefit choice, and positively increase prescription medication compliance.  Rx ‘n Go offers mail-order maintenance medications, priced at four standard price tier levels – $25, $50, $75, or $100 for a typical 90-day supply (mailed to the member’s home). Employees pay nothing; the employer or plan pays one of the four price levels only when members use Rx ‘n Go to fill their chronic prescription medication needs.  Note: VI’s review was exclusively on the reduction in costs; no other statements were reviewed.

The analysis focuses on how Rx ’n Go’s streamlined pricing saves both the health plan and its members money, taking into account that in some cases, Rx n Go’s price may be higher than other sources.  

Method/ Calculation 

For a 5,085-person group, the analysis compared the Rx ‘n Go costs of the generic medications with what the plan would have paid for the same medication using the health rates.  The analysis calculated: the total amount paid, the amount the health plan paid, the amount the employee paid, the per-day’s supply cost, and per prescription costs. The analysis was limited to generic medications purchased through the Rx ‘n Go program.  Cost for non-users of the Rx ‘n Go program were not analyzed.  

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings 

In 2018, the plan, and its members spent $166,824 on generic drugs through Rx ‘n Go; the plan and members would have paid $327,231 for the same drugs, if they had purchased the drugs under their PBM (non-Rx ‘n Go) contract.  Of the $160,407 in actual savings, members saved $103,061 in avoided co-pays (because the Rx ‘n Go program requires no co-payments from members), and the plan saved a total of $57,346. For the case study group, the Per Day’s supply and Per Prescription costs for the drugs purchased through the Rx ‘n Go program were 49% lower in 2018.  

Limitations 

Any particular employer’s actual savings from adopting the Rx ‘n Go Alternative pharmacy program will vary, depending upon its existing pharmacy contracts and utilization mix.    

The analysis did not address whether the plan’s costs for other medications (brand name, non-maintenance, or generic medications not handled by Rx ‘n Go) were affected by moving the generic drug volume away from the Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM).  Moreover, the analysis does not include any savings from increased member medication compliance.

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives 

The Eden Health Primary Care Platform offers employees greater access to primary care, using near site clinics, pop-up worksite clinics, as well as virtual visits.   One goal of the program is to reduce the use of specialists, and in turn, reduce expenses for care.  

Method/ Calculation 

Their calculation is the proportion of patients whose visit resulted in a referral to a specialist.  

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings 

Of 1,205 patients who had an office visit in a 12-month period, 145 (12.03%) were referred to a specialist.  Eden’s rate for specialist referral is significantly lower than a national benchmark of 33% of patients.  

Limitations 

No adjustments were made to reflect characteristics of Eden’s population, which may vary from the population used for the benchmark. 

**Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Program Provider – Specialty Destination Center of Excellence (U.S.)**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives  

Edison’s program send patients to high-quality providers, with the goal of correct diagnosis and efficient treatment.  Travel costs and arrangements to see the designated providers are handled by the program so that employees do not have barriers to care.   

Method/ Calculation  

Edison provides an online calculator that estimates, based upon an employer’s number of lives, the frequency of certain conditions and the use of the travel program.  Costs for the travel program and the care delivered by the designated providers is compared to costs for the same services from other providers. Credible sources were used for the non-program providers; in addition, the user can supply his/her own plan’s data in the calculator.  

Savings are stated net of the program fees, except for the initial set-up charges.  

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings  

Using credible estimates, the costs for the program’s designated providers are lower than comparable providers.  Since the fees are triggered by a member’s using the program, the employer’s risk of having higher costs is minimized.   

Limitations  

Participation in the program may lead to a member’s diagnosis getting changed, and therefore the care plan.  This could lead to additional savings or additional costs. This is not addressed in the savings estimates.  

**Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Program Provider – Specialty Cardiometabolic**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives 

Does the use of web-based, patient-centric health information exchange tools lower the medical costs for patients with chronic conditions?  This analysis focused on patients who had hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, ischemic vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.  Published studies have shown that care coordination does lead to lower costs for chronic condition patients; the HIE tools could support better care coordination and therefore lower costs.  

Method/ Calculation 

The allowed amount for hospital admissions with a chronic condition diagnosis and the total allowed amount for all medical services was compared between program participants and propensity-score matched non-participants.  The allowed amounts came from medical and pharmacy claims from 89,034 adults age 18 and older who were covered continuously by the insurer for the 12-month period. Allowed amounts were expressed as a rate per 1,000 member months for each group. 

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings 

The intervention group’s PMPM total allowed medical costs were eight percent lower than the control group.  The difference between the two groups was statistically significant; thus, it would not reasonably be due to random variation.  The intervention group also had a reduction in hospital admissions for chronic conditions while the control group had an increase.  These differences were also large enough to be statistically significant.  

Limitations 

Any observational study has the potential to have missed an unmeasured difference between the intervention and control group, despite having adjustments for various known factors.  

**Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Program Provider – Value-Based Provider Care Facilitation**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives  

By identifying patients’ risk for avoidable hospitalization and giving providers timely and relevant information to guide the care plan, Evolent’s predictive analytics tool helps practices to reduce all-cause hospital admissions and total spending.  A key factor of the system is its capability to put the latest available evidence at the provider’s disposal, so that it can be applied to care planning. 

Method/ Calculation  

Data collected by the risk identification tool itself includes medical and pharmacy claims, laboratory orders and results, and social/behavioral assessments.  This data guided selection of an intervention and a propensity-score matched control group. Twelve months of pre-intervention data and six months of post-intervention data were included. All-cause   admissions were calculated per 1,000 members; costs were calculated per member per month.  

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings  

The intervention group had a significantly lower rate of hospital admissions, and of total costs.  

Limitations  

Six months of post-intervention data is relatively little; analyzing 12 months of data may lead to a different, perhaps stronger, result for the intervention group. 

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives

Exclusive Surgeries strives to reduce employers’ costs for planned surgeries by having bundled case rates, shifting the site of care to lower-cost settings, which, in turn, have lower infection rates.

Method/ Calculation

A 500-live group’s costs for four sample procedures – osteoarthritis hip, osteoarthritis shoulder, benign neoplasm, and rotator cuff repair — were compared to Exclusive Surgeries’ bundled case rates.

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings

Exclusive Surgeries’ bundled case rates were 54% lower than what the group had previously paid for four sample procedures.

Limitations

The analysis was of a limited number of procedures for a single employer.

**Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Program Provider – General**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives 

Freshbenies offers employer health plan members several programs designed to encourage use of lower-cost medical services.  Freshbenies programs include virtual access to specialists, advocacy services designed for price transparency and cost efficiency, and a pharmacy savings program.  

One offering, the Teladoc program, gives members access to primary care, dermatology, and behavioral health visits by phone and video.    By substituting the lower-cost virtual visit for a face-to-face visit, the program reduces the total costs for a plan. An engaging and unique communication campaign strives to increase use of the lower-cost services.  (Note: the validation review focused only on the Teladoc program.) 

Method/ Calculation 

An independent analysis performed by Veracity Healthcare Analytics in 2015 measured 12 months of per member per month spending (including all plan members) for the period before the Teladoc program was implemented, and 18 months from the period after the program was implemented. The population included 80,000 freshbenies’ participants.  The calculation aggregated a reduction in per member per month spending and the change in spending trend (slope).  

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings 

The difference between the observed versus expected spending per member per month was $21.30.  The change in spending trend was -$1.16 PMPM and was statistically significant. The change in PMPM spending was -$9.68 and was not statistically significant.  The two factors together, however, reached statistical significance.  

Limitations 

No data was offered and therefore no adjustments were made to reflect other changes the employer or plan may have made at the same time that Teladoc was introduced. Other changes may have had an influence on the PMPM spending and the trend, aside from the Teladoc program.  

The analysis was of four different employer groups in the United States; other employers may have different results from the same intervention.  

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives

Green Imaging is owned and operated by board-certified radiologists who manage a virtual medical imaging network (CT scans. MRIs, x-rays, etc.) with locations nationwide. The company offers transparent pricing, centralized scheduling, software that keeps providers up to date on status of referrals, and centralized viewing and reporting software. The objective is to provide quality medical imaging services for a lower cost.

Method/ Calculation

Green Imaging compared its fees with the Healthcare Bluebook Regional Fair Price (RFP) for each medical imaging service offered.

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings

A table documented cost differences between Green Imaging’s price and the regional fair price for over 40 procedures, including CT scans, MRIs, x-rays, and mammograms. All examples demonstrated Green Imaging fees were 0.70% to 170% below RFP. 

Limitations

The data offered does not address the quality of care.   

Happy Whole Human provides an online program that assesses 28 different aspects of a balanced life. The program then supplies supports and coaching to improve areas that are in need of improvement. HWH validly and accurately measures participants’ change in perceived health status, turnover intention, and presenteeism.

BROADENED AND DEEPER ENGAGEMENT
Health Partners’ Health Advocacy approach enables the delivery of comprehensive disease and case management solutions to manage care, optimize health and generate cost savings.
Through innovative identification, stratification and engagement techniques, more members receive the support and services they need for successful condition management.
Member support and services improve engagement through:

• Member activation
• Condition literacy
• Care and treatment decisions
• Self-management skills

IMPROVED CLINICAL OUTCOMES
By aligning the intensity and type of support with a member’s needs, overall health and clinical outcomes are improved.

LOWER COST OF CARE
Improved clinical outcomes translate to reduced adverse events and associated costs.

**Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Direct Care Provider – General Primary Care**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives

The intervention equips primary care practices to work more effectively with patients suffering muscle/bone/ joint related conditions.  By assigning these patients to the appropriate care pathway early in the disease process, the intervention seeks to reduce costs. 

Method/ Calculation

The analysis used matched cohorts within a single 5,000-life employer group – one receiving community care and the other receiving care at a Super Clinic.  Per patient per year costs including pharmacy, hospital and professional services were compared between the two cohorts.  The analysis also addressed the care received in the six months following the musculoskeletal care episode. 

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings

After risk adjustment, the average cost per intervention group patient was 51.48% lower than the community care patients’ average cost (p < .0279).  The utilization of MRIs, injections, and surgeries was lower in the intervention group by 49.75%, 39.44%, 78.38% respectively.  The community care patients’ relative risk of seeking follow-up care in the six months after the initial episode was 4.49 times higher than the intervention patients.  All three of these differences between the two groups were statistically significant. 

Limitations

Quality and outcome data were not provided for the two groups studied.  The six-month post-treatment follow-up period is a proxy for quality, but patient pain and functional assessments would be superior. 

It Starts With Me Health endeavors to support overall employee health for clients and our employees/health plan members. We heartily endorse the Employee Health Vendor Code of Conduct, which states that any health and wellness programming should do no harm to employee health, employee morale, corporate integrity or employee/employer finances.

Employee Benefits and Harm Avoidance

It Starts With Me Health will recommend health & wellness efforts that are done “with and for” employees & health plan members, not “to” them.

Our focus will be on the promotion of personal well-being of employees, identification and/or avoidance of potentially negative health outcomes for employees/health plan members, analyzing data, and assistance in improving the financial stability of the health plans of our clients.

Our choices and frequencies of suggested health interventions, testing, and educational materials will be as generally consistent as possible with expert guidelines such as Harvard Medical School, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the CDC, and Choosing Wisely (an initiative of the American Board of Internal Medicine). This is done in an effort to minimize over-programming, over-spending, overwhelming, over-screening, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment. As a specific example, we will discourage our clients from implementing universal financial incentives for annual checkups.

We will recommend to our clients that potential programs and services be evaluated to ensure that employees will not be singled out, fined, or embarrassed for any reason due to our health status.

Respect for Corporate Integrity and Employee Privacy

When analyzing our data or other client vendor data, we will provide unfiltered, unbiased, & unspun data, good or bad, so that our clients can make sound business decisions about their mix of services and vendors.

We will not share employee-identifiable health data with employers.

Commitment to Valid Outcomes Measurement

Our relevant staff will understand USPSTF guidelines, employee harm avoidance, wellness-sensitive medical event measurement, and outcomes analysis.

If clients wish to engage in health improvement programs internally or via other vendors, we will recommend that we include warnings of any adverse effects that participants might encounter (e.g. with the popular “Biggest Loser” competitions, the programs should be accompanied by warnings regarding potential unhealthy eating behaviors, weight-cycling, awareness of issues with other health conditions and/or medications, and poor long-term results that can result).

In addition, we will advise our clients that for true measurement of any type of cessation or reduction program (weight loss, tobacco, etc….), vendors should be required to provide aggregate reports that outline both immediate improvement and most importantly, the true measure of success – the continued maintenance of that improvement by each individual for at least 12 months.

Our contractual language and data reports will be valid. If we must measure outcomes using other than one of the valid techniques, we will disclose the invalidity (such as “healthy volunteer bias” or the “natural flow of risk” or ignoring dropouts) that is likely to cause savings to be overstated. If we use a participants-vs-non-participants methodology, we will disclose that in the three instances in which we were tested, we were shown to be invalid.

**Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Value Transparency Services**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives  

The Leapfrog intervention publishes hospital’s safety and quality records, with two goals in mind: one is to encourage hospitals to improve their safety and quality records; two is to encourage employers to prefer the better performing hospitals. The easy access to Leapfrog’s reporting on hospitals in itself may motivate hospitals to improve; there is evidence that hospitals did respond to the publicity of these records.  For employers, Leapfrog offers a calculator to estimate savings from having more patients served at safer hospitals.  

Method/ Calculation  

The Leapfrog LIves & Dollars Lost calculator uses credible and reliable data sources, including the data gathered from hospitals, to estimate the costs and health consequences of medical errors. The calculator offers estimates for avoidable deaths, the cost of errors that is built in to hospital charges, and how much of the employer’s total spending is for errors.  

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings  

The calculator produces an estimate of 13% of total medical spending is for hospital errors, along with estimates of the number of avoidable deaths and the extra costs for each hospital admission. 

Limitations  

The estimates, though based upon credible data, are not from an actual implementation of the intervention.  

**Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Behavioral Health**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives 

MindSciences smartphone-based program for smoking cessation uses mindfulness principles.  A randomized controlled trial found a significantly higher percentage of mindfulness training participants abstinent at 17 weeks compared to participants in a conventional smoking cessation program. (Brewer & al, 2011)     A randomized controlled trial of the 22-day smartphone app showed its impacts on abstinence rates and on nicotine craving.  

Method/ Calculation 

Smokers who met the criteria were randomly assigned to get the smartphone mindfulness program plus craving and consumption surveys.  The control group did not get the mindfulness program, but did complete the craving and consumption surveys.  

All participants reported their nicotine cravings and tobacco consumption at one week and six months.  Program users’ data was compared to non-users’ data.  

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings 

Among the smartphone program participants, the correlation between cravings and cigarette consumption decreased as the length of time in the program increased.  Thus, program participants became more successful in resisting cravings.  

Limitations 

Though the correlation between cravings and consumption decreased, this did not translate to higher abstinence in the smartphone program users compared to non-users.  

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives 

By making medical procedure comparison shopping easy, MyMedicalShopper encourages medical care consumers to be price sensitive and thus to save money on their own out-of-pocket costs and reduce total claims costs. 

There is face validity to the concept of price sensitive consumers seeking out lower-cost care, though research has shown that a low portion of consumers use cost data when it is available to them. A 2017 study found that only 13% of consumers sought out any information about prices before seeking care, and only 3% compared costs among available providers. (A, KM, AD, & N, 2017) 

The measure focuses on members who had a health benefit claim (“claimants”) and who used the MyMedicalShopper app to compare provider costs.  

Method/ Calculation 

Subtracting the price actually paid for services for claimants who use MyMedicalShopper from the median price for the same service for providers in the same service area produces how much the plan was likely to pay without the intervention.  

The median price is calculated based upon claims data gathered from 

• All Payers Claims Data base for the target geographic area (e.g. a state); 
• Self-funded employers who use the MyMedicalShopper service;
• De-identified claims from private claims administrators; and, 
• User-supplied Explanations of Benefits.  

The calculation includes all claims for the target services from MyMedicalShopper users, even when the price actually paid is higher than the median.  Both plan and employee costs (e.g. deductibles) are included.   

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings 

For a group of fewer than 50 employees, during a 24-month period, the claims actually paid for app users for services included in MyMedIcalShopper were $289,338; the median price for the same services was $379,123.  This creates an estimated gross savings of $89,785. The total program fees for the two-year period were $3,590.  

Limitations 

Because the median price may be higher or lower than a specific plan’s negotiated allowed amount, plans’ savings will vary.  

A, M., KM, D., AD, S., & N, S. (2017). Americans support price shopping for health care, but few actually seek out price information. Health Affairs Millwood , 1392 – 1400.

NationsHearing has demonstrated that people with untreated hearing loss have higher risk of falls, and that treating hearing loss would, based upon peer-reviewed research, correlate to lower frequency of hospital care for falls.  Using credible data on the frequency and cost of fall-related hospital stays, the calculator gives users a reasonable estimate of the program’s impact on a Medicare Advantage population.  The Institute validates that the calculator is valid.  The Institute makes no warranties that the program will have the impact estimated by the calculator.

Nova Healthcare Administrators has developed an approach that applies data about the employer, the benefit plan, and medical claims to find opportunities for lowering cost and improving health.  Nova then follows through with customized interventions and programs that directly address the opportunity areas.

On the measure of Per Member Per Year medical costs, excluding pharmacy and Emergency Room visits per 1,000 member months, Nova demonstrated performance superior to Milliman Medical Index (MMI).

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives

The PracticeWise program, Managing and Adapting Practice (MAP), gives children’s mental health professionals a system to choose, plan, and monitor treatment. The goal is reducing the length of treatment needed to bring the patient’s functional status to the level appropriate for outpatient care. The reduced length of treatment would also lower costs, assuming providers were paid fee-for-service.

Method/ Calculation

Patient outcomes were measured by the validated instrument, Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) at intake and at discharge, administered by trained staff. The length of treatment was measured by calculating the days from the intake to the discharge of each patient. These measures were taken for one year prior to the intervention, and three years after the intervention was implemented.

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings

A convenience sample of patients served by the MAP system were at an appropriate level of function for outpatient care after an average of 393 days. In the pre-intervention period, similar patients achieved the appropriate level of function at 866 days.

Limitations

The patients in the intervention group were not randomly selected. Thus, some other factor may have contributed to their shorter treatment length.

Validation Institute reviewed Predilytics’ Analytic Design Plan (ADP) for a health plan, which outlined:

· the objectives of the Medication Adherence project,
· the method for achieving those objectives, and
· the statistical and quantitative metrics that are used to document model validation.

Validation Institute reviewed Predilytics’ program evaluation which described how the models were used in a health plan’s operational call center to improve medication adherence for their members.

Predilytics’ evaluation of the predictive models and the operational recommendations reflect a well-grounded understanding of how predictive models perform and accurate assessment of the value of the insights created by these models to inform resource deployment within healthcare operations.

Within that program evaluation, Predilytics used additional statistical analysis to isolate the incremental performance of the predictive model above and beyond call center efficiency gains. Overstatement of attribution is commonplace in predictive modeling in population health, but the model was very carefully designed not to overstate attribution of the Predilytics’ intervention to the outcomes. The one aspect of this study in which overstatement might have been taking place is that the customer service representatives making the outbound calls got better at calling members over the course of the study. As a result, calls towards the end of the period were more successful. Predilytics pointed out this potential confounder to the validator and estimated the impact of it, rather than wait for the validator to point this out to them.

Consequently, the Validation Institute is able to provide validation for Predilytics, as they are well above the standard of using a methodology that is equivalent to or better than the most valid standard commonly used in their segment of the industry.

Providence has dramatically reduced chronic disease event rates through a combination of disease management, gap-in-care programs and engagement with providers to understand variations in care. Providence also displays individual physician performance in managing chronic conditions on their provider directory, to inform and assist members when choosing a primary care physician (PCP).

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives 

Comprehensive health navigation/care coordination.

Method/ Calculation 

Multiple years’ actuarial reports have been reviewed and critiqued. Quantum’s actuarial reports are highly credible. 

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings 

Overall savings vs. trend for the entire population managed.  This approach avoids all regression to the mean and participation bias by including the entire population for all periods.

While they “average” a higher reduction, for validation purposes we are looking for a figure that most companies should be able to achieve. Therefore, the figure is lower than the figure in their actuarial reports.

Limitations 

Conflated average results with results that can be expected 90% of the time. The validation percentage is lower than the actuarial report describes for that reason.

The trend is sourced and reasonable. However, it is not a pure cost reduction across the population. Changing the trend assumption would change the savings.

Results over time have weakened noticeably, though still the best in the field.

The following validation is a review of the guarantees offered by Quizzify to its customers.  These guarantees are fully disclosed on the Quizzify website, which is the sole source for the data reviewed.

The focus of validation review was on whether the Quizzify guarantees apply clear and valid measures.  Two guarantees met the standards for validation: cost and utilization; and engagement.  (Note: Quizzify may offer other guarantees which have not been validated.)

Cost and Utilization

Text of the cost and utilization guarantee Part I:

If the client splits its population, Quizzify guarantees that the medical and wellness program costs per person will trend more favorably in the Quizzify cohort than the conventional wellness cohort.  Under the guarantee, expenses for catastrophic or outlier events are excluded.  Thus, costs for a single person that exceed $50,000 (or some other amount) would be excluded; the first $50,000 would, however, be included.  An “outlier cutoff” figure will be agreed upon ahead of time by Quizzify and the client and will apply to the before and after assessments of both groups.

This guarantee is valid assuming that the two cohorts are similar except for their exposure to wellness or Quizzify programs.  By using a per person measure, the guarantee ensures that population changes do not distort results.  This is a valid and consistent method for ensuring that extraordinary expenses do not skew the results.

Text of the cost and utilization guarantee Part II:

If the client does NOT split the population in half but rather offers Quizzify as the lead program, Quizzify guarantees a reduction (vs. history) in the following two categories:

1. Wellness-sensitive medical event rates, as defined by Gowrisankaran et al. (Health Affairs March 2013, Vol. 32, No. 3 pp. 477 – 485)

2. A grouping of any 50 items of utilization that are proposed by the client as being overused in their population, such as CT scans. These items will have to be identifiable through simple diagnosis, procedure or drug codes, to facilitate reconciliation. Measures will be done per capita and will not use diagnosed patients as a denominator.

This form of the guarantee is also valid, as it cites a source for defining wellness-sensitive medical event rates.  It applies a rate to the measure.  Allowing the client to define overused procedures is also valid, limiting it to procedures that can be identified using the available data sources.  Further, the guarantee specifies that diagnosed patients will not be used as a denominator for calculating rates; rather, all rates will be calculated per capita.

Engagement

Text for engagement guarantee:

Companies measure engagement different ways. No matter what way is used, Quizzify guarantees that the non-engaged population will decline by half, up to 10% in total. Example: if the client has a 90% engagement rate, Quizzify will increase that to 95%.  If the client has a 20% engagement rate, Quizzify will increase that to 60%.  The requirements for this guarantee are:

1. The client must measure the same way (survey instrument and communication channel) in both periods and both populations, over the same time intervals and

2. The client must maintain the same incentives or penalties during the time period.

This guarantee is valid and enforceable, even if the survey instrument used has not been validated.  Using the same instrument at the same time interval for both groups ensures that results are based upon an underlying consistency.

Disclaimers of Review

This review was limited to the descriptions of the guarantees published on Quizzify’s website.  This review also relied upon the website’s statement that the ROI reporting applies valid measurement tools; a review of the ROI report was not undertaken.

Summary

Quizzify delivers wellness education to employees in unique, entertaining, and effective quizzes.  Quizzify guarantees that participants will have lower medical costs and higher engagement levels than participants in traditional wellness programs.  These guarantees apply valid measures, giving clients a clear and objective method to assess performance.

**Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Direct Care Provider – Specialty Musculoskeletal**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives 

Reflexion provides a Virtual Exercise Rehabilitation Assistant for patients who have had total knee arthroplasty, as a substitute for in-person physical therapy. The program uses an avatar, motion capture technology, and oversight by physical therapists to deliver physical therapy services.  The research question is whether Reflexion’s program achieves patient outcomes comparable to conventional physical therapy. 

Method/ Calculation 

A randomized controlled trial assigned non-traumatic total knee arthroplasty patients to the intervention or to conventional care.  Measures of patient outcomes included: total healthcare costs for the 12 weeks following the surgery, home health visits, outpatient physical therapy visits, and rehospitalizations.  In addition, the study measured Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at six and 12 weeks, knee extension, knee flexion, and 10-meter gait speed.  

The service utilization data came from medical claims.  The KOOS is a self-administered survey. The other measures — extension, flexion, gait speed, pain, and falls — were administered by the medical professionals at the six and 12-week point. 

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings 

The intervention patients had 60% lower billable costs than usual care patients for the 12 weeks after surgery.  The $2,745 savings (mean per patient) stems partly from fewer rehospitalizations on average; fewer home health and outpatient physical therapy visits compared to the usual care group.  

The 6-week knee extension, knee flexion, gait speed and the 6- and 12-week KOOS scores for the intervention and the usual care groups did not significantly differ.  

(Note: patients’ data was assigned to their original assigned group, even if they changed groups during the study period.  An “intent to treat” analysis structure was used.) 

Limitations 

Patients were selected based upon having a Risk Assessment and Prediction Tool score of six or greater prior to surgery, indicating they were expected to be discharged to home after the surgery.  These results may not be generalizable to all types of total knee arthroplasty patients.  

Remedy Analytics analyzes data that contains up to 600 data fields per claim of an employer’s raw prescription claims data. The data is disseminated in order to determine the proper adjudication of every claim for comparison to the actual adjudication and calculation imposed by the PBM. Remedy technology uncovers the adjudication and calculations methods that cause the actual discounts to be artificially inflated. The pricing, adjudication and calculation model created by the PBM is often misaligned with employer expectations created in the contract. Collecting, dissecting and warehousing every claim provides a check-and-balance on PBM reporting.

In particular, the two examples below are validated as ways in which improper discounts can be adjusted using Remedy:

1. PBMs often misclassify sole-source and patent-litigation generics (which typically carry far lower discounts than established generics) as brand-name drugs. This misclassification also causes the brand-name discounts to appear larger than they are.
2. PBMs often capture automatic discounts from retail pharmacies without assistance from a PBM.

Predict & Prevent Primary Claims
“The Coaching Choice”

1. Splashlight’s predictive analytics will accurately identify and stratify the high risk and rising risk individuals using three years of historical health claims and workers’ compensation claims. They use the first two years of data to build the model and the third year to prove validity. While many vendors promise a reduction in cost of the highest-cost or highest-risk segment, they recognize that this cohort regresses to the mean, and a demonstration of effectiveness requires showing savings after making a “dummy year adjustment” to account for that regression effect. Splashlight will contract to show savings validly, taking that adjustment into account.

2. Prior to beginning their Prevent services, Splashlight provides a benchmark of predicted future medical costs for health claims and workers’ compensation medical claims. Using their validated predictive analytics methodology they then adjust for those ICD10 codes that are mutually agreed with their clients to be impactable through their prevention services. They will apply measures that are attributable to The Coaching Choice solutions which they expect to result in a reduction of overall costs by at least 5%.

3. Splashlight’s contractual language and outcomes reporting will be transparent and plausible. All research limitations (e.g., “participants vs. non-participants” or the “natural flow of risk” or ignoring dropouts) and methodology will be fully disclosed, sourced, and readily available.

4. Splashlight will measure the actual savings realized each quarter and annually and adjust their savings totals accordingly to show the total costs and savings for the client. Further they will guarantee in their contracts that their costs will not exceed more than 40% of the actual savings achieved over a three year period. If the actual annual savings have not exceeded annual costs after a six month period to adjust for delays in claims received, then Splashlight will continue to provide services at no charge for up to an additional year or until the actual savings are realized through validated measures.

5. The participant experience will be tracked for all participants with the following expectations:
80 percent of the identified population will participate in The Coaching Choice program.
80 percent of participants in The Coaching Choice program will report their willingness to recommend the program to others.
80 percent of participants in The Coaching Choice program will report their improved confidence in their ability to manage their healthcare.
80 percent of the participants in The Coaching Choice program will report that it improved their quality of life.
80 percent of the participants in The Coaching Choice Program will report positive personal experience as a result of participation.

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives 

StanData provides adjustable height desks, training, and a tracking app.  The goal of having adjustable height desks is to decrease the amount of time spent sitting, decrease the level of discomfort felt at work, and increase employee productivity. Adjustable height desks have been shown to influence discomfort:  In a 53-study scoping review, Chambers et al found that of six domains considered, behavior and discomfort had the strongest changes from the introduction of sit-stand desks. The other domains considered were physiological, work performance, psychological, and posture. 

Method

StanData offered a baseline and a 30-day follow-up survey to users, which included a question about overall physical discomfort.  Users rated their discomfort level on a scale of 0 to 10, mirroring a validated pain scale.  

Findings / Metric 

The baseline and follow-up surveys had a 90% response rate. StanData calculated for each user the change in discomfort level from baseline to follow-up.  StanData then calculated the average change in discomfort level, including users who had an increase in discomfort.  

Limitations 

Desk users are not randomly selected, and some are volunteers, which may bias the survey results to some degree.  

Validation

StanData’s estimate of change in pain levels among adjustable desk height users applies credible and valid methods.  

Sustainable Health Index assesses a person’s current health risk in five domains, and then provides support customized to the risk level. The program goal is to interrupt the natural flow of risk (e.g. moderate to high); similar programs have been shown successful. The Validation Institute validated SHI’s methods for measuring health status, health activation, as well as their method for estimating costs. The majority of the survey questions are from validated instruments; and SHI uses validated scoring methods. SHI then applies the health status/ risk measurement to costs estimated using credible data sources and methods.

**Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Program Provider – Specialty Wellness**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives 

By assessing health risk and providing specific supports and interventions to individuals, U.S. Preventive Medicine’s Preventive Plan strives to interrupt the natural flow of people from lower to higher risk levels.  The natural changes in a population’s mix of health risks is described by Dee Eddington in (citation).  

The intervention includes high-tech/high-touch support and encouragement that participants need to adopt healthy behaviors.  Support services include 24/7 nurse hotlines, one-on-one health coaching, contests, group events, and employer incentives.

Method/ Calculation 

The assessment of each individual’s risk level is determined by the program’s Health Risk Assessment; criteria for scoring and determining risk levels are described in The Impact of the Prevention Plan on Employee Health Risk Reduction, Population Health Management, Vol 13, No 5, 2010.  

The 2,606 participants’ baseline scores were compared to their score one year after program implementation.  Each risk score was assigned to low, moderate, and high based upon the scoring rubric. The mix of the population’s risk scores was then assessed at baseline and at one-year post implementation.  

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings 

There was a net increase of 9.40% of people in the low-risk category, a decrease of 3.61% in the moderate-risk category, and a 5.79% decrease in the high-risk category.  If the natural flow of risk had not been interrupted, the results would have been . . . 

Limitations 

As the participants came from several different employers, we cannot determine what other factors may have influenced the results.  

**Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Program Provider – Care Navigation**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives

PredictiMed’s intervention identifies people who are at higher risk for colon cancer with the goal of ensuring appropriate testing. Through appropriate testing, cases of colon cancer can be reduced and life years saved.   

Method / Calculation 

The applicant identified patients as at-risk based upon their Health Risk Assessment scores ; then, the results of their colonoscopy test was compared to assess the accuracy of the HRA score.  At-risk patients were compared to the general population.  Costs for colonoscopy tests and life-year saved came from credible sources.  Results for the group were compared to a matched control group.  

Return on investment was expressed in two ways: savings from reducing cases of colon cancer, and per life year saved over a three-year period.    

Findings / Outcome/ Savings

The savings per avoided colon cancer case was $55,000; the savings per life year saved over a three-year period was $1,995,000.  

Limitations 

The study was observational, and therefore, the intervention group may be affected by selection bias.  

Estimates for the control group came from other studies and national statistics.  

US Preventive Medicine (USPM) is the first and as of now only wellness company to achieve a sustained and significant reduction in wellness-sensitive medical events (asthma, cardiac events, COPD, congestive heart failure and diabetes) across that portion of its entire book of business for which comprehensive claims data was available (see chart below). The reduction achieved by USPM significantly outpaced the much smaller national decline in these events, as evidenced by both the database maintained by the Disease Management Purchasing Consortium (through 2014) and the federal Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) database (through 2013). USPM is further the only wellness company willing to contractually commit to being measured on this metric in future contracts. This makes USPM the only wellness company to measure validly, achieve significant event reduction when measured validly, and offer valid contractual metrics.

**Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Program Provider – Specialty Pain Management/Addiction Reduction**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives

Venebio Opioid Advisor (VOA) is a risk index that incorporates a clinical decision support tool with personalized, evidence-based guidance to reduce a patient’s risk of an opioid overdose.

VOA uses demographic, drug and medical data taken from health care claims, extracted from the EMR or manually entered, and returns real-time risk scores to identify patients with elevated risk of prescription opioid overdose.  VOA identifies patients in the top risk classes, and those patients are flagged for intervention by pharmacy staff. The pharmacist can then encourage high-risk patients to accept a naloxone unit (injector or inhaler).

A research article completed by Venebio Group and others and published in the journal Pain Medicine in 2018 noted that the risk index had excellent predictive accuracy in a large population of US medical users of prescription opioids, similar to its performance in assessing Veterans Health Administrative (VHA) patient data.

Method/ Calculation

Of a network of 11,000 retail community pharmacies affiliated with Venebio’s client and partner, PrescribeWellness (PW), 476 pharmacies were enrolled in a National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) funded pilot to evaluate the benefit of VOA. Venebio measures percentage of patients identified as high-risk for opioid overdose who leave the pharmacy with naloxone in-hand (dispensing rate).

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings

At baseline, the pharmacy patients in the high-risk category targeted by VOA had an overall naloxone dispensing rate of just 4%. After less than six months of program operation, 3,175 patient interventions were conducted in the pilot pharmacies. Of those, 1,034 patients (32.6%) left the pharmacy with a naloxone unit. This is an increase in naloxone dispensing of 815%.

Limitations

The results from the pilot are preliminary, though the dramatic shift in naloxone dispensing suggests the results could have a substantial impact on patient outcomes, and potentially on mortality. With PrescribeWellness, Venebio continues to collect data prospectively with the intent to co-publish, most likely in late 2019. VOA is also beginning to collect data on the number of these naloxone units, dispensed to patients identified by VOA, that have been used to reverse an opioid overdose. They are currently collecting data on the reduction in the number of overdoses, OD-related ED visits and similar metrics, but those data are not yet available.

Vera Whole Health provides on-site primary care clinic services to employers, as well as an array of services designed to engage employees and promote preventive care.

Vera compared the PMPM expected costs to the actual costs.  Expected costs were derived using the employer’s cost trends prior to implementing Vera’s services.  Actual costs included all medical costs and the direct costs billed by Vera to the employer for the onsite clinic services.  All members are included in the calculation, not just those who visited the clinic or otherwise engaged in Vera’s services.  The employer’s actual costs after implementing Vera’s program were significantly lower than expected costs.

***Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Program Provider – Specialty Musculoskeletal**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives

Virtual Physical Therapists offers a tele-rehabilitation service, with the goal of delivering high quality care.  Patients get video visits and assessments from physical therapists via smart phone.  A 2018 systematic review of studies found that research on physical therapy telehealth were of moderate quality and found positive impact on health outcomes. One study included in the review showed cost savings for telehealth physical therapy compared to usual care.  The review called for more robust research. 

Method/ Calculation

The analysis measured scores for three patients on validated instruments at day 1, 2, 5, 8, 15, and 90 of treatment.  The instruments were the Numerical Rating Scale, Body Pain Diagram, and Patient Specific Functional Scale. 

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings

The patients all showed improving scores over the course of treatment, and each achieved the score reflecting remission of pain and regain of function. 

Limitations

The analysis did not compare the three patient case studies to usual care patients.   

**Winner of the 2019 Health Value Award for Specialty Drug Managers**

Question / Intervention Goal / Objectives

VIVIO Precision Care™ is a specialty drug plan powered by VIVIO qClinicals™, a continuous improvement care system that analyzes individual patient data to make specialty drug therapies available based on real-world effectiveness and individual patient needs – not a profit-driven formulary. Vivio uses effectiveness, cost and patient data to make decisions. It uses analytical models to categorize the patient’s disease along with clinical trial data and endpoints to define expectations and objective measurements.

Method/ Calculation

The outcome measure “lower costs” is tracked with supply chain savings (baseline versus actual drug costs) and return on investment. A baseline net acquisition cost and savings estimate for all employer customers is based on historical claims data, including contract discounts. Data on four employer customers’ 2018 baseline drug costs and actual drug costs were reported in total gross savings and, after noting program fees, reported as return on investment and total net savings. 

Findings / Metric/ Outcome/ Savings

In 2018, the four employer customers saved on average 3.7 for every dollar they paid for the program. The highest ROI was 6.4X.

Limitations

The assessment only included four employer customers’ claims. A larger sample size would support the reliability of the outcomes.

Welwaze’s product, Celbrea Thermal Mapping Device, is an adjunct tool for mammography or other standard breast detection methods for breast cancer diagnosis. Welwaze strives for patients to have less unnecessary follow-up testing and biopsies. For this, Celbrea TMD helps to detect earlier stage tumors, thus reducing the frequency of later stage cancers. The calculator estimates the impact of Celbrea on follow-up testing, biopsies, and treatment costs. The calculator also estimates employers’ costs for breast-cancer related turnover.