Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30182326›Full record

Observational studyJournal of general internal medicine2018

Segmentation of High-Cost Adults in an Integrated Healthcare System Based on Empirical Clustering of Acute and Chronic Conditions.

Anna C Davis, Ernest Shen, Nirav R Shah, Beth A Glenn, Ninez Ponce, Donatello Telesca, Michael K Gould, Jack Needleman

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of general internal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Anna C DavisKaiser Permanente Center for Effectiveness and Safety Research, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Ernest ShenKaiser Permanente Southern California Department of Research and Evaluation, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Nirav R ShahKaiser Permanente Southern California Clinical Operations Support, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Beth A GlennDepartment of Health Policy and Management, University of California Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ninez PonceDepartment of Health Policy and Management, University of California Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Donatello TelescaDepartment of Biostatistics, University of California Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Michael K GouldKaiser Permanente Southern California Department of Research and Evaluation, Pasadena, CA, USA. michael.k.gould@kp.org.
Jack NeedlemanDepartment of Health Policy and Management, University of California Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

UCLA Clinical and Translational Science InstituteTL1TR000121 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI DUBINETT, STEVEN M. · 2012 to 2015
$2.7M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR000121
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh-cost patients are a frequent focus of improvement projects based on primary care and other settings. Efforts to characterize high-cost, high-need patients are needed to inform care planning, but such efforts often rely on a priori assumptions, masking underlying complexities of a heterogenous population.

objectiveTo define recognizable subgroups of patients among high-cost adults based on clinical conditions, and describe their survival and future spending.

designRetrospective observational cohort study.

participantsWithin a large integrated delivery system with 2.7 million adult members, we selected the top 1% of continuously enrolled adults with respect to total healthcare expenditures during 2010. MAIN MEASURES: We used latent class analysis to identify clusters of alike patients based on 53 hierarchical condition categories. Prognosis as measured by healthcare spending and survival was assessed through 2014 for the resulting classes of patients.

resultsAmong 21,183 high-cost adults, seven clinically distinctive subgroups of patients emerged. Classes included end-stage renal disease (12% of high-cost population), cardiopulmonary conditions (17%), diabetes with multiple comorbidities (8%), acute illness superimposed on chronic conditions (11%), conditions requiring highly specialized care (14%), neurologic and catastrophic conditions (5%), and patients with few comorbidities (the largest class, 33%). Over 4 years of follow-up, 6566 (31%) patients died, and survival in the classes ranged from 43 to 88%. Spending regressed to the mean in all classes except the ESRD and diabetes with multiple comorbidities groups.

conclusionsData-driven characterization of high-cost adults yielded clinically intuitive classes that were associated with survival and reflected markedly different healthcare needs. Relatively few high-cost patients remain persistently high cost over 4 years. Our results suggest that high-cost patients, while not a monolithic group, can be segmented into few subgroups. These subgroups may be the focus of future work to understand appropriateness of care and design interventions accordingly.

Indexed as

Empirical ResearchHealth Care CostsAcute DiseaseAdultAgedChronic DiseaseCluster AnalysisCohort StudiesDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studiescomorbidityhealthcare costshealth services researchstatistical modeling

Identifiers

PMID30182326
PMCPMC6258619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.