Strategies to Reduce Nonurgent Emergency Department Use: Experience of a Northern Virginia Employer Group.

*HealthCore Inc., Wilmington, DE †WellPoint Inc., Indianapolis, IN.
Medical care (Impact Factor: 3.23). 12/2012; 51(3). DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182726b83
Source: PubMed


This administrative claims analysis evaluated the impact of a health plan-sponsored Emergency Room Utilization Management Initiative (ERUMI), which combined increased patient copays for ED visits with educational outreach to reduce inappropriate ED use and encourage use of retail health clinics (RHCs) and other alternative treatment sites among a commercially insured population.

Emergency department (ED) utilization rates for select acute but nonurgent conditions that could be treated appropriately in an RHC were compared for members of an employer group with (intervention group) and without (comparators) ERUMI. Utilization was compared for baseline period (January-June 2009) and ERUMI implementation period (January-June 2010).

A total of 56,896 members (14,224 intervention, 42,672 matched comparators) were included. ED utilization for conditions that could be treated appropriately by RHCs decreased by 10.39 visits/1000 members in the intervention group versus 6.29 visits in comparators. RHC visits rose for both the groups, with a greater increase in the intervention group (22.61 visits/1000 members, P<0.001) versus comparison (1.64/1000, P=0.064). After ERUMI implementation, intervention group members were nearly 5 times more likely than comparators to choose RHCs over ED for nonurgent care.

The health plan-sponsored ERUMI program, consisting of both financial and educational components, decreased nonurgent ED utilization while increasing the use of alternative treatment sites.

42 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective was to explore variation by insurance status in patient-reported barriers to accessing primary care. The authors fielded a brief, anonymous, voluntary survey of nonurgent emergency department (ED) visits at a large academic medical center and conducted descriptive analysis and thematic coding of 349 open-ended survey responses. The privately insured predominantly reported primary care infrastructure barriers-wait time in clinic and for an appointment, constraints related to conventional business hours, and difficulty finding a primary care provider (because of geography or lack of new patient openings). Half of those insured by Medicaid and/or Medicare also reported these infrastructure barriers. In contrast, the uninsured predominantly reported insurance, income, and transportation barriers. Given that insured nonurgent ED users frequently report infrastructure barriers, these should be the focus of patient-level interventions to reduce nonurgent ED use and of health system-level policies to enhance the capacity of the US primary care infrastructure.
    American Journal of Medical Quality 02/2014; 30(2). DOI:10.1177/1062860614521278 · 1.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, about half of the patient contacts with a general practitioner (GP) cooperative are nonurgent from a medical perspective. A part of these problems can wait until office hours or can be managed by the patient himself without further professional care. However, from the patient's perspective, there may be a need to contact a physician immediately. Our objective was to determine whether contacts with out-of-hours primary care made by patients with nonurgent problems are the result of patients' beliefs or of deficiencies in the healthcare system. METHODS: We performed a survey among 2000 patients with nonurgent health problems in four GP cooperatives in the Netherlands. Two GPs independently judged the medical necessity of the contacts of all patients in this study. We examined characteristics, views and motives of patients with medically necessary contacts and those without medically necessary contacts. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the characteristics, views and reasons of the patients with medically unnecessary contacts and medically necessary contacts. Differences between these groups were tested with chi-square tests. RESULTS: The response rate was 32.3 % (N = 646). Of the nonurgent contacts 30.4 % were judged as medically necessary (95 % CI 27.0-34.2). Compared to patients with nonurgent but medically necessary contacts, patients with medically unnecessary contacts were younger and were more often frequent attenders. They had longer-existing problems, lower self-assessed urgency, and more often believed GP cooperatives are intended for all help requests. Worry was the most frequently mentioned motive for contacting a GP cooperative for patients with a medically unnecessary contact (45.3 %) and a perceived need to see a GP for patients with a medically necessary contact (44.2 %). Perceived availability (5.8 %) and accessibility (8.3 %) of a patient's own GP played a role for some patients. CONCLUSION: Motives for contacting a GP cooperative are mostly patient-related, but also deficiencies in access to general practice may partly explain medically unnecessary use. Efforts to change the use of GP cooperatives should focus on education of subgroups with an increased likelihood of contact for medically unnecessary problems. Improvement of access to daytime primary care may also decrease use of the GP cooperative.
    BMC Family Practice 10/2015; 16(1):157. DOI:10.1186/s12875-015-0376-9 · 1.67 Impact Factor