BackgroundDepression is substantially underdiagnosed in primary care, despite recommendations for screening at every visit. We report a secondary analysis focused on depression of a recently completed study using unannounced standardized patients (USPs) to measure and improve provider behaviors, documentation, and subsequent claims for real patients.MethodsUnannounced standardized patients presented incognito in 217 visits to 59 primary care providers in 22 New Jersey practices. We collected USP checklists, visit audio recordings, and provider notes after visits; provided feedback to practices and providers based on the first two visits per provider; and compared care and documentation behaviors in the visits before and after feedback. We obtained real patient claims from the study practices and a matched comparison group and compared the likelihood of visits including International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes for depression before and after feedback between the study and comparison groups.ResultsProviders significantly improved in their rate of depression screening following feedback [adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 3.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.52–7.65; p = 0.003]. Sometimes expected behaviors were documented when not performed. The proportion of claims by actual patients with depression-related ICD-10 codes increased significantly more from prefeedback to postfeedback in the study group than in matched control group (interaction AOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.32–1.50; p < 0.001).ConclusionsUsing USPs, we found significant performance issues in diagnosis of depression, as well as discrepancies in documentation that may reduce future diagnostic accuracy. Providing feedback based on a small number of USP encounters led to some improvements in clinical performance observed both directly and indirectly via claims.

Background Meaningful variations in physician performance are not always discernible from the medical record. Objective We used unannounced standardized patients to measure and provide feedback on care quality and fidelity of documentation, and examined downstream effects on reimbursement claims. Design Static group pre-post comparison study conducted between 2017 and 2019. Setting Fourteen New Jersey primary care practice groups (22 practices) enrolled in Horizon BCBS’s value-based program received the intervention. For claims analyses, we identified 14 additional comparison practice groups matched on county, practice size, and claims activity. Participants Fifty-nine of 64 providers volunteered to participate. Intervention Unannounced standardized patients (USPs) made 217 visits portraying patients with 1–2 focal conditions (diabetes, depression, back pain, smoking, or preventive cancer screening). After two baseline visits to a provider, we delivered feedback and conducted two follow-up visits. Measurements USP-completed checklists of guideline-based provider care behaviors, visit audio recordings, and provider notes were used to measure behaviors performed and documentation errors pre- and post-feedback. We also compared changes in 3-month office-based claims by actual patients between the intervention and comparison practice groups before and after feedback. Results Expected clinical behaviors increased from 46% to 56% (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.29–1.83, p < 0.0001), with significant improvements in smoking cessation, back pain, and depression screening. Providers were less likely to document unperformed tasks after (16%) than before feedback (18%; OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90, p = 0.002). Actual claim costs increased significantly less in the study than comparison group for diabetes and depression but significantly more for smoking cessation, cancer screening, and low back pain. Limitations Self-selection of participating practices and lack of access to prescription claims. Conclusion Direct observation of care identifies hidden deficits in practice and documentation, and with feedback can improve both, with concomitant effects on costs.

Small businesses are the most rapidly growing segment of the economy, providing one half of all jobs in the United States. The health insurance industry must address issues which are unique to this market. The health insurance product for small businesses must have simple administration for the owners and easy access to quality medical care for the employees. Small businesses have been adversely affected by the high cost of health care. Numerous studies have shown that a major factor contributing to the high cost of health care is inappropriate and unnecessary utilization of health care. Until recently, techniques of utilization management have been difficult to adapt to the small group market. The Celtic Life Insurance Company has been using a managed care fee for service arrangement for the past three years. Celtic has been able to tailor a program for small businesses and maintain complete administrative coordination, instead of contracting with a private utilization review company. Our program maintains freedom of choice of providers and easy access to health care, without limiting access to specialists. Cost containment features have assisted insureds in selecting appropriate health care, in the appropriate setting while not interfering with the doctor-patient relationship.

No abstract

No abstract