Table 3.
Changes in Clinical Event Rates After Reaching the Gap Threshold
Standard Gap | No Gap (LIS) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
Schizophrenia | Rate* | HR | 99.5% CI | Rate* | HR | 99.5% CI |
All Hospitalizations | 68.7 | 1.32 | (1.06, 1.65) | 82.5 | 1.10 | (0.91, 1.32) |
MH Hospitalizations | 61.0 | 1.29 | (1.02, 1.64) | 73.0 | 1.17 | (0.96, 1.42) |
Non-MH Hospitalizations | 7.7 | 1.58 | (0.81 3.08) | 9.5 | 0.69 | (0.41 1.18) |
| ||||||
All ED visits | 131.7 | 1.14 | (0.97, 1.34) | 192.3 | 1.04 | (0.92, 1.17) |
MH ED visits | 85.6 | 1.13 | (0.92,1.38) | 114.6 | 1.06 | (0.91, 1.24) |
Non-MH ED visits | 46.1 | 1.16 | (0.88 1.53) | 77.7 | 1.00 | (0.83 1.21) |
| ||||||
Bipolar disorder | Rate* | HR | 99.5% CI | Rate* | HR | 99.5% CI |
| ||||||
All Hospitalizations | 61.1 | 1.45 | (1.16, 1.82) | 67.3 | 0.98 | (0.76, 1.26) |
MH Hospitalizations | 47.3 | 1.52 | (1.18, 1.97) | 54.7 | 0.99 | (0.75, 1.30) |
Non-MH Hospitalizations | 13.8 | 1.22 | (0.76 1.97) | 12.5 | 0.96 | (0.53 1.72) |
| ||||||
All ED visits | 128.9 | 1.17 | (1.00, 1.37) | 217.6 | 0.96 | (0.84, 1.10) |
MH ED visits | 71.3 | 1.35 | (1.10, 1.66) | 107.0 | 0.89 | (0.74, 1.08) |
Non-MH ED visits | 57.6 | 0.98 | (0.77 1.24) | 110.6 | 1.03 | (0.85 1.24) |
| ||||||
No Mental Health Diagnosis | Rate* | HR | 99.5% CI | Rate* | HR | 99.5% CI |
| ||||||
Non-MH Hospitalizations | 19.7 | 0.92 | (0.51, 1.66) | 22.4 | 1.21 | (0.70, 2.10) |
Non-MH ED visits | 38.9 | 1.08 | (0.73 1.61) | 72.6 | 0.83 | (0.61 1.15) |
Unadjusted annual rate in 2007 per 100 patients
Notes: To examine time to hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits we used the Anderson-Gill extension of the Cox model; we fit separate models for the Gap and No Gap groups. These models include a time-varying indicator for being in the first 30 days from the reaching the gap threshold (transition period) and being >=31 days from the gap threshold; the models also adjust for gender, age, and the Part D (RxHCC) risk score. These tables present hazard ratios (HR) for being >=31 days from reaching the gap threshold vs. pre-gap threshold. In sensitivity analyses we adjusted for the CMS-HCC risk scores, which predict spending in Parts A and B, instead of the RxHCC score; conclusions were the same.