Management of High-Need, High-Cost Patients: A “Best Fit” Framework Synthesis, Realist Review, and Systematic Review

Abstract

Background. In the United States, patients referred to as high-need, high-cost (HNHC) constitute a very small percentage of the patient population but account for a disproportionally high level of healthcare use and cost. Payers, health systems, and providers would like to improve the quality of care and health outcomes for HNHC patients and reduce their costly use of potentially preventable or modifiable healthcare services, including emergency department (ED) and hospital visits. Methods. We assessed evidence of criteria that identify HNHC patients (best fit framework synthesis); developed program theories on the relationship among contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes of interventions intended to change HNHC patient behaviors (realist review); and assessed the effectiveness of interventions (systematic review). We searched databases, gray literature, and other sources for evidence available from January 1, 2000, to March 4, 2021. We included quantitative and qualitative studies of HNHC patients (high healthcare use or cost) age 18 and over who received intervention services in a variety of settings. Results. We included 110 studies (117 articles). Consistent with our best fit framework, characteristics associated with HNHC include patient chronic clinical conditions, behavioral health factors including depression and substance use disorder, and social risk factors including homelessness and poverty. We also identified prior healthcare use and race as important predictors. We found limited evidence of approaches for distinguishing potentially preventable or modifiable high use from all high use. To understand how and why interventions work, we developed three program theories in our realist review that explain (1) targeting HNHC patients, (2) engaging HNHC patients, and (3) engaging care providers in these interventions. Theories identify the need for individualizing and tailoring services for HNHC patients and the importance of building trusting relationships. For our systematic review, we categorized evidence based on primary setting. We found that ED-, primary care–, and home-based care models result in reduced use of healthcare services (moderate to low strength of evidence [SOE]); ED, ambulatory intensive caring unit, and primary care-based models result in reduced costs (low SOE); and system-level transformation and telephonic/mail models do not result in changes in use or costs (low SOE). Conclusions. Patient characteristics can be used to identify patients who are potentially HNHC. Evidence focusing specifically on potentially preventable or modifiable high use was limited. Based on our program theories, we conclude that individualized and tailored patient engagement and resources to support care providers are critical to the success of interventions. Although we found evidence of intervention effectiveness in relation to cost and use, the studies identified in this review reported little information for determining why individual programs work, for whom, and when.