I could go into greater detail in answering this question, but it is much more convincing to have independent experts report their findings and conclusions. To this end, we have the analysts at Loomis to thank for the findings presented in this article.
Let’s begin by using Loomis' findings to examine the correlation between total annual healthcare expenditures per person and the level of participation in the MedEncentive Program. Logically, if the cost savings in these trials can be attributable to MedEncentive, then we would expect costs to go down as participation in our program goes up, over time.
The adjacent graph illustrates that this is exactly what was found in the Lourdes data. As the combined level of doctor and patient participation in the MedEncentive Program goes up, the total annual health-care expenditures per person goes down.
Now let’s examine the source of this savings. Health economists recognize hospital admissions and hospital days as well known cost statistics. Just like total annual expenditures, we would expect an inverse relationship between these hospitalization statistics and the combined level of doctor and patient participation in the MedEncentive Program, referred to as the “participation composite.”
The next two graphs illustrate that this is exactly what occurred in the Lourdes health plan. It also implies that a primary way our program controls costs is by preventing hospitalizations.
Without going into a great deal of explanation as to why patient participation in MedEncentive and non-catastrophic costs correlate, just know that this is a phenomenon we have observed time and again in our other trial installations. And sure enough, this is exactly what was observed in the Lourdes installation.
The following graph compares trends in patient participation in our program and Lourdes’ non-catastrophic costs. As the graph indicates, when patient participation goes up, non-catastrophic costs go down, and vice versa. It is curious how the slopes of these trend lines are almost inversely identical.
Certainly, we want patient participation to trend upward and remain as high as possible - at least above 55%. MedEncentive has a host of tactics we employ to accomplish this objective such as adjusting the financial reward, increasing patient reminders, and enhancing the covered medical interventions. It generally boils down to convincing the sponsoring organization to accept our recommendations. I am pleased to report Lourdes is doing just that.
Obviously, these results speak for themselves in terms of answering the question, "Does MedEncentive work?" In fact, Gerry Blaum has asked us to share his contact information if anyone is interested in learning more.
610-741-1133 Office Phone
610-741-4763 Cell Phone
I’m not sure what more I can say except that we challenge anyone to test MedEncentive according to design and disprove it works. This has been a longstanding challenge. In fact, we have collaborated for years with a host of others such as the University of Minnesota, University of Kansas, State of Oklahoma, and State of Indiana in an effort to secure funding from the federal government and private foundations to conduct control group studies. Because we and our collaborators have failed to secure this type of funding, MedEncentive is offering to underwrite such a pilot, to include an independent, academic analysis of the results, in exchange for a portion of any savings.
In other words, we are willing to put our money where our mouth is. In the spirit of March Madness, do we have any takers?