Talk Times in Intervention and Control Group

Source: National DM Firm. N=1030 intervention; N=501 in control group. Difference between the two groups is significant at the .05 level

Intervention and control coaches both spend an average of 16 minutes per call. Intervention (coaches know pam level) coaches spend an average of 18 minutes per call with activation level 1 patients. They spend an average of 16 minutes per call with level 4 patients. Control group (coaches do NOT know patient pam level) spend an average of 16 minutes with both level 1 and level 4 patients (this difference between intervention and control -- broken down by pam level, is statistically significant at .05)

2009 LifeMasters Proprietary & Confidential*

Preliminary Outcomes (Under Review for Publication)Clinical Indicators trend toward improvement in Intervention LDL and DBP improvedNo change A1c, SBP

Adherence to recommended tests and treatment improved in Intervention over control including (met SS): Aspirin therapy for CADAnti-platelet with DiabetesAnti-lipidemic therapyBeta Blocker therapyFlu VaccinePneumococcal Vaccine (did not meet SS)

2009 LifeMasters Proprietary & Confidential*

Utilization rates fell in intervention group - range from 8% in office visit costs to 54% in inpatient costs

Significantly greater cost reductions occurred in intervention group in all categories of utilization

Costs in control group stayed flat in two categories, increased in two categories, and dropped in two categories.

Self-Monitoring Sessions decreased in both Control and Intervention, but steeper decrease for Control Preliminary Outcomes (Under Review for Publication)

2009 LifeMasters Proprietary & Confidential*

Overall, the findings show a consistent picture indicating a positive impact of the Intervention. Activation scores increased, clinical indicators improved, and costs and utilization declined to a greater extent in the intervention group than in the control group. That is to say, the trends appear to be consistent and in the same direction across indicators. Dr. Judith Hibbard

PAM Study Conclusions

2009 LifeMasters Proprietary & Confidential*

Limitations of Study

Shortened time of study due to real-life issues with clients may not have allowed full effect of outcomes to surface

Not full data on all the parameters

Study didnt randomly assign participants to control and intervention groups (randomization done on healthcare professionals)

An additional matched control population was compared to the intervention population. The outcomes held.

2009 LifeMasters Proprietary & Confidential*

Further Questions for Study and ConsiderationIs movement through activation level a better measure of DM program success than ROI or clinical gap closure?

How does the strong correlation between activation and selfcare behaviors translate into improved outcomes and lower costs?

What role can/should physicians play in getting their patients more activated?

Can Activation be improved using other types of touches (high tech versus high touch MI)?

2009 LifeMasters Proprietary & Confidential*

Questions & Discussion

***