Outcomes Comparison of the Veterans’ Choice Program With the Veterans Affairs Health Care System for Hepatitis C Treatment
Background: The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been stressed by the large number of veterans requiring direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medications for hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment. The Veterans Choice Program provides VA patients more options to receive treatment. This study compared the experience of veterans who received HCV treatment through the Veterans Choice Program and those that received treatment at the VA Loma Linda Healthcare System (VALLHCS) in fiscal year (FY) 2016.
Methods: A chart review was performed on all veterans referred by VALLHCS to Choice for HCV treatment during FY 2016, and matched to veterans who received treatment at VALLHCS. Data collected included Fibrosis-4 score (Fib-4), platelet count, days elapsed between time of referral and time of appointment (wait time), rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12), reason for treatment failure, and cost effectiveness.
Results: One hundred veterans were referred to Choice; 71 were seen at least once by a Choice provider, and 61 completed a treatment course. Mean Fib-4 and platelet count was 1.9 and 228,000 for the Choice population and 3.4 and 158,000 for the VALLHCS population, respectively. There was no difference in SVR12 rate. Mean wait time was 42 days for Choice vs 29 days for VALLHCS (P < .001). Choice health care providers incurred a mean $8,561.40 in additional costs per veteran seen.
Conclusions: While treatment success rates were similar between Choice and VALLHCS, the degree of liver fibrosis was more advanced in the VALLHCS population. The wait time for care was longer with Choice compared with a direct referral within the VA. While Choice offers a potential solution to providing care for veterans, the current program has unique problems that must be considered.
Limitations
The study population size was limited by the number of veterans able to complete treatment through Choice. The parameters in the VACO policy memos automatically selected the VA and Choice groups but made them clinically distinct populations. New treatment medications were released during the study period, which impacted management strategy. Occasionally, VA and non- VA HCPs preferred different treatment regimens, leading to variation in the distribution of regimens used despite similar genotype distribution (Tables 2 and 4). In addition, a retrospective study is at risk for recall bias. A prospective study randomizing veterans to the Choice and VA groups is an important future endeavor. Comparing veteran satisfaction for Choice and VA services is also crucial.
Conclusions
This study demonstrates that the VA was able to provide more cost-effective and more timely care for HCV treatment to a relatively sicker population with no reduction in treatment success when compared with non-VA HCPs through the Choice program. While the Choice program can help veterans receive services they may otherwise not have access to and reduce travel time, the current system introduces inefficiencies that delay care and decrease cost-effectiveness. The Choice HCP selection process is based on proximity rather than quality, which may place the veteran at risk for receiving substandard care. Large-scale quality of care studies that compare efficiency measures, clinical outcomes, patient demographics, travel distance, cost efficacy and patient satisfaction for veterans receiving similar services at a VA facility and through Choice should be performed to ensure that veterans receive the best care available.
