accumulating more than 14,400 RAPID3 scores
during this program (Figure 2).
Designing a low-burden, technology-based
approach was critical to improve patient engagement. The dual-modality outreach (phone and
email) proved to be successful in meeting patient
preferences to answer the monthly survey, on
average showing 52% of responses collected
online and 48% collected over the phone. Further,
the majority of patients responding had scores
falling in the High (41%) and Moderate (28%) Disease Activity categories (Figure 3). Patients with
recurring high scores or rising scores are more
likely to benefit from additional monitoring and
engagement to identify opportunities for changes
in care or treatment.
Another, and perhaps more provocative, finding
from the pilot is from the analysis of survey
completion consistency. After 17 months of
outreach and more than 2,500 unique patients
who responded to outreach at least once, these
patients had an average of five completed RAPID3
surveys. One of the pilot’s core objectives was to
implement a solution to increase patient engage-
ment and data collection between office visits,
thereby supporting effective population manage-
ment. The high response rate ( 2,500 responding
patients/~ 4,000 eligible patients) and completion
of five RAPID3 surveys on average suggests that
the pilot succeeded in meeting the objective.
Encouraging patients to assess their disease
activity on a regular basis presents opportunities
for the patient and the provider. The patient may
use the RAPID3 scores and information to monitor
their disease on a holistic level and improve the
time spent discussing this at their next appointment. Meanwhile, the provider has an improved
ability to view the status of their patients at a
population level and identify patients in need of
care. Through the direction of the RA T2T Program’s
cross-stakeholder committee, a population management process was developed and implemented
with measurable success, yet the learnings from
this initiative can be applied more broadly.
The RA T2T Program is an example of cross-Optum enterprise programs that can be done
through piloting an innovative solution with
collaboration across industry stakeholders. For
more information on these kinds of programs,
please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Ashton Kennedy serves as project manager for the
RA T2T Program at Optum Analytics. Georgette M.
Charles, Ph.D., is a healthcare strategy consultant at
Optum Life Sciences. Catherine A. Espy, M.S. Pharm.,
is a director for provider programs at Optum Analytics.
Jenny Moran is a senior director for analytics product
marketing at Optum.
1. R. Glanzman. 2016. The Era of Value: Navigating the
Transition from Volume to Value. Accessed August 20, 2018
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2018. The Cost of
Arthritis in US Adults. Accessed June 29, 2018 at cdc.gov/arthritis/
3. Arthritis Foundation. 2018. Arthritis by the Numbers: Book of Trusted
Facts & Figures. Accessed August 16, 2018 at arthritis.org/Documents/
4. E. Myasoedova et al. 2010. Is the Incidence of Rheumatoid Arthritis
Rising? Results from Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1955-2007.
Arthritis & Rheumatology, 62( 6): 1576–1582.
5. G.K. Metzger. 2018. Biologics for RA: Costs and Insurance. WebMD.
Accessed August 16, 2018 at webmd.com/rheumatoid-arthritis/
6. H. Birnbaum et al. 2010. Societal Cost of Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients
in the U.S. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 26( 1): 77-90.
7. Y. Zhang et al. 2017. Improved Survival in Rheumatoid Arthritis:
A General Population-Based Cohort Study. Annals of Rheumatic
Diseases, 76: 408.
8. D. Aletaha, T. Neogi, A.J. Silman, et al. 2010. Rheumatoid Arthritis
Classification Criteria: An American College of Rheumatology/
European League Against Rheumatism Collaborative Initiative.
Arthritis & Rheumatology, 62: 2569-2581.
9. J.A. Singh et al. 2015. American College of Rheumatology Guideline
for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis. Arthritis Care &
Research, 68( 1): 1–24.
10. J.S. Smolen, F.C. Breedveld, G.R. Burmester, et al. 2016.
Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis to Target: 2014 Update of the
Recommendations of an International Task Force. Annals
Rheumatic Diseases, 75( 1): 3–15.
11. S. Ajeganova, and T. Huizinga. 2017. Sustained remission in
rheumatoid arthritis: latest evidence and clinical considerations.
Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal Disease, 9( 10): 249–262.
12. J.R. Curtis et al. 2013. Arthritis Care & Research, 65( 2): 235–243.
13. J. Markenson, K. Charalambous, C. Viereck, and D. Dietze. 2013.
U.S. Rheumatologists’ Attitudes, Practice Habits, Barriers and
Knowledge Gaps in Assessing and Monitoring Patients with
Rheumatoid Arthritis According to Recent Recommendations. CE
Measure, 7( 4): 87–95.
14. J. Anderson, L. Caplan, J. Y. Yazdany, et al. 2012. Rheumatoid
Arthritis Disease Activity Measures: American College of
Rheumatology Recommendations for Use in Clinical Practice.
Arthritis Care & Research, 64( 5): 640–647.
15. Wolters Kluwer. 2018. Engage Patients to Take an Active Role in
Their Health. Accessed August 16, 2018 at emmisolutions.com.
16. A.L. Matthews, A. Coleska, P.B. Burns, and K.C. Chung. 2016.
Arthritis Care & Research, 68( 3): 318–324.