Net cost savings arising from patient completion of an active self-management program
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gorniak M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10650977 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeUnique challenges exist in the utilization of telemedicine for neurological and surgical specialties. We examined the differences in patient satisfaction for telemedicine versus in-person visits within a Neuro-Oncology Program to assess whether there was a difference between surgical and medical specialties. We also examined the potential cost savings benefits of utilizing telemedicine.Methods1189 Press Ganey surveys in the Department of Neuro-Oncology (982 in-person and 207 telemedicine) by surgical and medical neuro-oncology patients between 04/01/2020 and 06/30/2021 were reviewed. Survey results were divided into 4 categories (Access, Provider, Technology (telemedicine only), and Overall Satisfaction). Results were analyzed for the impact of telemedicine versus in-person visits, and gender, age, insurance, and specialty. Cost savings were calculated based on potential travel distance and lost productivity.ResultsSurvey results from telemedicine visits demonstrated that patients with private insurance returned higher scores in the Provider (p = 0.0089), Technology (p = 0.00187), and Overall (p = 0.00382) categories. Surgical patients returned higher scores for Access (p = 0.0015), Technology (p = 0.0002), and Overall (p = 0.0019). When comparing telemedicine to in-person scores, in-person scored higher in Provider (p = 0.0092) for all patients, while in-person scored higher in Access (p = 0.0252) amongst surgical patients. Cost analysis revealed that telemedicine allowed patients to save an average of 4.1 to 5.6 h per visit time and a potential cost savings of up to $223.3 ± 171.4.ConclusionTelemedicine yields equivalent patient satisfaction when employed in surgical as compared to medical Neuro-Oncology patients with the potential to lessen the financial and time burden on neuro-oncology patients.
| S-EPMC9651094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Everyone with Diabetes Counts (EDC) is a national disparities reduction program funded by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to improve outcomes in the underserved minority, diverse, and rural populations. This analysis evaluates West Virginia's pilot program of diabetes self-management education (DSME), one component of EDC. We frequency-matched 422 DSME completers to 1688 others by demographics and enrollment from Medicare fee-for service claims. We estimated savings associated with reduced hospitalizations in multivariable negative binomial models. DSME completers had 29% fewer hospitalizations (adjusted P < .0069). We estimated savings of $35 900 per 100 DSME completers in West Virginia.
| S-EPMC5965937 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveFrequent use of health-care services associated with pediatric asthma places substantial economic burden on families and society. The purpose of this study is to examine the cost-saving effects of a peer-led program through reduction in health-care utilization in comparison to an adult-led program.MethodsRandomly assigned adolescents (13-17 years) participated in either peer-led (n = 59) or adult-led (n = 53) asthma self-management program. Health-care utilization data were collected at baseline and at 3-, 6-, and 9-months post-intervention. Negative binomial regression models were conducted to examine the effects of the peer-led program on health-care utilization. Net cost savings were estimated based on the differences in program costs and health-care utilization costs between groups.ResultsSignificant group differences were found in acute office visits and school clinic visits after controlling for race and socioeconomic status. The incidence rate of acute office visits was 80-82% less for the peer-led group during follow-ups. The peer-led group was four to five times more likely to use school clinics due to asthma than the adult-led group during follow-ups. The non-research cost of peer-led program per participant was lower than the adult-led program, $64 versus $99, respectively. The net cost saving from the reduction in acute office visits and the lower program costs of the peer-led program was estimated $51.8 per person for a 3-month period.ConclusionsAn asthma self-management program using peer leaders can potentially yield health-care cost savings through the reduction in acute office visits in comparison to a traditional program led by health-care professionals.
| S-EPMC3434702 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop a quasi-experimental method for estimating Population Health Management (PHM) program savings that mitigates common sources of confounding, supports regular updates for continued program monitoring, and estimates model precision.Data sourcesAdministrative, program, and claims records from January 2005 through June 2009.Data collection/extraction methodsData are aggregated by member and month.Study designStudy participants include chronically ill adult commercial health plan members. The intervention group consists of members currently enrolled in PHM, stratified by intensity level. Comparison groups include (1) members never enrolled, and (2) PHM participants not currently enrolled. Mixed model smoothing is employed to regress monthly medical costs on time (in months), a history of PHM enrollment, and monthly program enrollment by intensity level. Comparison group trends are used to estimate expected costs for intervention members. Savings are realized when PHM participants' costs are lower than expected.Principal findingsThis method mitigates many of the limitations faced using traditional pre-post models for estimating PHM savings in an observational setting, supports replication for ongoing monitoring, and performs basic statistical inference.ConclusionThis method provides payers with a confident basis for making investment decisions.
| S-EPMC3626355 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to examine the value of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) in understanding the process and costs of delivering diabetes self-management education (DSME) programmes in a multicountry comparative study.SettingOutpatient settings in five European countries (Austria, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, UK) and two countries outside Europe, Taiwan and Israel.ParticipantsProviders of DSME programmes across participating countries (N=16) including healthcare professionals, administrators and patients taking part in DSME programmes.Primary and secondary measuresPrimary measure: time spent by providers in the delivery of DSME and resources consumed in order to compute programme costs. Secondary measures: self-report measures of behavioural self-management and diabetes disease/health-related outcomes.ResultsWe found significant variation in costs and the processes of how DSME programmes are provided across and within countries. Variations in costs were driven by a combination of price variances, mix of personnel skill and efficiency variances. Higher cost programmes were not found to have achieved better relative outcomes. The findings highlight the value of TDABC in calculating a patient level cost and potential of the methodology to identify process improvements in guiding the optimal allocation of scarce resources in diabetes care, in particular for DSME that is often underfunded.ConclusionsThis study is the first to measure programme costs using estimates of the actual resources used to educate patients about managing their medical condition and is the first study to map such costs to self-reported behavioural and disease outcomes. The results of this study will inform clinicians, managers and policy makers seeking to enhance the delivery of DSME programmes. The findings highlight the benefits of adopting a TDABC approach to understanding the drivers of the cost of DSME programmes in a multicountry study to reveal opportunities to bend the cost curve for DSME.
| S-EPMC5623445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) is the largest and most important alternative payment model that has been implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Its budgetary impact to CMS is not well understood.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between the MSSP and net savings to CMS for performance years 2013 to 2021.Design, setting, and participantsThe economic evaluation used publicly reported data on the MSSP from April 1, 2012, to December 31, 2021, and estimates extracted from 2 prior studies.Main outcomes and measuresNet savings to CMS, calculated as the difference between incentive payments to MSSP accountable care organizations and gross spending reductions. Incentive payments were calculated using the publicly reported data. The association of the MSSP with gross medical spending in traditional Medicare was extracted from 2 prior studies. Spillovers of the MSSP to Medicare Advantage (MA) were estimated by evaluating how gross spending reductions from the MSSP impacted benchmark payments to MA plans. Savings from traditional Medicare and MA were then combined.ResultsThe MSSP was associated with net losses to traditional Medicare of between $584 million and $1.423 billion over the study period. Savings from MSSP-related reductions to MA benchmarks totaled between $4.480 billion and $4.923 billion. Across traditional Medicare and MA, the MSSP was associated with savings of between $3.057 billion and $4.339 billion. This represents approximately 0.075% of combined spending for traditional Medicare and MA over the study period.Conclusions and relevanceThis economic evaluation found that the MSSP was associated with net losses to traditional Medicare, net savings to MA, and overall net savings to CMS. The total budget impact of the MSSP to CMS was small and continues to be uncertain due to challenges in estimating the effects of the MSSP on gross spending, particularly in recent years.
| S-EPMC10724775 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) developed an online self-management program (SPIN-SELF) designed to improve disease-management self-efficacy in people with systemic sclerosis (SSc, or scleroderma). The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility aspects for conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the SPIN-SELF Program.MethodsThis feasibility trial was embedded in the SPIN Cohort and utilized the cohort multiple RCT design. In this design, at the time of cohort enrollment, cohort participants consent to be assessed for trial eligibility and randomized prior to being informed about the trial. Participants in the intervention arm are informed and provide consent, but not the control group. Forty English-speaking SPIN Cohort participants from Canada, the USA, or the UK with low disease-management self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale [SEMCD] score ≤ 7) who were interested in using an online self-management program were randomized (3:2 ratio) to be offered the SPIN-SELF Program or usual care for 3 months. Program usage was examined via automated usage logs. User satisfaction was assessed with semi-structured interviews. Trial personnel time requirements and implementation challenges were logged.ResultsOf 40 SPIN Cohort participants randomized, 26 were allocated to SPIN-SELF and 14 to usual care. Automated eligibility and randomization procedures via the SPIN Cohort platform functioned properly, except that two participants with SEMCD scores > 7 (scores of 7.2 and 7.3, respectively) were included, which was caused by a system programming error that rounded SEMCD scores. Of 26 SPIN Cohort participants offered the SPIN-SELF Program, only 9 (35%) consented to use the program. Usage logs showed that use of the SPIN-SELF Program was low: 2 of 9 users (22%) logged into the program only once (median = 3), and 4 of 9 (44%) accessed none or only 1 of the 9 program's modules (median = 2).ConclusionsThe results of this study will lead to substantial changes for the planned full-scale RCT of the SPIN-SELF Program that we will incorporate into a planned additional feasibility trial with progression to a full-scale trial. These changes include transitioning to a conventional RCT design with pre-randomization consent and supplementing the online self-help with peer-facilitated videoconference-based groups to enhance engagement.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov , NCT03914781 . Registered 16 April 2019.
| S-EPMC8881754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The energetic economy of running benefits from tendon and other tissues that store and return elastic energy, thus saving muscles from costly mechanical work. The classic "Spring-mass" computational model successfully explains the forces, displacements and mechanical power of running, as the outcome of dynamical interactions between the body center of mass and a purely elastic spring for the leg. However, the Spring-mass model does not include active muscles and cannot explain the metabolic energy cost of running, whether on level ground or on a slope. Here we add explicit actuation and dissipation to the Spring-mass model, and show how they explain substantial active (and thus costly) work during human running, and much of the associated energetic cost. Dissipation is modeled as modest energy losses (5% of total mechanical energy for running at 3 m s-1) from hysteresis and foot-ground collisions, that must be restored by active work each step. Even with substantial elastic energy return (59% of positive work, comparable to empirical observations), the active work could account for most of the metabolic cost of human running (about 68%, assuming human-like muscle efficiency). We also introduce a previously unappreciated energetic cost for rapid production of force, that helps explain the relatively smooth ground reaction forces of running, and why muscles might also actively perform negative work. With both work and rapid force costs, the model reproduces the energetics of human running at a range of speeds on level ground and on slopes. Although elastic return is key to energy savings, there are still losses that require restorative muscle work, which can cost substantial energy during running.
| S-EPMC8651147 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dalbavancin is a second-generation lipoglycopeptide antibiotic with activity against Gram-positive organisms. Dalbavancin is Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for acute bacterial skin and soft tissue infections (ABSSTIs). There is a lack of substantial data on dalbavancin in more invasive infections, particularly in high-risk populations (patients with intravenous drug use and unstable living conditions). In this retrospective observational study, we reviewed all patients that received at least one dose of dalbavancin in an inpatient or outpatient setting at Parkland Hospital from February of 2019 to August of 2021. The demographics, type of infection, and rationale for dalbavancin were collected at the baseline. Clinical failure was measured by an avoidance of emergency department (ED) visits or hospital readmission at 30, 60, and 90 days. A separate analysis was conducted to estimate hospital, rehabilitation, or nursing facility days saved based on the projected length of treatment. 40 patients were included, and the majority were uninsured (85%), experiencing homelessness (60%), or had intravenous drug use (IDU) (57.5%). Indications for use included ABSSTIs (45%), bloodstream infection (67.5%), osteomyelitis (40%), infective endocarditis (10%), and septic arthritis (10%). Clinical failure was observed in 5 of the 40 patients (12.5%). Nonadherence to medical recommendations, a lack of source control, and ongoing IDU increased the risk of failure. Dalbavancin saved a total of 566 days of inpatient, rehabilitation, and nursing facility stays. Dalbavancin is a reasonable alternative to the standard of care in an at-risk population, offering decreased lengths of stays and cost savings. The uses of second-generation lipoglycopeptides are desirable alternatives to traditional outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapies for patients who otherwise would not qualify or for patients who desire less hospital contact in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPORTANCE This study contributes additional experience to the literature of dalbavancin use in off-label indications, particularly for patients who do not qualify for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. The majority of the patient population were people who inject drugs and the uninsured. There is difficulty in tracking outcomes in this patient population, given their outpatient follow-up rates; however, we were able to track emergency room visits and readmissions throughout the majority of the local metroplex. The clinical use of dalbavancin at our institution also increased in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic in an effort to preserve hospital resources and limit health care exposure. In addition, we are able to provide institution-specific cost-saving data with the use of dalbavancin.
| S-EPMC9927367 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo test the feasibility of a novel self-management support intervention for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).MethodsWe conducted a feasibility randomized controlled trial involving patients ≥40 years with severe or very severe COPD in New York, New York (n=59). Community health workers screened patients and addressed barriers to COPD self-management. Patients were also offered home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (HBPR) and an antibiotic and steroid rescue pack. Control patients received general COPD education. Clinical outcomes for intervention and control were compared by difference-in-differences (DiD) at baseline and 6 months. The study was not powered for statistically significant differences for any measure. Feasibility measures were collected at 6 months.ResultsThere were high rates of completion of intervention activities, including 75% of patients undergoing evaluation for and participating in HBPR. Most (92%) intervention patients said the program was very or extremely helpful and 96% said they would participate again. Clinical outcomes generally favored the intervention: COPD assessment test, DiD -1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] -5.9 to 3.6); 6-minute walk test distance, DiD 7.4 meters (95% CI -45.1 to 59.8); self-reported hospitalizations, DiD -9.8% (95% CI -42.3% to 22.8%); medication adherence, DiD 7.7% (-29.6%, 45.0%), and Physical Activity Adult Questionnaire, DiD 86 (95% CI -283 to 455). Intervention patients reported more emergency department visits, DiD 10.6% (95% CI 17.7% to 38.8%).ConclusionsA highly patient-centered, self-management support intervention for people with COPD was well received by patients and associated with potential improvements in clinical and self-management outcomes. A fully powered study of the intervention is warranted.
| S-EPMC10913921 | biostudies-literature