Dataset Information

Eliminating Residents Increases the Cost of Care.

ABSTRACT:

Background?

Academic health centers are facing a potential reduction in Medicare financing for graduate medical education (GME). Both the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Deficit Commission) have suggested cutting approximately half the funding that teaching hospitals receive for indirect medical education. Because of the effort that goes into teaching trainees, who are only transient employees, hospital executives often see teaching programs as a drain on resources.

Objective?

In light of the possibility of a Medicare cut to GME programs, we undertook an analysis to assess the financial risk of training programs to our institution and the possibility of saving money by reducing resident positions.

Methods?

The chief administrative officer, in collaboration with the hospital chief financial officer, performed a financial analysis to examine the possibility of decreasing costs by reducing residency programs at the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center.

Results?

Despite the real costs of our training programs, the analysis demonstrated that GME programs have a positive impact on hospital finances.

Conclusions?

Reducing or eliminating GME programs would have a negative impact on our hospital's bottom line.

SUBMITTER: DeMarco DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5559250 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Eliminating Residents Increases the Cost of Care.

DeMarco Deborah M DM Forster Richard R Gakis Thomas T Finberg Robert W RW

Journal of graduate medical education 20170801 4

<h4>Background</h4>Academic health centers are facing a potential reduction in Medicare financing for graduate medical education (GME). Both the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Deficit Commission) have suggested cutting approximately half the funding that teaching hospitals receive for indirect medical education. Because of the effort that goes into teaching trainees, who are only transient employees, hospital executives often ...[more]

PMID: 28824768

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo provide a research agenda and recommendations to address inequities in access to health care.Data sources and study settingThe Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) organized a Health Equity Summit in July 2022 to evaluate what equity in access to health care means in the context of AHRQ's mission and health care delivery implementation portfolio. The findings are a result of this Summit, and subsequent convenings of experts on access and equity from academia, industry, and the government.Study designMulti-stakeholder input from AHRQ's Health Equity Summit, author consensus on a framework and key knowledge gaps, and summary of evidence from the supporting literature in the context of the framework ensure comprehensive recommendations.Data collection/extraction methodsThrough a stakeholder-engaged process, themes were developed to conceptualize access with a lens toward health equity. A working group researched the most appropriate framework for access to care to classify limitations identified during the Summit and develop recommendations supported by research in the context of the framework. This strategy was intentional, as the literature on inequities in access to care may itself be biased.Principal findingsThe Levesque et al. framework, which incorporates multiple dimensions of access (approachability, acceptability, availability, accommodation, affordability, and appropriateness), is the backdrop for framing research priorities for AHRQ. However, addressing inequities in access cannot be done without considering the roles of racism and intersectionality. Recommendations include funding research that not only measures racism within health care but also tests burgeoning anti-racist practices (e.g., co-production, provider training, holistic review, discrimination reporting, etc.), acting as a convener and thought leader in synthesizing best practices to mitigate racism, and forging the path forward for research on equity and access.ConclusionsAHRQ is well-positioned to develop an action plan, strategically fund it, and convene stakeholders across the health care spectrum to employ these recommendations.

Project description:BackgroundTraining residents in delivering high-value, cost-conscious care (HVCCC) is crucial for a sustainable healthcare. A supportive learning environment is key. Yet, stakeholders' attitudes toward HVCCC in residents' learning environment are unknown.ObjectiveWe aimed to measure stakeholders' HVCCC attitudes in residents' learning environment, compare these with resident perceptions of their attitudes, and identify factors associated with attitudinal differences among each stakeholder group.DesignWe conducted a cross-sectional survey across the Netherlands between June 2017 and December 2018.ParticipantsParticipants were 312 residents, 305 faculty members, 53 administrators, and 1049 patients from 66 (non)academic hospitals.Main measuresRespondents completed the Maastricht HVCCC Attitude Questionnaire (MHAQ), containing three subscales: (1) high-value care, (2) cost incorporation, (3) perceived drawbacks. Additionally, resident respondents estimated the HVCCC attitudes of other stakeholders, and answered questions on job demands and resources. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to analyze data.Key resultsAttitudes differed on all subscales: faculty and administrators reported more positive HVCCC attitudes than residents (p ≤ 0.05), while the attitudes of patients were less positive (p ≤ 0.05). Residents underestimated faculty's (p < 0.001) and overestimated patients' HVCCC attitudes (p < 0.001). Increasing age was, among residents and faculty, associated with more positive attitudes toward HVCCC (p ≤ 0.05). Lower perceived health quality was associated with less positive attitudes among patients (p < 0.001). The more autonomy residents perceived, the more positive their HVCCC attitude (p ≤ 0.05).ConclusionsAttitudes toward HVCCC vary among stakeholders in the residency learning environment, and residents misjudge the attitudes of both faculty and patients. Faculty and administrators might improve their support to residents by more explicitly sharing their thoughts and knowledge on HVCCC and granting residents autonomy in clinical practice.

Project description:ImportancePrivate equity firms have been acquiring US nursing homes; an estimated 5% of US nursing homes are owned by private equity firms.ObjectiveTo examine the association of private equity acquisition of nursing homes with the quality and cost of care for long-stay residents.Design setting and participantsIn this cohort study of 302 private equity nursing homes with 9632 residents and 9562 other for-profit homes with 249 771 residents, a novel national database of private equity nursing home acquisitions was merged with Medicare claims and Minimum Data Set assessments for the period from 2012 to 2018. Changes in outcomes for residents in private equity-acquired nursing homes were compared with changes for residents in other for-profit nursing homes. Analyses were performed from March 25 to June 23, 2021.ExposurePrivate equity acquisitions of 302 nursing homes between 2013 and 2017.Main outcomes and measuresThis study used difference-in-differences analysis to examine the association of private equity acquisition of nursing homes with outcomes. Primary outcomes were quarterly measures of emergency department visits and hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive (ACS) conditions and total quarterly Medicare costs. Antipsychotic use, pressure ulcers, and severe pain were examined in secondary analyses.ResultsOf the 259 403 residents in the study (170 687 women [65.8%]; 211 154 White residents [81.4%]; 204 928 residents [79.0%] dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid; mean [SD] age, 79.3 [5.6] years), 9632 residents were in 302 private equity-acquired nursing homes and 249 771 residents were in 9562 other for-profit homes. The mean quarterly rate of ACS emergency department visits was 14.1% (336 072 of 2 383 491), and the mean quarterly rate of ACS hospitalizations was 17.3% (412 344 of 2 383 491); mean (SD) total quarterly costs were $8050.00 ($9.90). Residents of private equity nursing homes experienced relative increases in ACS emergency department visits of 11.1% (1.7 of 15.3; 1.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.3-3.0 percentage points; P = .02) and in ACS hospitalizations of 8.7% (1.0 of 11.5; 1.0 percentage point; 95% CI, 0.2-1.1 percentage points; P = .003) compared with residents in other for-profit homes; quarterly costs increased 3.9% (270.37 of 6972.04; $270.37; 95% CI, $41.53-$499.20; P = .02) or $1081 annually per resident. Private equity acquisition was not significantly associated with antipsychotic use (-0.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.7 to 1.4 percentage points; P = .83), severe pain (0.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.4 percentage points; P = .79), or pressure ulcers (0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.4 to 1.3 percentage points; P = .30).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study with difference-in-differences analysis found that private equity acquisition of nursing homes was associated with increases in ACS emergency department visits and hospitalizations and higher Medicare costs.

Project description:BackgroundDementia is a progressive disease that decreases quality of life of persons with dementia and is associated with high societal costs. The burden of caring for persons with dementia also decreases the quality of life of family caregivers. The objective of this study was to assess the societal cost-effectiveness of Namaste Care Family program in comparison with usual care in nursing home residents with advanced dementia.MethodsNursing homes were randomized to either Namaste Care Family program or usual care. Outcome measures of the cluster-randomized trial in 231 residents included Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia (QUALID) and the Gain in Alzheimer Care Instrument (GAIN) for family caregivers over 12 months of follow-up. Health states were measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire which were translated into utilities. QALYs were calculated by multiplying the amount of time a participant spent in a specific health state with the utility score associated with that health state. Healthcare utilization costs were estimated using standard unit costs, while intervention costs were estimated using a bottom-up approach. Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputation. Bootstrapped multilevel models were used after multiple imputation. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated.ResultsThe Namaste Care Family program was more effective than usual care in terms of QUALID (- 0.062, 95%CI: - 0.40 to 0.28), QALY (0.0017, 95%CI: - 0.059 to 0.063) and GAIN (0.075, 95%CI: - 0.20 to 0.35). Total societal costs were lower for the Namaste Care Family program as compared to usual care (- 552 €, 95%CI: - 2920 to 1903). However, these differences were not statistically significant. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a ceiling ratio of 0 €/unit of effect extra was 0.70 for the QUALID, QALY and GAIN.ConclusionsThe Namaste Care Family program is dominant over usual care and, thus, cost-effective, although statistical uncertainty was considerable.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register ( http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/index.asp , identifier: NL5570, date of registration: 2016/03/23).

Dataset Information

Eliminating Residents Increases the Cost of Care.

Background?

Objective?

Methods?

Results?

Conclusions?

Publications

Eliminating Residents Increases the Cost of Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets