Dataset Information

Patient outcomes and costs associated with functional medicine-based care in a shared versus individual setting for patients with chronic conditions: a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare outcomes and costs associated with functional medicine-based care delivered in a shared medical appointment (SMA) to those delivered through individual appointments.

Design

A retrospective cohort study was performed to assess outcomes and cost to deliver care to patients in SMAs and compared with Propensity Score (PS)-matched patients in individual appointments.

Setting

A single-centre study performed at Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine.

Participants

A total of 9778 patients were assessed for eligibility and 7323 excluded. The sample included 2455 patients (226 SMAs and 2229 individual appointments) aged ≥18 years who participated in in-person SMAs or individual appointments between 1 March 2017 and 31 December 2019. Patients had a baseline Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Physical Health (GPH) score and follow-up score at 3 months. Patients were PS-matched 1:1 with 213 per group based on age, sex, race, marital status, income, weight, body mass index, blood pressure (BP), PROMIS score and functional medicine diagnostic category.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

The primary outcome was change in PROMIS GPH at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included change in PROMIS Global Mental Health (GMH), biometrics, and cost.

Results

Among 213 PS-matched pairs, patients in SMAs exhibited greater improvements at 3 months in PROMIS GPH T-scores (mean difference 1.18 (95% CI 0.14 to 2.22), p=0.03) and PROMIS GMH T-scores (mean difference 1.78 (95% CI 0.66 to 2.89), p=0.002) than patients in individual appointments. SMA patients also experienced greater weight loss (kg) than patients in individual appointments (mean difference -1.4 (95% CI -2.15 to -0.64), p<0.001). Both groups experienced a 5.5 mm Hg improvement in systolic BP. SMAs were also less costly to deliver than individual appointments.

Conclusion

SMAs deliver functional medicine-based care that improves outcomes more than care delivered in individual appointments and is less costly to deliver.

SUBMITTER: Beidelschies M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8051390 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The use of regenerative medicine as an "off label" treatment for musculoskeletal conditions has increased in recent years. However, the literature is sparse regarding the costs of these treatments to patients. Purposes: We sought to determine the patient-incurred costs for regenerative medicine treatments performed by physicians for musculoskeletal conditions in the United States, according to primary specialty, geographic region, practice setting, and years in practice. We also sought to characterize pre- and posttreatment protocols and image guidance use. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study with data collection occurring between April 2020 and April 2021. It began with the distribution of an online survey through an email campaign by the American College of Sports Medicine to its members. Approximately 90 emails were sent by our research team as well. Throughout the year, various participant recruitment methods were used (through Twitter, for example). Survey data included physician demographics, practice/training information, types/costs of regenerative medicine treatments performed, and pre-/postprocedure protocols. Results: One hundred physicians who self-reported performing standalone regenerative medicine procedures participated in this online survey. According to the responses, the most common treatments performed were platelet-rich plasma (PRP; 100%), bone marrow concentrate (BMC; 41%), microfragmented adipose grafting (36%), prolotherapy (33%), and bone marrow aspirate (BMA; 21%) administered to the peripheral joints, tendons/muscles, ligaments, and/or spine. Overall, the respondents reported large variations in treatment costs to patients; BMA and BMC were the most expensive and had the largest ranges in costs for all anatomical locations. Costs for PRP were lower than those for BMA and BMC, with less variation. Physicians in private practice reported higher PRP, BMC, and BMA costs in the peripheral joints than those in academic settings. Most physicians recommended avoiding non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs pre- and postprocedure, and 74% recommended physical therapy postprocedure. Conclusions: Findings from a survey of physicians who provide regenerative medicine procedures as off-label treatment for musculoskeletal conditions suggest that there is variation in related patient-incurred costs. Future studies should explore associations between treatment costs and outcomes.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To (1) examine the burden of multiple chronic conditions (MCC) in an urban health system, and (2) propose a methodology to identify subpopulations of interest based on diagnosis groups and costs. DESIGN:Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING:Mount Sinai Health System, set in all five boroughs of New York City, USA. PARTICIPANTS:192 085 adult (18+) plan members of capitated Medicaid contracts between the Healthfirst managed care organisation and the Mount Sinai Health System in the years 2012 to 2014. METHODS:We classified adults as having 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5+ chronic conditions from a list of 69 chronic conditions. After summarising the demographics, geography and prevalence of MCC within this population, we then described groups of patients (segments) using a novel methodology: we combinatorially defined 18 768 potential segments of patients by a pair of chronic conditions, a sex and an age group, and then ranked segments by (1) frequency, (2) cost and (3) ratios of observed to expected frequencies of co-occurring chronic conditions. We then compiled pairs of conditions that occur more frequently together than otherwise expected. RESULTS:61.5% of the study population suffers from two or more chronic conditions. The most frequent dyad was hypertension and hyperlipidaemia (19%) and the most frequent triad was diabetes, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia (10%). Women aged 50 to 65 with hypertension and hyperlipidaemia were the leading cost segment in the study population. Costs and prevalence of MCC increase with number of conditions and age. The disease dyads associated with the largest observed/expected ratios were pulmonary disease and myocardial infarction. Inter-borough range MCC prevalence was 16%. CONCLUSIONS:In this low-income, urban population, MCC is more prevalent (61%) than nationally (42%), motivating further research and intervention in this population. By identifying potential target populations in an interpretable manner, this segmenting methodology has utility for health services analysts.