Dataset Information

The Cost Consequences of the Gold Coast Integrated Care Programme.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The Australian Gold Coast Integrated Care programme trialled a model of care targeting those with chronic and complex conditions at highest risk of hospitalisation with the goal of producing the best patient outcomes at no additional cost to the healthcare system. This paper reports the economic findings of the trial.

Methods

A pragmatic non-randomised controlled study assessed differences between patients enrolled in the programme (intervention group) and patients who received usual care (control group), in health service utilisation, including Medicare Benefits Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme claims, patient-reported outcome measures, including health-related quality of life, mortality risk, and cost.

Results

A total of 1,549 intervention participants were enrolled and matched on the basis of patient level data to 3,042 controls. We found no difference in quality of life between groups, but a greater decrease in capability, social support and satisfaction with care scores and higher hospital service use for the intervention group, leading to a greater cost to the healthcare system of AUD$6,400 per person per year. In addition, the per person per year cost of being in the GCIC programme was AUD$8,700 equating to total healthcare expenditures of AUD$15,100 more for the intervention group than the control group.

Conclusion

The GCIC programme did not show value for money, incurring additional costs to the health system and demonstrating no significant improvements in health-related quality of life. Because patient recruitment was gradual throughout the trial, we had only one year of complete data for analysis which may be too short a period to determine the true cost-consequences of the program.

SUBMITTER: Ward L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8447978 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOutreach facilitation has been proven successful in improving the adoption of clinical preventive care guidelines in primary care practice. The net costs and savings of delivering such an intensive intervention need to be understood. We wanted to estimate the proportion of a facilitation intervention cost that is offset and the potential for savings by reducing inappropriate screening tests and increasing appropriate screening tests in 22 intervention primary care practices affecting a population of 90,283 patients.MethodsA cost-consequences analysis of one successful outreach facilitation intervention was done, taking into account the estimated cost savings to the health system of reducing five inappropriate tests and increasing seven appropriate tests. Multiple data sources were used to calculate costs and cost savings to the government. The cost of the intervention and costs of performing appropriate testing were calculated. Costs averted were calculated by multiplying the number of tests not performed as a result of the intervention. Further downstream cost savings were determined by calculating the direct costs associated with the number of false positive test follow-ups avoided. Treatment costs averted as a result of increasing appropriate testing were similarly calculated.ResultsThe total cost of the intervention over 12 months was $238,388 and the cost of increasing the delivery of appropriate care was $192,912 for a total cost of $431,300. The savings from reduction in inappropriate testing were $148,568 and from avoiding treatment costs as a result of appropriate testing were $455,464 for a total savings of $604,032. On a yearly basis the net cost saving to the government is $191,733 per year (2003 Can dollars) equating to $3,687 per physician or $63,911 per facilitator, an estimated return on intervention investment and delivery of appropriate preventive care of 40%.ConclusionOutreach facilitation is more expensive but more effective than other attempts to modify primary care practice and all of its costs can be offset through the reduction of inappropriate testing and increasing appropriate testing. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions. The potential for savings is likely considerably higher.

Project description:BackgroundInternational evidence suggests that an integrated multidisciplinary approach to diabetic foot management is necessary to prevent ulceration and progression to amputation. Many health systems have introduced policies or models of care supporting the introduction of this evidence into practice, but little is known about the experiences of those involved in implementation. This study addresses this gap by examining the experiences of podiatrists providing integrated diabetic foot care.MethodsBetween October 2017 and April 2018, an online survey comprising closed and open-ended questions on podiatrists' demographics, clinical activity, links with other services, continuous professional development activities and experiences of implementing the Model of Care was administered to podiatrists (n = 73) working for Ireland's Health Service Executive in the community and hospital setting. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe response rate was 68% (n = 50), with 46% (n = 23), 38% (n = 19) and 16% (n = 8) working across hospital, community and both settings, respectively. Most reported treating high-risk patients (66%), those with active foot disease (61%) and educating people about the risk of diabetes to the lower limb (80%). Reported challenges towards integrated diabetic foot care include a perceived lack of awareness of the role of podiatry amongst other healthcare professionals, poor integration between hospital and community podiatry services, especially where new services had been developed, and insufficient number of podiatrists to meet service demands.ConclusionPrevious evidence has shown that there is often a gap between what is set out by a policy and what it looks like when delivered to service users. Results from the current study support this, highlighting that while most podiatrists work in line with national recommendations, there are specific gaps and challenges that need to be addressed to ensure successful policy implementation.

Project description:ObjectivesTo estimate the impact on hospital utilisation and costs of a multi-faceted primary care intervention for older people identified as being at risk of avoidable hospitalisation.DesignObservational study: controlled time series analysis and estimation of costs and cost consequences of the Programme. General practitioner (GP)'s practice level data were analysed from 2009 to 2016 (intervention operated from 2012 to 2016). Mixed-effect Poisson regression models of hospital utilisation included comparisons with control practices and background trends in addition to within-practice comparisons. Cost estimation used standard tariff values.Setting94 practices in Southwark and Lambeth and 263 control practices from other parts of England.Main outcome measuresHospital utilisation: emergency department attendance, emergency admissions, emergency admissions for ambulatory sensitive conditions, outpatient attendance, elective admission and length of stay.ResultsBy the fourth year of the Programme, there were reductions in accident and emergency (A&E) attendance (rate ratio 0.944, 95% CI 0.913 to 0.976), outpatient attendances (rate ratio 0.938, 95% CI 0.902 to 0.975) and elective admissions (rate ratio 0.921, 95% CI 0.908 to 0.935) but there was no evidence of reduced emergency admissions. The costs of the Programme were £149 per resident aged 65 and above but savings in hospital costs were only £86 per resident aged 65 and above, equivalent to a net increase in health service expenditure of £64 per resident though the Programme was nearly cost neutral if set-up costs were excluded. Holistic assessments carried out by GPs and consequent Integrated Care Management (ICM) plans were associated with increases in elective activity and costs; £126 increase in outpatient attendance and £936 in elective admission costs per holistic assessment carried out, and £576 increase in outpatient and £5858 in elective admission costs per patient receiving ICM.ConclusionsThe Older People's Programme was not cost saving. Some aspects of the Programme were associated with increased costs of elective care, possibly through the identification of unmet need.

Project description:IntroductionChronic diseases are the leading cause of illness, disability and death in Australia. The prevalence and associated health expenditure are projected to soar. There is no 'whole system' approach to healthcare in Australia. To overcome this fragmentation, the Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service (GCHHS) is developing a new model known as Gold Coast Integrated Care (GCIC). To evaluate GCIC a 4-year pilot trial commenced in March 2015. This protocol paper describes the evaluation of GCIC.Methods and analysisA pragmatic non-randomised controlled clinical trial is conducted to test the hypothesis that GCIC will result in improved health and well-being at no additional cost to the healthcare system. Using a mixed methods approach, impact, outcome and process evaluations will be undertaken to assess the effectiveness and acceptability, including the balance of costs between primary and public secondary care sectors, staff and training requirements, clinical service delivery, and trial implementation.Fifteen general practices have agreed to deliver GCIC. One thousand five hundred of their adult patients with treated chronic diseases, high risk of hospitalisation or healthcare utilisation were recruited to the intervention arm. Approximately 3000 patients not associated with the participating general practices were identified as controls using propensity matching which will provide service utilisation and disease data for usual care.Baseline data and follow-up observations are collected annually until the end of 2018. Quantitative analyses will measure patient healthcare costs, utilisation of health services, and health outcomes, and general practice clinical service delivery according to clinical guidelines (number of foot exams, HbA1c tests). Qualitative analyses will focus on patient and staff experiences, satisfaction, engagement and implementation of the programme as planned.Ethics and disseminationApproval was received from the GCHHS and Griffith University. The study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12616000821493). Findings will be communicated via yearly reports to funding bodies and scientific publications.Trial registration numberACTRN12616000821493; Pre-results.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The lack of understanding of how complex integrated care programmes achieve their outcomes due to the lack of acceptable methods leads to difficulties in the development, implementation, adaptation and scaling up of similar interventions. In this study, we evaluate an integrated care network, the National University Health System (NUHS) Regional Health System (RHS), consisting of acute hospitals, step down care, primary care providers, social services and community partners using a theory-driven realist evaluation approach. This study aims to examine how and for whom the NUHS-RHS works to improve healthcare utilisations, outcomes, care experiences and reduce healthcare costs. By using a realist approach that balances the needs of context-specific evaluation with international comparability, this study carries the potential to address current research gaps. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This evaluation will be conducted in three research phases: (1) development of initial programme theory (IPT) underlying the NUHS-RHS; (2) testing of programme theory using empirical data; and (3) refinement of IPT. IPT was elicited and developed through reviews of programme documents, informal discussions and in-depth interviews with relevant stakeholders. Then, a convergent parallel mixed method study will be conducted to assess context (C), mechanisms (M) and outcomes (O) to test the IPT. Findings will then be analysed according to the realist evaluation formula of CMO in which findings on the context, mechanisms will be used to explain the outcomes. Finally, based on findings gathered, IPT will be refined to highlight how to improve the NUHS-RHS by detailing what works (outcome), as well as how (mechanisms) and under what conditions (context). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The National Healthcare Group, Singapore, Domain Specific Review Board reviewed and approved this study protocol. Study results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences and internally to NUHS-RHS and Ministry of Health, Singapore.