Dataset Information

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of the Patient-Centered HIV Care Model: A Collaboration Between Community-Based Pharmacists and Primary Medical Providers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The patient-centered HIV care model (PCHCM) is an evidence-informed structural intervention that integrates community-based pharmacists with primary medical providers to improve rates of HIV viral suppression. This report assesses the costs and cost-effectiveness of the PCHCM.

Setting

Patient-centered HIV care model.

Methods

Three project sites, each composed of a medical clinic and 1 or 2 community-based HIV-specialized pharmacies, were included in the analyses. PCHCM required patient data sharing between medical providers and pharmacists and collaborative therapy-related decision making. Intervention effectiveness was measured as the incremental number of patients virally suppressed (HIV RNA <200 copies/mL at the last test in a 12-month measurement period). Microcosting direct measurement methods were used to estimate intervention costs. The cost per patient, cost per patient visit, and incremental cost per patient virally suppressed were calculated from the health care providers' perspective. Additionally, the number of HIV transmissions averted, lifetime HIV treatment cost saved, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved, and cost per QALY saved were calculated from the societal perspective, using standard methods and reported values from the published literature.

Results

Overall, the PCHCM annual intervention cost for the 3 project sites was $226,741. The average cost per patient, cost per patient visit, and incremental cost per patient virally suppressed were $813, $48, and $5,039, respectively. The intervention averted 2.75 HIV transmissions and saved 12.22 QALYs and nearly $1.28 million in lifetime HIV treatment costs. The intervention was cost saving overall and at each project site.

Conclusions

The PCHCM can be delivered at a relatively low cost and is a cost-saving intervention to assist patients in achieving viral suppression and preventing HIV transmission.

SUBMITTER: Shrestha RK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8549679 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEnhanced primary care models have diffused slowly and shown uneven results. Because their structural features are costly and challenging for small practices to implement, they offer modest rewards for improved performance, and improvement takes time.ObjectiveTo test whether a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model that significantly rewarded cost savings and accommodated small primary care practices was associated with lower spending, fewer hospital admissions, and fewer emergency room visits.DesignWe compared medical care expenditures and utilization among adults who participated in the PCMH program to adults who did not participate. We computed difference-in-difference estimates using two-part multivariate generalized linear models for expenditures and negative binomial models for utilization. Control variables included patient demographics, county, chronic condition indicators, and illness severity.ParticipantsA total of 1,433,297 adults aged 18-64 years, residing in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and insured by CareFirst for at least 3 consecutive months between 2010 and 2013.InterventionCareFirst implemented enhanced fee-for-service payments to the practices, offered a large retrospective bonus if annual cost and quality targets were exceeded, and provided information and care coordination support.MeasuresOutcomes were quarterly claims expenditures per member for all covered services, inpatient care, emergency care, and prescription drugs, and quarterly inpatient admissions and emergency room visits.ResultsBy the third intervention year, annual adjusted total claims payments were $109 per participating member (95 % CI: -$192, -$27), or 2.8 % lower than before the program and compared to those who did not participate. Forty-two percent of the overall decline in spending was explained by lower inpatient care, emergency care, and prescription drug spending. Much of the reduction in inpatient and emergency spending was explained by lower utilization of services.ConclusionsA PCMH model that does not require practices to make infrastructure investments and that rewards cost savings can reduce spending and utilization.