Cost analysis of the geriatric resources for assessment and care of elders care management intervention

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

98 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To provide, from the healthcare delivery system perspective, a cost analysis of the Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE) intervention, which is effective in improving quality of care and outcomes. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with physicians as the unit of randomization. SETTING: Community-based primary care health centers. PARTICIPANTS: Nine hundred fifty-one low-income seniors aged 65 and older; 474 participated in the intervention and 477 in usual care. INTERVENTION: Home-based care management for 2 years by a nurse practitioner and social worker who collaborated with the primary care physician and a geriatrics interdisciplinary team and were guided by 12 care protocols for common geriatric conditions. MEASUREMENTS: Chronic and preventive care costs, acute care costs, and total costs in the full sample (n=951) and predefined high-risk (n=226) and low-risk (n=725) groups. RESULTS: Mean 2-year total costs for intervention patients were not significantly different from those for usual care patients in the full sample ($14,348 vs $11,834; P=.20) and high-risk group ($17,713 vs $18,776; P=.38). In the high-risk group, increases in chronic and preventive care costs were offset by reductions in acute care costs, and the intervention was cost saving during the postintervention, or third, year ($5,088 vs $6,575; P<.001). Mean 2-year total costs were higher in the low-risk group ($13,307 vs $9,654; P=.01). CONCLUSION: In patients at high risk of hospitalization, the GRACE intervention is cost neutral from the healthcare delivery system perspective. A cost-effectiveness analysis is needed to guide decisions about implementation in low-risk patients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1420-1426
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the American Geriatrics Society
Volume57
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2009

Fingerprint

Geriatric Assessment
Costs and Cost Analysis
Delivery of Health Care
Preventive Medicine
Geriatrics
Nurse Practitioners
Quality of Health Care
Primary Care Physicians
Home Care Services
Random Allocation
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Primary Health Care
Patient Care
Hospitalization
Randomized Controlled Trials

Keywords

  • Care management
  • Cost analysis
  • Geriatric assessment
  • Interdisciplinary team
  • Primary care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geriatrics and Gerontology

Cite this

@article{6935ea90e256430f814ab8edef2f7969,
title = "Cost analysis of the geriatric resources for assessment and care of elders care management intervention",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: To provide, from the healthcare delivery system perspective, a cost analysis of the Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE) intervention, which is effective in improving quality of care and outcomes. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with physicians as the unit of randomization. SETTING: Community-based primary care health centers. PARTICIPANTS: Nine hundred fifty-one low-income seniors aged 65 and older; 474 participated in the intervention and 477 in usual care. INTERVENTION: Home-based care management for 2 years by a nurse practitioner and social worker who collaborated with the primary care physician and a geriatrics interdisciplinary team and were guided by 12 care protocols for common geriatric conditions. MEASUREMENTS: Chronic and preventive care costs, acute care costs, and total costs in the full sample (n=951) and predefined high-risk (n=226) and low-risk (n=725) groups. RESULTS: Mean 2-year total costs for intervention patients were not significantly different from those for usual care patients in the full sample ($14,348 vs $11,834; P=.20) and high-risk group ($17,713 vs $18,776; P=.38). In the high-risk group, increases in chronic and preventive care costs were offset by reductions in acute care costs, and the intervention was cost saving during the postintervention, or third, year ($5,088 vs $6,575; P<.001). Mean 2-year total costs were higher in the low-risk group ($13,307 vs $9,654; P=.01). CONCLUSION: In patients at high risk of hospitalization, the GRACE intervention is cost neutral from the healthcare delivery system perspective. A cost-effectiveness analysis is needed to guide decisions about implementation in low-risk patients.",
keywords = "Care management, Cost analysis, Geriatric assessment, Interdisciplinary team, Primary care",
author = "Steven Counsell and Christopher Callahan and Wanzhu Tu and Stump, {Timothy E.} and Gregory Arling",
year = "2009",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02383.x",
language = "English",
volume = "57",
pages = "1420--1426",
journal = "Journal of the American Geriatrics Society",
issn = "0002-8614",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost analysis of the geriatric resources for assessment and care of elders care management intervention

AU - Counsell, Steven

AU - Callahan, Christopher

AU - Tu, Wanzhu

AU - Stump, Timothy E.

AU - Arling, Gregory

PY - 2009/8

Y1 - 2009/8

N2 - OBJECTIVES: To provide, from the healthcare delivery system perspective, a cost analysis of the Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE) intervention, which is effective in improving quality of care and outcomes. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with physicians as the unit of randomization. SETTING: Community-based primary care health centers. PARTICIPANTS: Nine hundred fifty-one low-income seniors aged 65 and older; 474 participated in the intervention and 477 in usual care. INTERVENTION: Home-based care management for 2 years by a nurse practitioner and social worker who collaborated with the primary care physician and a geriatrics interdisciplinary team and were guided by 12 care protocols for common geriatric conditions. MEASUREMENTS: Chronic and preventive care costs, acute care costs, and total costs in the full sample (n=951) and predefined high-risk (n=226) and low-risk (n=725) groups. RESULTS: Mean 2-year total costs for intervention patients were not significantly different from those for usual care patients in the full sample ($14,348 vs $11,834; P=.20) and high-risk group ($17,713 vs $18,776; P=.38). In the high-risk group, increases in chronic and preventive care costs were offset by reductions in acute care costs, and the intervention was cost saving during the postintervention, or third, year ($5,088 vs $6,575; P<.001). Mean 2-year total costs were higher in the low-risk group ($13,307 vs $9,654; P=.01). CONCLUSION: In patients at high risk of hospitalization, the GRACE intervention is cost neutral from the healthcare delivery system perspective. A cost-effectiveness analysis is needed to guide decisions about implementation in low-risk patients.

AB - OBJECTIVES: To provide, from the healthcare delivery system perspective, a cost analysis of the Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE) intervention, which is effective in improving quality of care and outcomes. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with physicians as the unit of randomization. SETTING: Community-based primary care health centers. PARTICIPANTS: Nine hundred fifty-one low-income seniors aged 65 and older; 474 participated in the intervention and 477 in usual care. INTERVENTION: Home-based care management for 2 years by a nurse practitioner and social worker who collaborated with the primary care physician and a geriatrics interdisciplinary team and were guided by 12 care protocols for common geriatric conditions. MEASUREMENTS: Chronic and preventive care costs, acute care costs, and total costs in the full sample (n=951) and predefined high-risk (n=226) and low-risk (n=725) groups. RESULTS: Mean 2-year total costs for intervention patients were not significantly different from those for usual care patients in the full sample ($14,348 vs $11,834; P=.20) and high-risk group ($17,713 vs $18,776; P=.38). In the high-risk group, increases in chronic and preventive care costs were offset by reductions in acute care costs, and the intervention was cost saving during the postintervention, or third, year ($5,088 vs $6,575; P<.001). Mean 2-year total costs were higher in the low-risk group ($13,307 vs $9,654; P=.01). CONCLUSION: In patients at high risk of hospitalization, the GRACE intervention is cost neutral from the healthcare delivery system perspective. A cost-effectiveness analysis is needed to guide decisions about implementation in low-risk patients.

KW - Care management

KW - Cost analysis

KW - Geriatric assessment

KW - Interdisciplinary team

KW - Primary care

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=68149152903&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=68149152903&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02383.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02383.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 19691149

AN - SCOPUS:68149152903

VL - 57

SP - 1420

EP - 1426

JO - Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

JF - Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

SN - 0002-8614

IS - 8

ER -