4.6 Article

Effects of Home-Based Primary Care on Medicare Costs in High-Risk Elders

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 62, 期 10, 页码 1825-1831

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.12974

关键词

home-based primary care; frail elders; Medicare costs; survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesTo determine the effect of home-based primary care (HBPC) on Medicare costs and mortality in frail elders. DesignCase-control concurrent study using Medicare administrative data. SettingHBPC practice in Washington, District of Columbia. ParticipantsHBPC cases (n=722) and controls (n=2,161) matched for sex, age bands, race, Medicare buy-in status (whether Medicaid covers Part B premiums), long-term nursing home status, cognitive impairment, and frailty. Cases were eligible if enrolled in MedStar Washington Hospital Center's HBPC program during 2004 to 2008. Controls were selected from Washington, District of Columbia, and urban counties in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. InterventionHBPC clinical service. MeasurementsMedicare costs, utilization events, mortality. ResultsMean age was 83.7 for cases and 82.0 for controls (P<.001). A majority of both groups was female (77%) and African American (90%). During a mean 2-year follow-up, in univariate analysis, cases had lower Medicare ($44,455 vs $50,977, P=.01), hospital ($17,805 vs $22,096, P=.003), and skilled nursing facility care ($4,821 vs $6,098, P=.001) costs, and higher home health ($6,579 vs $4,169; P<.001) and hospice ($3,144 vs. $1,505; P=.005) costs. Cases had 23% fewer subspecialist visits (P=.001) and 105% more generalist visits (P<.001). In a multivariate model, cases had 17% lower Medicare costs, averaging $8,477 less per beneficiary (P=.003) over 2years of follow-up. There was no difference between cases and controls in mortality (40% vs 36%, hazard ratio=1.06, P=.44) or in average time to death (16.2 vs 16.8months, P=.30). ConclusionHBPC reduces Medicare costs for ill elders, with similar survival outcomes in cases and controls.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据