4.7 Article

Impact of office systems and improvement strategies on costs of care for adults with diabetes

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 29, 期 6, 页码 1242-1248

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc05-1811

关键词

-

资金

  1. AHRQ HHS [R01 HS 09946] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE- To assess the impact of organizational features and improvement strategies of primary care clinics on health care costs of adults with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS- This study included a prospective cohort study of 1,628 adults with diabetes in a large, health care organization receiving care in 84 clinics within 18 medical groups. Data from surveys of patients, clinic medical directors and managers, and medical record reviews were merged with 3 years of medical claims. Costs were estimated using health plan data on resource use and common Medicare payment methodologies. Generalized linear regression models were used to analyze costs related to clinic characteristics, adjusting for individual patient comorbidity, demographic, and socioeconomic factors. RESULTS- Clinics with regular clinician meetings to discuss patient care problems and clinics that used diabetes registries to prioritize patients based on cardiovascular risk were associated with lower 3-year costs: -$3,962 (P = 0.002) and -$2,916 (P = 0.019), respectively. The use of databases to monitor lab results was associated with higher costs ($2,439, P = 0.038). Quality improvement strategies focused on resource use related to diabetes care (-$2,883, P = 0.017) or heart disease care (-$3,228, P = 0.014) were associated with lowered costs, whereas quality improvement strategies that emphasized pharmacy use for patients with heart disease ($3,059, P = 0.029) or depression ($2,962, P = 0.038) were associated with increased costs. CONCLUSIONS- Several organizational features of primary care offices were significant predictors of future health care costs for adults with diabetes. The mechanism by which such factors affect costs of care and the relationship of costs to clinical outcomes merits further evaluation.

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

4.7
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