BACKGROUND: In a recent randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of an inpatient geriatric assessment unit (GAU), we demonstrated that patients assigned to the unit were less likely than those in the usual care group to be admitted to a nursing home and more likely to remain living in the community. Despite evidence of benefits of GAU care, questions remain about its cost. We examine the impact of GAU treatment on subsequent health care charges. METHODS: Sequential referrals of elderly disabled patients considered at risk for institutionalization or likely to improve with rehabilitation were randomized to the GAU or to usual care. Charge data were collected on utilization of a wide variety of health care services starting at the point of randomization. RESULTS: The group randomized to the GAU experienced significantly higher rehabilitation charges per participant ($10,583 vs $2066, P = .0001), but lower mean nursing home charges ($1798 vs $3426, P = .004). Total health care charges per participant over the 1 year follow-up were greater for the GAU group ($28,406 vs $16,444, P = .004). When charges were adjusted per year of life survived, the GAU group still showed a substantial (but nonsignificant, P = .10) increase in total charges. However, when charges were adjusted per day subsequently spent residing in the community, adjusted total charges were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated that improved outcomes from GAU care require an investment in rehabilitation that is not totally offset by decreased institutional charges in the following year.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In a recent randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of an inpatient geriatric assessment unit (GAU), we demonstrated that patients assigned to the unit were less likely than those in the usual care group to be admitted to a nursing home and more likely to remain living in the community. Despite evidence of benefits of GAU care, questions remain about its cost. We examine the impact of GAU treatment on subsequent health care charges. METHODS: Sequential referrals of elderly disabled patients considered at risk for institutionalization or likely to improve with rehabilitation were randomized to the GAU or to usual care. Charge data were collected on utilization of a wide variety of health care services starting at the point of randomization. RESULTS: The group randomized to the GAU experienced significantly higher rehabilitation charges per participant ($10,583 vs $2066, P = .0001), but lower mean nursing home charges ($1798 vs $3426, P = .004). Total health care charges per participant over the 1 year follow-up were greater for the GAU group ($28,406 vs $16,444, P = .004). When charges were adjusted per year of life survived, the GAU group still showed a substantial (but nonsignificant, P = .10) increase in total charges. However, when charges were adjusted per day subsequently spent residing in the community, adjusted total charges were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated that improved outcomes from GAU care require an investment in rehabilitation that is not totally offset by decreased institutional charges in the following year.
Authors: Camilla Strøm; Jakob S Stefansson; Maria Louise Fabritius; Lars S Rasmussen; Thomas A Schmidt; Janus C Jakobsen Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-08-13