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 (n5951) and predefined high-risk (n5226) and low-risk (n5725) 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). Mean2- 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.
RCT Entities:
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 (n5951) and predefined high-risk (n5226) and low-risk (n5725) 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.
Authors: Harvey Jay Cohen; John R Feussner; Morris Weinberger; Molly Carnes; Ronald C Hamdy; Frank Hsieh; Ciaran Phibbs; Donald Courtney; Kenneth W Lyles; Conrad May; Cynthia McMurtry; Leslye Pennypacker; David M Smith; Nina Ainslie; Thomas Hornick; Kayla Brodkin; Philip Lavori Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Neil S Wenger; David H Solomon; Carol P Roth; Catherine H MacLean; Debra Saliba; Caren J Kamberg; Laurence Z Rubenstein; Roy T Young; Elizabeth M Sloss; Rachel Louie; John Adams; John T Chang; Patricia J Venus; John F Schnelle; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-11-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: A E Stuck; H U Aronow; A Steiner; C A Alessi; C J Büla; M N Gold; K E Yuhas; R Nisenbaum; L Z Rubenstein; J C Beck Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-11-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeannie-Marie S Leoutsakos; Dingfen Han; Michelle M Mielke; Sarah N Forrester; JoAnn T Tschanz; Chris D Corcoran; Robert C Green; Maria C Norton; Kathleen A Welsh-Bohmer; Constantine G Lyketsos Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: Jennifer L Wolff; Lauren H Nicholas; Amber Willink; John Mulcahy; Karen Davis; Judith D Kasper Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Marijke Boorsma; Dinnus H M Frijters; Dirk L Knol; Miel E Ribbe; Giel Nijpels; Hein P J van Hout Journal: CMAJ Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Angelica P Herrera; Matthew Lee Smith; Marcia G Ory; Hector P Rodriguez; Ruth Warre; Wesley K Thompson; Annette Azcue; Jairo A Romero Journal: J Aging Health Date: 2011-10
Authors: Debra K Litzelman; Thomas S Inui; Wilma J Griffin; Anthony Perkins; Ann H Cottingham; Kathleen M Schmitt-Wendholt; Steven S Ivy Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Daniel O Clark; Kathleen A Lane; Roberta Ambuehl; Wanzhu Tu; Chiung-Ju Liu; Kathleen Unroe; Christopher M Callahan Journal: J Aging Health Date: 2015-06-25
Authors: Judith Fifield; Deborah Dauser Forrest; Joseph A Burleson; Melanie Martin-Peele; William Gillespie Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-03-02 Impact factor: 5.128