OBJECTIVE: To compare three methods of measuring multiple morbidity according to the use of health resources (cost of care) in primary healthcare (PHC). DESIGN: Retrospective study using computerized medical records. SETTING: Thirteen PHC teams in Catalonia (Spain). PARTICIPANTS: Assigned patients requiring care in 2008. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The socio-demographic variables were co-morbidity and costs. Methods of comparison were: a) Combined Comorbidity Index (CCI): an index itself was developed from the scores of acute and chronic episodes, b) Charlson Index (ChI), and c) Adjusted Clinical Groups case-mix: resource use bands (RUB). The cost model was constructed by differentiating between fixed (operational) and variable costs. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: 3 multiple lineal regression models were developed to assess the explanatory power of each measurement of co-morbidity which were compared from the determination coefficient (R(2)), p< .05. RESULTS: The study included 227,235 patients. The mean unit of cost was €654.2. The CCI explained an R(2)=50.4%, the ChI an R(2)=29.2% and BUR an R(2)=39.7% of the variability of the cost. The behaviour of the ICC is acceptable, albeit with low scores (1 to 3 points), showing inconclusive results. CONCLUSIONS: The CCI may be a simple method of predicting PHC costs in routine clinical practice. If confirmed, these results will allow improvements in the comparison of the case-mix.
OBJECTIVE: To compare three methods of measuring multiple morbidity according to the use of health resources (cost of care) in primary healthcare (PHC). DESIGN: Retrospective study using computerized medical records. SETTING: Thirteen PHC teams in Catalonia (Spain). PARTICIPANTS: Assigned patients requiring care in 2008. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The socio-demographic variables were co-morbidity and costs. Methods of comparison were: a) Combined Comorbidity Index (CCI): an index itself was developed from the scores of acute and chronic episodes, b) Charlson Index (ChI), and c) Adjusted Clinical Groups case-mix: resource use bands (RUB). The cost model was constructed by differentiating between fixed (operational) and variable costs. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: 3 multiple lineal regression models were developed to assess the explanatory power of each measurement of co-morbidity which were compared from the determination coefficient (R(2)), p< .05. RESULTS: The study included 227,235 patients. The mean unit of cost was €654.2. The CCI explained an R(2)=50.4%, the ChI an R(2)=29.2% and BUR an R(2)=39.7% of the variability of the cost. The behaviour of the ICC is acceptable, albeit with low scores (1 to 3 points), showing inconclusive results. CONCLUSIONS: The CCI may be a simple method of predicting PHC costs in routine clinical practice. If confirmed, these results will allow improvements in the comparison of the case-mix.
Authors: Martin Fortin; Gina Bravo; Catherine Hudon; Lise Lapointe; José Almirall; Marie-France Dubois; Alain Vanasse Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: M D Miller; C F Paradis; P R Houck; S Mazumdar; J A Stack; A H Rifai; B Mulsant; C F Reynolds Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 1992-03 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Barbara Starfield; Klaus W Lemke; Terence Bernhardt; Steven S Foldes; Christopher B Forrest; Jonathan P Weiner Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2003 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Concepción Violán; Quintí Foguet-Boreu; Albert Roso-Llorach; Teresa Rodriguez-Blanco; Mariona Pons-Vigués; Enriqueta Pujol-Ribera; Miguel Ángel Muñoz-Pérez; Jose M Valderas Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 3.295