BACKGROUND:From 1992 to 2008, older adults in the United States incurred more healthcare expense per capita than any other age group. Home telemonitoring has emerged as a potential solution to reduce these costs, but evidence is mixed. The primary aim of the study was to evaluate whether the mean difference in total direct medical cost consequence between older adults receiving additional home telemonitoring care (TELE) (n=102) and those receivingusual medical care (UC) (n=103) were significant. Inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, decedents, survivors, and 30-day readmission costs were evaluated as secondary aim. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multivariate generalized linear models (GLMs) and parametric bootstrapping method were used to model cost and to determine significance of the cost differences. We also compared the differences in arithmetic mean costs. RESULTS: From the conditional GLMs, the estimated mean cost differences (TELE versus UC) for total, inpatient, outpatient, and ED were -$9,537 (p=0.068), -$8,482 (p =0.098), -$1,160 (p=0.177), and $106 (p=0.619), respectively. Mean postenrollment cost was 11% lower than the prior year for TELE versus 22% higher for UC. The ratio of mean cost for decedents to survivors was 2.1:1 (TELE) versus 12.7:1 (UC). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the mean total cost between the two treatment groups. The TELE group had less variability in cost of care, lower decedents to survivors cost ratio, and lower total 30-day readmission cost than the UC group.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: From 1992 to 2008, older adults in the United States incurred more healthcare expense per capita than any other age group. Home telemonitoring has emerged as a potential solution to reduce these costs, but evidence is mixed. The primary aim of the study was to evaluate whether the mean difference in total direct medical cost consequence between older adults receiving additional home telemonitoring care (TELE) (n=102) and those receiving usual medical care (UC) (n=103) were significant. Inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, decedents, survivors, and 30-day readmission costs were evaluated as secondary aim. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multivariate generalized linear models (GLMs) and parametric bootstrapping method were used to model cost and to determine significance of the cost differences. We also compared the differences in arithmetic mean costs. RESULTS: From the conditional GLMs, the estimated mean cost differences (TELE versus UC) for total, inpatient, outpatient, and ED were -$9,537 (p=0.068), -$8,482 (p =0.098), -$1,160 (p=0.177), and $106 (p=0.619), respectively. Mean postenrollment cost was 11% lower than the prior year for TELE versus 22% higher for UC. The ratio of mean cost for decedents to survivors was 2.1:1 (TELE) versus 12.7:1 (UC). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the mean total cost between the two treatment groups. The TELE group had less variability in cost of care, lower decedents to survivors cost ratio, and lower total 30-day readmission cost than the UC group.
Entities:
Keywords:
30-day readmission; cost comparison; home telemonitoring; older adult; telemedicine
Authors: Scott Ramsey; Richard Willke; Andrew Briggs; Ruth Brown; Martin Buxton; Anita Chawla; John Cook; Henry Glick; Bengt Liljas; Diana Petitti; Shelby Reed Journal: Value Health Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Paul Y Takahashi; Jennifer L Pecina; Benjavan Upatising; Rajeev Chaudhry; Nilay D Shah; Holly Van Houten; Steve Cha; Ivana Croghan; James M Naessens; Gregory J Hanson Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-05-28
Authors: Paul Y Takahashi; Gregory J Hanson; Jennifer L Pecina; Robert J Stroebel; Rajeev Chaudhry; Nilay D Shah; James M Naessens Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Sarah J Crane; Ericka E Tung; Gregory J Hanson; Stephen Cha; Rajeev Chaudhry; Paul Y Takahashi Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-12-13 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Sandra Sülz; Hilco J van Elten; Marjan Askari; Anne Marie Weggelaar-Jansen; Robbert Huijsman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Muhammad Hamza; Jelmer Alsma; John Kellett; Mikkel Brabrand; Erika F Christensen; Tim Cooksley; Harm R Haak; Prabath W B Nanayakkara; Hanneke Merten; Bo Schouten; Immo Weichert; Christian P Subbe Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2021-04-10
Authors: Leonie de Munter; A J L M Geraerds; Mariska A C de Jongh; Marjolein van der Vlegel; Ewout W Steyerberg; Juanita A Haagsma; Suzanne Polinder Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marjolein van der Vlegel; Juanita A Haagsma; Leonie de Munter; Mariska A C de Jongh; Suzanne Polinder Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: A J L M Geraerds; Juanita A Haagsma; L de Munter; N Kruithof; M de Jongh; Suzanne Polinder Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marjolein van der Vlegel; Juanita A Haagsma; A J L M Geraerds; Leonie de Munter; Mariska A C de Jongh; Suzanne Polinder Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 3.921