OBJECTIVES: With ever increasing mandates to reduce costs and increase the quality of pain management, health care institutions are faced with the challenge of adopting innovative technologies and shifting workflows to provide value-based care. Transaction cost economic analysis can provide comparative evaluation of the consequences of these changes in the delivery of care. The aim of this study was to establish proof-of-concept using transaction cost analysis to examine chronic pain management in-clinic and through telehealth. METHODS: Participating health care providers were asked to identify and describe two comparable completed transactions for patients with chronic pain: one consultation between patient and specialist in-clinic and the other a telehealth presentation of a patient's case by the primary care provider to a team of pain medicine specialists. Each provider completed two on-site interviews. Focus was on the time, value of time, and labor costs per transaction. Number of steps, time, and costs for providers and patients were identified. RESULTS: Forty-six discrete steps were taken for the in-clinic transaction, and 27 steps were taken for the telehealth transaction. Although similar in costs per patient ($332.89 in-clinic vs. $376.48 telehealth), the costs accrued over 153 business days in-clinic and 4 business days for telehealth. Time elapsed between referral and completion of initial consultation was 72 days in-clinic, 4 days for telehealth. CONCLUSIONS: U.S. health care is moving toward the use of more technologies and practices, and the information provided by transaction cost analyses of care delivery for pain management will be important to determine actual cost savings and benefits. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
OBJECTIVES: With ever increasing mandates to reduce costs and increase the quality of pain management, health care institutions are faced with the challenge of adopting innovative technologies and shifting workflows to provide value-based care. Transaction cost economic analysis can provide comparative evaluation of the consequences of these changes in the delivery of care. The aim of this study was to establish proof-of-concept using transaction cost analysis to examine chronic pain management in-clinic and through telehealth. METHODS: Participating health care providers were asked to identify and describe two comparable completed transactions for patients with chronic pain: one consultation between patient and specialist in-clinic and the other a telehealth presentation of a patient's case by the primary care provider to a team of pain medicine specialists. Each provider completed two on-site interviews. Focus was on the time, value of time, and labor costs per transaction. Number of steps, time, and costs for providers and patients were identified. RESULTS: Forty-six discrete steps were taken for the in-clinic transaction, and 27 steps were taken for the telehealth transaction. Although similar in costs per patient ($332.89 in-clinic vs. $376.48 telehealth), the costs accrued over 153 business days in-clinic and 4 business days for telehealth. Time elapsed between referral and completion of initial consultation was 72 days in-clinic, 4 days for telehealth. CONCLUSIONS: U.S. health care is moving toward the use of more technologies and practices, and the information provided by transaction cost analyses of care delivery for pain management will be important to determine actual cost savings and benefits. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Authors: Laura-Mae Baldwin; Miriam M Patanian; Eric H Larson; Denise M Lishner; Larry B Mauksch; Wayne J Katon; Edward Walker; L Gary Hart Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2006 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Laura-Mae Baldwin; Walter B Hollow; Susan Casey; L Gary Hart; Eric H Larson; Kelly Moore; Ervin Lewis; C Holly A Andrilla; David C Grossman Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2008 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: George M Hanna; Irina Fishman; David A Edwards; Shiqian Shen; Cheryl Kram; Xulei Liu; Matthew Shotwell; Christopher Gilligan Journal: Pain Med Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: David S Portney; Rohan Ved; Vahagn Nikolian; Andrea Wei; Tom Buchmueller; Brad Killaly; Hasan B Alam; Chad Ellimoottil Journal: Mhealth Date: 2020-10-05
Authors: David J Tauben; Dale J Langford; John A Sturgeon; Sean D Rundell; Cara Towle; Christina Bockman; Michael Nicholas Journal: Pain Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: David Anthony Provenzano; B Todd Sitzman; Samuel Ambrose Florentino; Glenn A Buterbaugh Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2020-05-31 Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: Carlos I Mesa-Castrillon; Milena Simic; Manuela L Ferreira; Kristy Hatswell; Georgina Luscombe; Antonio Michell de Gregorio; Phillip R Davis; Adrian Bauman; Stephen Bunker; Ornella Clavisi; Grahame Knox; Kim L Bennell; Paulo H Ferreira Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 2.362