BACKGROUND: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) support rapid testing and implementation of interventions through the collective experience of participating organizations to improve care quality and reduce costs. Although QICs have been societally cost-effective in improving the care of chronic diseases, they may not be adopted by outpatient clinics if their costs are high. Diabetes QICs warrant reexamination as secular trends in the quality of diabetes care, new care guidelines for diabetes, and evolving strategies for quality improvement may have altered implementation costs. METHODS: The costs over the first four years-from June 2009 through May 2013-of an ongoing diabetes QIC were characterized by activities and over time. The QIC, linking six clinics on Chicago's South Side, tailored interventions to minority populations and built community partnerships. Costs were calculated from clinic surveys regarding activities, labor, and purchases. RESULTS: Data were obtained from five of the six participating clinics. Cost/diabetic patient/year ranged across clinic sites from $6 (largest clinic) to $68 (smallest clinic). Clinics spent 62%-88% of their total QIC costs on labor. The cost/diabetic patient/year changed over time from Year 1 (range across clinics, $5-$51), Year 2 ($11-$84), Year 3 ($4-$57), to Year 4 ($4-$80), with costs peaking at Year 2 for all clinics except Clinic 4, where costs peaked at Year 4. DISCUSSION: Cost experiences of QICs in clinics were di- verse over time and setting. High per-patient costs may stem from small clinic size, a sicker patient population, and variation in personnel type used. Cost decreases over time may represent increasing organizational learning and efficiency. Sharing resources may have achieved additional cost savings. This practical information can help administrators and policy makers predict, manage, and support costs of QICs as payers increasingly seek high-value health care.
BACKGROUND: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) support rapid testing and implementation of interventions through the collective experience of participating organizations to improve care quality and reduce costs. Although QICs have been societally cost-effective in improving the care of chronic diseases, they may not be adopted by outpatient clinics if their costs are high. Diabetes QICs warrant reexamination as secular trends in the quality of diabetes care, new care guidelines for diabetes, and evolving strategies for quality improvement may have altered implementation costs. METHODS: The costs over the first four years-from June 2009 through May 2013-of an ongoing diabetes QIC were characterized by activities and over time. The QIC, linking six clinics on Chicago's South Side, tailored interventions to minority populations and built community partnerships. Costs were calculated from clinic surveys regarding activities, labor, and purchases. RESULTS: Data were obtained from five of the six participating clinics. Cost/diabeticpatient/year ranged across clinic sites from $6 (largest clinic) to $68 (smallest clinic). Clinics spent 62%-88% of their total QIC costs on labor. The cost/diabeticpatient/year changed over time from Year 1 (range across clinics, $5-$51), Year 2 ($11-$84), Year 3 ($4-$57), to Year 4 ($4-$80), with costs peaking at Year 2 for all clinics except Clinic 4, where costs peaked at Year 4. DISCUSSION: Cost experiences of QICs in clinics were di- verse over time and setting. High per-patient costs may stem from small clinic size, a sicker patient population, and variation in personnel type used. Cost decreases over time may represent increasing organizational learning and efficiency. Sharing resources may have achieved additional cost savings. This practical information can help administrators and policy makers predict, manage, and support costs of QICs as payers increasingly seek high-value health care.
Authors: Sheila Leatherman; Donald Berwick; Debra Iles; Lawrence S Lewin; Frank Davidoff; Thomas Nolan; Maureen Bisognano Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Janine C Edwards; Penny Hollander Feldman; Judy Sangl; David Polakoff; Glen Stern; Don Casey Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2007-12
Authors: Chuan-Fen Liu; Lisa V Rubenstein; JoAnn E Kirchner; John C Fortney; Mark W Perkins; Scott K Ober; Jeffrey M Pyne; Edmund F Chaney Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Mohammed K Ali; Kai McKeever Bullard; Jinan B Saaddine; Catherine C Cowie; Giuseppina Imperatore; Edward W Gregg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Silvio E Inzucchi; Richard M Bergenstal; John B Buse; Michaela Diamant; Ele Ferrannini; Michael Nauck; Anne L Peters; Apostolos Tsapas; Richard Wender; David R Matthews Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Lenore de la Perrelle; Gorjana Radisic; Monica Cations; Billingsley Kaambwa; Gaery Barbery; Kate Laver Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 2.655