Ula Hwang1,2, Scott M Dresden3, Carmen Vargas-Torres4, Raymond Kang5, Melissa M Garrido6,7, George Loo4, Jeremy Sze8,9, Daniel Cruz3, Lynne D Richardson4, James Adams3, Amer Aldeen10, Kevin M Baumlin11, D Mark Courtney12, Stephanie Gravenor13, Corita R Grudzen8, Gloria Nimo4, Carolyn W Zhu4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 2. Geriatric Research, Education Clinical Center, James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bronx, New York. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 5. Center for Healthcare Studies, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 6. Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Partnered Evidence-Based Policy Resource Center, Boston VA Healthcare Systems, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Department of Emergency Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York. 9. Department of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York. 10. US Acute Care Solutions, Canton, Ohio. 11. Department of Emergency Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 12. Department of Emergency Medicine, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 13. Medecipher, Denver, Colorado.
Abstract
Importance: There has been a significant increase in the implementation and dissemination of geriatric emergency department (GED) programs. Understanding the costs associated with patient care would yield insight into the direct financial value for patients, hospitals, health systems, and payers. Objective: To evaluate the association of GED programs with Medicare costs per beneficiary. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included data on Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries at 2 hospitals implementing Geriatric Emergency Department Innovations in Care Through Workforce, Informatics, and Structural Enhancement (GEDI WISE) (Mount Sinai Medical Center [MSMC] and Northwestern Memorial Hospital [NMH]) from January 1, 2013, to November 30, 2016. Analyses were conducted and refined from August 28, 2018, to November 20, 2020, using entropy balance to account for observed differences between the treatment and comparison groups. Interventions: Treatment included consultation with a transitional care nurse (TCN) or a social worker (SW) trained for the GEDI WISE program at a beneficiary's first ED visit (index ED visit). The comparison group included beneficiaries who were never seen by either a TCN or an SW during the study period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome evaluated was prorated total Medicare payer expenditures per beneficiary over 30 and 60 days after the index ED visit encounter. Results: Of the total 24 839 unique Medicare beneficiaries, 4041 were seen across the 2 EDs; 1947 (17.4%) at MSMC and 2094 (15.4%) at the NMH received treatment from either a GED TCN and/or a GED SW. The mean (SD) age of beneficiaries at MSMC was 78.8 (8.5) years and at NMH was 76.4 (7.7) years. Most patients at both hospitals were female (6821 [60.8%] at MSMC and 8023 [58.9%] at NMH) and White (7729 [68.9%] at MSMC and 9984 [73.3%] at NMH). Treatment was associated with statistically significant mean savings per beneficiary of $2436 (95% CI, $1760-$3111; P < .001) at one ED and $2905 (95% CI, $2378-$3431; P < .001) at the other ED in the 30 days after the index ED visit. The association between treatment and mean cumulative savings at 60 days after the index ED visit per beneficiary was also significant: $1200 (95% CI, $231-$2169; P = .02) at one ED and $3202 (95% CI, $2452-$3951; P < .001) at the other ED. Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, receipt of ED-based geriatric treatment by a TCN and/or an SW was associated with lower Medicare expenditures. These estimated cost savings may be used when calculating or considering the bundled value and potential reimbursement per patient for GED care programs.
Importance: There has been a significant increase in the implementation and dissemination of geriatric emergency department (GED) programs. Understanding the costs associated with patient care would yield insight into the direct financial value for patients, hospitals, health systems, and payers. Objective: To evaluate the association of GED programs with Medicare costs per beneficiary. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included data on Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries at 2 hospitals implementing Geriatric Emergency Department Innovations in Care Through Workforce, Informatics, and Structural Enhancement (GEDI WISE) (Mount Sinai Medical Center [MSMC] and Northwestern Memorial Hospital [NMH]) from January 1, 2013, to November 30, 2016. Analyses were conducted and refined from August 28, 2018, to November 20, 2020, using entropy balance to account for observed differences between the treatment and comparison groups. Interventions: Treatment included consultation with a transitional care nurse (TCN) or a social worker (SW) trained for the GEDI WISE program at a beneficiary's first ED visit (index ED visit). The comparison group included beneficiaries who were never seen by either a TCN or an SW during the study period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome evaluated was prorated total Medicare payer expenditures per beneficiary over 30 and 60 days after the index ED visit encounter. Results: Of the total 24 839 unique Medicare beneficiaries, 4041 were seen across the 2 EDs; 1947 (17.4%) at MSMC and 2094 (15.4%) at the NMH received treatment from either a GED TCN and/or a GED SW. The mean (SD) age of beneficiaries at MSMC was 78.8 (8.5) years and at NMH was 76.4 (7.7) years. Most patients at both hospitals were female (6821 [60.8%] at MSMC and 8023 [58.9%] at NMH) and White (7729 [68.9%] at MSMC and 9984 [73.3%] at NMH). Treatment was associated with statistically significant mean savings per beneficiary of $2436 (95% CI, $1760-$3111; P < .001) at one ED and $2905 (95% CI, $2378-$3431; P < .001) at the other ED in the 30 days after the index ED visit. The association between treatment and mean cumulative savings at 60 days after the index ED visit per beneficiary was also significant: $1200 (95% CI, $231-$2169; P = .02) at one ED and $3202 (95% CI, $2452-$3951; P < .001) at the other ED. Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, receipt of ED-based geriatric treatment by a TCN and/or an SW was associated with lower Medicare expenditures. These estimated cost savings may be used when calculating or considering the bundled value and potential reimbursement per patient for GED care programs.
Authors: Michele Jonsson Funk; Daniel Westreich; Chris Wiesen; Til Stürmer; M Alan Brookhart; Marie Davidian Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Corita Grudzen; Lynne D Richardson; Kevin M Baumlin; Gary Winkel; Carine Davila; Kristen Ng; Ula Hwang Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Scott M Dresden; Ula Hwang; Melissa M Garrido; Jeremy Sze; Raymond Kang; Carmen Vargas-Torres; D Mark Courtney; George Loo; Mark Rosenberg; Lynne Richardson Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Lauren T Southerland; Katherine M Hunold; Jenifer Van Fossen; Jeffrey M Caterino; Peg Gulker; Julie A Stephens; Jason J Bischof; Erin Farrell; Christopher R Carpenter; Lorraine C Mion Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 5.562