The local safety net, health insurance, preventable hospitalizations and costs: Harris County (Houston), Texas

The aim of this study was to examine the association between determinants of access to healthcare and preventable hospitalizations, based on Davidson et al.'s framework for evaluating the effects of individual and community determinants on access to healthcare. The study population consisted of the low income, non-elderly, hospitalized adults residing in Harris County, Texas in 2004. The objectives of this study were to examine the proportion of the variance in preventable hospitalizations at the ZIP-code level, to analyze the association between the proximity to the nearest safety net clinic and preventable hospitalizations, to examine how the safety net capacity relates to preventable hospitalizations, to compare the relative strength of the associations of health insurance and the proximity to the nearest safety net clinic with preventable hospitalizations, and to estimate and compare the costs of preventable hospitalizations in Harris County with the average cost in the literature. The data were collected from Texas Health Care Information Collection (2004), Census 2000, and Project Safety Net (2004). A total of 61,841 eligible individuals were included in the final data analysis. A random-intercept multi-level model was constructed with two different levels of data: the individual level and the ZIP-code level. The results of this study suggest that ZIP-code characteristics explain about two percent of the variance in preventable hospitalizations and safety net capacity was marginally significantly associated with preventable hospitalizations (p= 0.062). Proximity to the nearest safety net clinic was not related to preventable hospitalizations; however, health insurance was significantly associated with a decreased risk of preventable hospitalization. The average direct cost was $6,466 per preventable hospitalization, which is significantly different from reports in the literature. ^

The Emergency Department: Rising wait times, costs, and possible remedies

Emergency Departments (EDs) and Emergency Rooms (ERs) are designed to manage trauma, respond to disasters, and serve as the initial care for those with serious illnesses. However, because of many factors, the ED has become the doorway to the hospital and a “catch-all net” for patients including those with non-urgent needs. This increase in the population in the ED has lead to an increase in wait times for patients. It has been well documented that there has been a constant and consistent rise in the number of patients that frequent the ED (National Center for Health Statistics, 2002); the wait time for patients in the ED has increased (Pitts, Niska, Xu, & Burt, 2008); and the cost of the treatment in the ER has risen (Everett Clinic, 2008). Because the ED was designed to treat patients who need quick diagnoses and may be in potential life-threatening circumstances, management of time can be the ultimate enemy. If a system was implemented to decrease wait times in the ED, decrease the use of ED resources, and decrease costs endured by patients seeking care, better outcomes for patients and patient satisfaction could be achieved. The goal of this research was to explore potential changes and/or alternatives to relieve the burden endured by the ED. In order to explore these options, data was collected by conducting one-on-one interviews with seven physicians closely tied to a Level 1 ED (Emergency Room physicians, Trauma Surgeons and Primary Care physicians). A qualitative analysis was performed on the responses of one-on-one interviews with the aforementioned physicians. The interviews were standardized, open-ended questions that probe what makes an effective ED, possible solutions to improving patient care in the ED, potential remedies for the mounting problems that plague the ED, and the feasibility of bringing Primary Care Physicians to the ED to decrease the wait times experienced by the patient. From the responses, it is clear that there needs to be more research in this area, several areas need to be addressed, and a variety of solutions could be implemented. The most viable option seems to be making the ED its own entity (similar to the clinic or hospital) that includes urgent clinics as a part of the system, in which triage and better staffing would be the most integral part of its success.^

Factors associated with home health care costs

Characteristics of Medicare-certified home health agencies in Texas and the contributions of selected agency characteristics on home health care costs were examined. Cost models were developed and estimated for both nursing and total visit costs using multiple regression procedures. The models included home health agency size, profit status, control, hospital-based affiliation, contract-cost ratio, service provision, competition, urban-rural input-price differences, and selected measures of patient case-mix. The study population comprised 314 home health agencies in Texas that had been certified at least one year on July, 1, 1986. Data for the analysis were obtained from Medicare Cost Reports for fiscal year ending between July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986.^ Home health agency size, as measured by the logs of nursing and total visits, has a statistically significant negative linear relationship with nursing visit and total visit costs. Nursing and total visit costs decrease at a declining rate as size increases. The size-cost relationship is not altered when controlling for any other agency characteristic. The number of visits per patient per year, a measure of patient case-mix, is also negatively related to costs, suggesting that costs decline with care of chronic patients. Hospital-based affiliation and urban location are positively associated with costs. Together, the four characteristics explain 19 percent of the variance in nursing visit costs and 24 percent of the variance in total visit costs.^ Profit status and control, although correlated with other agency characteristics, exhibit no observable effect on costs. Although no relationship was found between costs and competition, contract cost ratio, or the provision on non-reimburseable services, no conclusions can be made due to problems with measurement of these variables. ^

Comparison of medical care costs, utilization, and satisfaction of AIDS patients with and without home care

A sample of 157 AIDS patients 17 years of age or over were followed for six months from the date of hospital discharge to derive average total cost of medical care, utilization and satisfaction with care. Those referred for home care follow-up after discharge from the hospital were compared with those who did not receive home care.^ The average total cost of medical care for all patients was $34,984. Home care patient costs averaged \$29,614 while patients with no home care averaged $37,091. Private hospital patients had average costs of \$50,650 compared with $25,494 for public hospital patients. Hospital days for the six months period averaged 23.9 per patient for the no home care group and 18.5 days for home care group. Patient satisfaction with care was higher in the home care group than no home care group, with a mean score of 68.2 compared with 61.1.^ Other health services information indicated that 98% of the private hospital patients had insurance while only 2% of public hospital patients had coverage. The time between the initial date of diagnosis with AIDS and admission to the study was longer for private hospital patients, survival time over the study period was shorter, and the number of hospitalizations prior to entering the study was higher for private hospital patients. These results suggest that patients treated in the private hospital were sicker than public hospital patients, which may explain their higher average total cost. Statistical analyses showed that cost and utilization have no significant relationship with home care or no home care when controlling for indicators of the severity of illness and treatment in public or private hospital.^ In future studies, selecting a matched group of patients from the same hospital and following them for nine months to one year would be helpful in making a more realistic comparison of the cost effectiveness of home care. ^

COSTS AND EFFECTS OF ARKANSAS' LONG-TERM CARE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT (MEDICAID, CHANELLING, COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT)

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the Arkansas Long-Term Care Demonstration Project upon Arkansas' Medicaid expenditures and upon the clients it serves. A Retrospective Medicaid expenditure study component used analyses of variance techniques to test for the Project's effects upon aggregated expenditures for 28 demonstration and control counties representing 25 percent of the State's population over four years, 1979-1982.^ A second approach to the study question utilized a 1982 prospective sample of 458 demonstration and control clients from the same 28 counties. The disability level or need for care of each patient was established a priori. The extent to which an individual's variation in Medicaid utilization and costs was explained by patient need, presence or absence of the channeling project's placement decision or some other patient characteristic was examined by multiple regression analysis. Long-term and acute care Medicaid, Medicare, third party, self-pay and the grand total of all Medicaid claims were analyzed for project effects and explanatory relationships.^ The main project effect was to increase personal care costs without reducing nursing home or acute care costs (Prospective Study). Expansion of clients appeared to occur in personal care (Prospective Study) and minimum care nursing home (Retrospective Study) for the project areas. Cost-shifting between Medicaid and Medicare in the project areas and two different patterns of utilization in the North and South projects tended to offset each other such that no differences in total costs between the project areas and demonstration areas occurred. The project was significant ((beta) = .22, p < .001) only for personal care costs. The explanatory power of this personal care regression model (R('2) = .36) was comparable to other reported health services utilization models. Other variables (Medicare buy-in, level of disability, Social Security Supplemental Income (SSI), net monthly income, North/South areas and age) explained more variation in the other twelve cost regression models. ^

Costs and quality of medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics

Medication reconciliation, with the aim to resolve medication discrepancy, is one of the Joint Commission patient safety goals. Medication errors and adverse drug events that could result from medication discrepancy affect a large population. At least 1.5 million adverse drug events and $3.5 billion of financial burden yearly associated with medication errors could be prevented by interventions such as medication reconciliation. This research was conducted to answer the following research questions: (1a) What are the frequency range and type of measures used to report outpatient medication discrepancy? (1b) Which effective and efficient strategies for medication reconciliation in the outpatient setting have been reported? (2) What are the costs associated with medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics? (3) What is the quality of medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics? (4) Is medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics cost-effective from the clinic perspective? Study designs used to answer these questions included a systematic review, cost analysis, quality assessments, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Data sources were published articles in the medical literature and data from a prospective workflow study, which included 150 patients and 1,238 medications. The systematic review confirmed that the prevalence of medication discrepancy was high in ambulatory care and higher in primary care settings. Effective strategies for medication reconciliation included the use of pharmacists, letters, a standardized practice approach, and partnership between providers and patients. Our cost analysis showed that costs associated with medication reconciliation practice were not substantially different between primary care clinics using or not using electronic medical records (EMR) ($0.95 per patient per medication in EMR clinics vs. $0.96 per patient per medication in non-EMR clinics, p=0.78). Even though medication reconciliation was frequently practiced (97-98%), the quality of such practice was poor (0-33% of process completeness measured by concordance of medication numbers and 29-33% of accuracy measured by concordance of medication names) and negatively (though not significantly) associated with medication regimen complexity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for concordance of medication number per patient per medication and concordance of medication names per patient per medication were both 0.08, favoring EMR. Future studies including potential cost-savings from medication features of the EMR and potential benefits to minimize severity of harm to patients from medication discrepancy are warranted. ^

Relationship of hospital volume to patient mortality, length of stay and total costs in patients receiving brain surgery for cancer: A nationwide analysis

Better morbidity and mortality outcomes associated with increased hospital procedural volume have been demonstrated across a number of different medical procedures. Existence of such a volume-outcome relationship is posited to lead to increased specialization of care, such that patients requiring specific procedures are funneled to physicians and hospitals that achieve a minimum volume of such procedures each year. In this study, the 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample is used to examine the relationship between hospital volume and patient outcome among patients undergoing procedures related to malignant brain cancer. Multiple regression models were used to examine the impact of hospital volume on length of inpatient stay and cost of inpatient stay; logistic regression was used to examine the impact of hospital volume on morbidity. Hospital volume was found to be a significant predictor of both length of stay and cost of stay. Hospital volume was associated with a lower length of stay, but was also associated with increased costs. Hospital volume was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of morbidity, though less than three percent of this sample died while in the hospital. Volume is indeed a significant predictor of outcome for procedures related to brain malignancies, though further research regarding the cost of such procedures is recommended.^

Subclavian vein catheter -related infection and hospital costs associated with exchange via a guidewire

An observational study was conducted in a SICU to determine the frequency of subclavian vein catheter-related infection at 72 hours, to identify the hospital cost of exchange via a guidewire and the estimated hospital cost-savings of a 72 hour vs 144 hour exchange policy.^ An overall catheter-related infection ($\geq$15 col. by Maki's technique (1977)) occurred in 3% (3/100) of the catheter tips cultured. Specific infections rates were: 9.7% (3/31) for triple lumen catheters, 0% (0/30) for Swan-Ganz catheters, 0% (0/30) for Cordes catheters, and 0% (0/9) for single lumen catheters.^ An estimated annual hospital cost-savings of $35,699.00 was identified if exchange of 72 hour policy were changed to every 144 hours.^ It was recommended that a randomized clinical trial be conducted to determine the effect of changing a subclavian vein catheter via a guidewire every 72 hours vs 144 hours. ^

Estimates of hospital and physician costs of epilepsy in the United States for 1995 comparing the provider -based survey method and a patient -based medical charts and billing method

This investigation compares two different methodologies for calculating the national cost of epilepsy: provider-based survey method (PBSM) and the patient-based medical charts and billing method (PBMC&BM). The PBSM uses the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS), the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) as the sources of utilization. The PBMC&BM uses patient data, charts and billings, to determine utilization rates for specific components of hospital, physician and drug prescriptions. ^ The 1995 hospital and physician cost of epilepsy is estimated to be $722 million using the PBSM and $1,058 million using the PBMC&BM. The difference of $336 million results from $136 million difference in utilization and $200 million difference in unit cost. ^ Utilization. The utilization difference of $136 million is composed of an inpatient variation of $129 million, $100 million hospital and $29 million physician, and an ambulatory variation of $7 million. The $100 million hospital variance is attributed to inclusion of febrile seizures in the PBSM, $−79 million, and the exclusion of admissions attributed to epilepsy, $179 million. The former suggests that the diagnostic codes used in the NHDS may not properly match the current definition of epilepsy as used in the PBMC&BM. The latter suggests NHDS errors in the attribution of an admission to the principal diagnosis. ^ The $29 million variance in inpatient physician utilization is the result of different per-day-of-care physician visit rates, 1.3 for the PBMC&BM versus 1.0 for the PBSM. The absence of visit frequency measures in the NHDS affects the internal validity of the PBSM estimate and requires the investigator to make conservative assumptions. ^ The remaining ambulatory resource utilization variance is $7 million. Of this amount, $22 million is the result of an underestimate of ancillaries in the NHAMCS and NAMCS extrapolations using the patient visit weight. ^ Unit cost. The resource cost variation is $200 million, inpatient is $22 million and ambulatory is $178 million. The inpatient variation of $22 million is composed of $19 million in hospital per day rates, due to a higher cost per day in the PBMC&BM, and $3 million in physician visit rates, due to a higher cost per visit in the PBMC&BM. ^ The ambulatory cost variance is $178 million, composed of higher per-physician-visit costs of $97 million and higher per-ancillary costs of $81 million. Both are attributed to the PBMC&BM's precise identification of resource utilization that permits accurate valuation. ^ Conclusion. Both methods have specific limitations. The PBSM strengths are its sample designs that lead to nationally representative estimates and permit statistical point and confidence interval estimation for the nation for certain variables under investigation. However, the findings of this investigation suggest the internal validity of the estimates derived is questionable and important additional information required to precisely estimate the cost of an illness is absent. ^ The PBMC&BM is a superior method in identifying resources utilized in the physician encounter with the patient permitting more accurate valuation. However, the PBMC&BM does not have the statistical reliability of the PBSM; it relies on synthesized national prevalence estimates to extrapolate a national cost estimate. While precision is important, the ability to generalize to the nation may be limited due to the small number of patients that are followed. ^