Premium
Variations in Costs of a Collaborative Care Model for Dementia
Author(s) -
Rosa Talita D.,
Possin Katherine L.,
Bernstein Alissa,
Merrilees Jennifer,
Dulaney Sarah,
Matuoka Jessica,
Lee Kirby P.,
Chiong Winston,
Bonasera Stephen J.,
Harrison Krista L.,
Kahn James G.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of the american geriatrics society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.992
H-Index - 232
eISSN - 1532-5415
pISSN - 0002-8614
DOI - 10.1111/jgs.16076
Subject(s) - medicine , medicaid , activity based costing , dementia , gerontology , health care , family medicine , pharmacist , collaborative care , nursing , medical emergency , pharmacy , primary care , disease , pathology , marketing , economics , business , economic growth
OBJECTIVES Care coordination programs can improve patient outcomes and decrease healthcare expenditures; however, implementation costs are poorly understood. We evaluate the direct costs of implementing a collaborative dementia care program. DESIGN We applied a micro‐costing analysis to calculate operational costs per‐participant‐month between March 2015 and May 2017. SETTING The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC). PARTICIPANTS Participants diagnosed with dementia, enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid, 45 years of age or older, residents of California, Nebraska or Iowa, and having a caregiver. The sample was 272 (UCSF) and 192 (UNMC) participants. INTERVENTION A collaborative dementia care program provided by care team navigators (CTNs), advanced practice nurses, a social worker, and a pharmacist, focusing on caregiver support and education, medications, advance care planning, and behavior symptom management. MEASUREMENTS We measured costs (personnel, supplies, equipment, and training costs) during three program periods, Start‐up, Early Operations, and Continuing Operations, and estimated the effects of caseload variation on costs. RESULTS Start‐up and Early Operations costs were, respectively, $581 and $328 (California), and $501 and $219 (Nebraska) per‐participant‐month. Average costs decreased across phases to $241 (California) and $142 (Nebraska) per‐participant‐month during Continuing Operations. We estimated that costs would range between $75 (UNMC) and $92 (UCSF) per‐participant‐month with the highest projected caseloads (90). CONCLUSION We found that CTN caseload is an important driver of service cost. We provide strategies for maximizing caseload without sacrificing quality of care. We also discuss current barriers to broad implementation that can inform new reimbursement policies. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2628–2633, 2019