Nyman, John A.

AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this analysis was to determine the cost‐effectiveness of a Collaborative Care Model (CCM)‐based, centralized telecare approach to delivering rehabilitation services to late‐stage cancer patients experiencing functional limitations.MethodsData for this analysis came from the Collaborative Care to Preserve Performance in Cancer (COPE) trial, a randomized control trial of 516 patients assigned to: (a) a control group (arm A), (b) tele‐rehabilitation (arm B), and (c) tele‐rehabilitation plus pharmacological pain management (arm C). Patient quality of life was measured using the EQ‐5D‐3L at baseline, 3‐month, and 6‐month follow‐up. Direct intervention costs were measured from the experience of the trial. Participants’ hospitalization data were obtained from their medical records, and costs associated with these encounters were estimated from unit cost data and hospital‐associated utilization information found in the literature. A secondary analysis of total utilization costs was conducted for the subset of COPE trial patients for whom comprehensive cost capture was possible.ResultsIn the intervention‐only model, tele‐rehabilitation (arm B) was found to be the dominant strategy, with an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $15 494/QALY. At the $100 000 willingness‐to‐pay threshold, this tele‐rehabilitation was the cost‐effective strategy in 95.4% of simulations. It was found to be cost saving compared to enhanced usual care once the downstream hospitalization costs were taken into account. In the total cost analysis, total inpatient hospitalization costs were significantly lower in both tele‐rehabilitation (arm B) and tele‐rehabilitation plus pain management (arm C) compared to control (arm A), (P = .048).ConclusionThe delivery of a CCM‐based, centralized tele‐rehabilitation intervention to patients with advanced stage cancer is highly cost‐effective. Clinicians and care teams working with this vulnerable population should consider incorporating such interventions into their patient care plans.

OBJECTIVE—The purpose of this study was to determine whether implementation of a multicomponent organizational intervention can produce significant change in diabetes care and outcomes in community primary care practices. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—This was a group-randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the practical effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention (TRANSLATE) in 24 practices. The intervention included implementation of an electronic diabetes registry, visit reminders, and patient-specific physician alerts. A site coordinator facilitated previsit planning and a monthly review of performance with a local physician champion. The principle outcomes were the percentage of patients achieving target values for the composite of systolic blood pressure (SBP) <130 mmHg, LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl, and A1C <7.0% at baseline and 12 months. Six process measures were also followed. RESULTS—Over 24 months, 69,965 visits from 8,405 adult patients with type 2 diabetes were recorded from 238 health care providers in 24 practices from 17 health systems. Diabetes process measures increased significantly more in intervention than in control practices, giving net increases as follows: foot examinations 35.0% (P < 0.0.001); annual eye examinations 25.9% (P < 0.001); renal testing 28.5% (P < 0.001); A1C testing 8.1%(P < 0.001); blood pressure monitoring 3.5% (P = 0.05); and LDL testing 8.6% (P < 0.001). Mean A1C adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidity decreased significantly in intervention practices (P < 0.02). At 12 months, intervention practices had significantly greater improvement in achieving recommended clinical values for SBP, A1C, and LDL than control clinics (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS—Introduction of a multicomponent organizational intervention in the primary care setting significantly increases the percentage of type 2 diabetic patients achieving recommended clinical outcomes.