Resource use and costs of type 2 diabetes patients receiving managed or protocolized primary care: a controlled clinical trial

Abstract

BackgroundThe increasing prevalence of diabetes is associated with increased health care use and costs. Innovations to improve the quality of care, manage the increasing demand for health care and control the growth of health care costs are needed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the care process and costs of managed, protocolized and usual care for type 2 diabetes patients from a societal perspective.MethodsIn two distinct regions of the Netherlands, both managed and protocolized diabetes care were implemented. Managed care was characterized by centralized organization, coordination, responsibility and centralized annual assessment. Protocolized care had a partly centralized organizational structure. Usual care was characterized by a decentralized organizational structure. Using a quasi-experimental control group pretest-posttest design, the care process (guideline adherence) and costs were compared between managed (n = 253), protocolized (n = 197), and usual care (n = 333). We made a distinction between direct health care costs, direct non-health care costs and indirect costs. Multivariate regression models were used to estimate differences in costs adjusted for confounding factors. Because of the skewed distribution of the costs, bootstrapping methods (5000 replications) with a bias-corrected and accelerated approach were used to estimate 95% confidence intervals (CI) around the differences in costs.ResultsCompared to usual and protocolized care, in managed care more patients were treated according to diabetes guidelines. Secondary health care use was higher in patients under usual care compared to managed and protocolized care. Compared to usual care, direct costs were significantly lower in managed care (€-1.181 (95% CI: -2.597 to -334)) while indirect costs were higher (€758 (95% CI: -353 to 2.701), although not significant. Direct, indirect and total costs were lower in protocolized care compared to usual care (though not significantly).ConclusionsCompared to usual care, managed care was significantly associated with better process in terms of diabetes care, fewer secondary care consultations and lower health care costs. The same trends were seen for protocolized care, however they were not statistically significant.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled trials: ISRCTN66124817.

Multimorbidity, health care utilization and costs in an elderly community-dwelling population: a claims data based observational study

“…The managed care model was associated with lower inpatient, but higher outpatient costs and a higher number of consultations, especially in primary care physicians. This is in line with a recent study by van der Heijden et al [ 30 ], which showed lower number of hospitalisations for diabetic patients in a managed care model compared with usual care (0.7 versus 2.7), whereas the mean number of consultations was slightly higher (7.6 versus 6.1). One reason for this might be that the primary care physician is managing the patient more closely, thereby causing more consultations but lower hospitalisation rates.…”

Time to insulin initiation and long-term effects of initiating insulin in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Hoorn Diabetes Care System Cohort Study

“…However, it is clear that even with higher HbA1c target levels, the time to insulin initiation in these populations was longer compared to our study. In an earlier study by our group (20), we showed that managed diabetes care with a central organization and central management of care was statistically significantly associated with a better process of the diabetes care and lower direct costs compared to usual diabetes care. This persisted after adjustment for differences in patient characteristics at baseline.…”

Defining High Value Elements for Reducing Cost and Utilization in Patient-Centered Medical Homes for the TOPMED Trial

“…Table 1 highlights the articles abstracted with their related PCPCH core attributes. 14 of the 22 articles we found had significant positive outcomes of cost and utilization (p < .05) [1314151617181920212223242526]; four had a non-significant trend towards positive outcomes [27282930]; and four had no change [31323334]. The studies for each core attribute are highlighted below, along with input from focus groups, the specific HVE measurements, and the baseline performance of the clinics.…”