Aim: To investigate the impact of a low-cost diabetes peer-support intervention, aimed at reducing inpatient and outpatient care utilization and healthcare payments, by conducting a cohort study that followed up a randomized controlled trial.
Methods: A total of 1121 adults with Type 2 diabetes were recruited through general practices in Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire, UK, and were followed up for 3.25 financial years after 8-12 months of one-to-one, group or combined diabetes peer support and usual care. Use of, and payments for inpatient and outpatient services were fully recorded in the follow-up. Adjusted mean inpatient and outpatient payments per person were estimated using a two-part model after adjusting for baseline characteristics.
Results: The mean age of the recruited adults was 65.6±11.4 years, 60.4% were male, and 16.8% were insulin-treated. Compared with the control group, less healthcare utilization (especially non-elective inpatient care and outpatient consultations) was observed in each of the intervention groups, particularly the combined intervention group. Over the course of 3.25 financial years, significant reductions of 41% (£909.20 per head) were observed for overall inpatient payments (P<0.0001), 51% (£514.67 per head) for non-elective inpatient payments (P=0.005) in the combined intervention group, and 34% (£413.30 per head) and 32% (£388.99 per head) for elective inpatient payments in the one-to-one (P=0.029) and combined intervention (P=0.048) groups, respectively.
Conclusions: Type 2 diabetes peer support, whether delivered using a one-to-one, group or combined approach was associated with reduced inpatient care utilization (particularly non-elective admissions) and payments over 3.25 years.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dme.13624 | DOI Listing |
Rofo
January 2025
Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Online survey about the current status of CT protocols in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the year 2023/2024. Moreover, the usage of structured reporting using LI-RADS and mRECIST was surveyed and the results were compared with a survey from 2020.Radiologists working in outpatient or inpatient care in Germany were invited.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAm J Manag Care
January 2025
Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, 575 Lexington Ave, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10022. Email:
Objectives: Medicaid is the largest payer of mental health (MH) services in the US, and more than 80% of its enrollees are covered by Medicaid managed care (MMC). States are required to establish quantitative network adequacy standards (NAS) to regulate MMC plans' MH care access. We examined the association between quantitative NAS and MH care access among Medicaid-enrolled adults and among those with MH conditions.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPLoS One
January 2025
GSK, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.
Background: Approval of proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), such as daratumumab, has reshaped treatment patterns in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) in Japan. This retrospective study evaluated patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and trends in MM patients using Medical Data Vision, the largest electronic health records database in Japan with anonymous inpatient and outpatient health information.
Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years, with ≥2 records of an MM diagnostic and disease code and ≥1 record of MM treatment between 01 April 2008 and 30 June 2023 were included.
In Table 7.2, "Common interfering substances and/or conditions that affect glucose meters (for inpatient and outpatient use)," of the article cited above, the effects on glucose values measured by blood glucose meters for high and low hematocrit were incorrect. For high hematocrit, the effect would be falsely lower blood glucose values.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJAMA Netw Open
January 2025
America's Physician Groups, Washington, DC.
Importance: Many physician groups are in 2-sided risk payment arrangements with Medicare Advantage plans (at-risk MA). Analysis of quality and health resource use under such arrangements may inform ongoing Medicare policy concerning payment and service delivery.
Objective: To compare quality and efficiency measures under 2 payment models: at-risk MA and fee-for-service (FFS) MA.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!