Search

Background: Despite the prevalence of evidence-based interventions to improve quality in health care systems, there is a paucity of documented evidence of a financial return on investment (ROI) for these interventions from the perspective of the investing entity.Purposes: To report on a demonstration project designed to measure the business case for selected quality interventions in high-risk high-cost patient populations in 10 Medicaid managed care organizations across the United States.Methodology/Approach: Using claims and enrollment data gathered over a 3-year period and data on the costs of designing, implementing, and operating the interventions, ROIs were computed for 11 discrete evidence-based quality-enhancing interventions.Findings: A complex case management program to treat adults with multiple comorbidities achieved the largest ROI of 12.21:1. This was followed by an ROI of 6.35:1 for a program which treated children with asthma with a history of high emergency room (ER) use and/or inpatient admissions for their disease. An intervention for high-risk pregnant mothers produced a 1.26:1 ROI, and a program for adult patients with diabetes resulted in a 1.16:1 return. The remaining seven interventions failed to show positive returns, although four sites came close to realizing sufficient savings to offset investment costs.Practice Implications: Evidence-based interventions designed to improve the quality of patient care may have the best opportunity to yield a positive financial return if it is focused on high-risk high-cost populations and conditions associated with avoidable emergency and inpatient utilization. Developing the necessary tracking systems for the claims and financial investments is critical to perform accurate financial ROI analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 dramatically changed the way that Medicare pays skilled nursing facilities and also cut per-diem rates. Previous studies have found effects on facility-wide staffing but not on quality for short-stay residents. Because facilities may combine revenue streams to be used where needed, spillover effects on quality of care for long-stay residents are possible. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate effects of financial pressures from Medicare payment changes on quality of care for long-stay residents. METHODS: We investigated the effect of Medicare's Prospective Payment System for skilled nursing facilities on incidence of urinary tract infections and pressure sores among long-stay residents while controlling for resident severity. We conducted panel data analysis of nursing home residents in Ohio, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, and South Dakota using Minimum Data Set data from 1995 to 2000. Each facility's Medicare dependence was used to separate effects of the policy from underlying industry trends. RESULTS: The probability of developing a urinary tract infection or pressure sore increased significantly among long-stay residents after Medicare's prospective payment system was implemented. Effects were roughly proportional to the percent of residents in a facility covered by Medicare. CONCLUSIONS: Although Medicare prospective payment and rate cuts were directly applicable only to Medicare (largely short-stay) residents in skilled nursing facilities, the resulting financial pressures lowered the quality of care experienced by long-stay residents, as measured by the likelihood of adverse outcomes. The observed quality decreases were likely due to decreases in nurse staffing prompted by the payment reductions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]