1 / 18

Is Acute Rehabilitation More Cost-Effective Than Subacute Rehabilitation?

Is Acute Rehabilitation More Cost-Effective Than Subacute Rehabilitation?. Bruce Vogel, PhD.

alice-albert
Télécharger la présentation

Is Acute Rehabilitation More Cost-Effective Than Subacute Rehabilitation?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Is Acute Rehabilitation More Cost-Effective Than Subacute Rehabilitation? Bruce Vogel, PhD This research was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Services Research and Development Service (HSR&D), Stroke Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), RRP 06-184, through the VA Rehabilitation Outcomes Research Center (RORC), North FL/South GA Veterans Health System, Gainesville, FL.This presentation does not necessarily represent the opinions or beliefs of the Department of Veterans Affairs, VISN 8, or the RORC.

  2. Collaborators • Tracey Barnett, Ph.D. • Dean Reker, Ph.D. • Xinping Wang, Ph.D.

  3. Today’s Objectives • To describe important changes in the structure of VA inpatient rehabilitation over the past 15 years • To estimate differences in VA costs and outcomes for VA stroke patients in acute versus subacute rehabilitation units • To draw some preliminary conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of alternative rehabilitation sites from the VA perspective to inform policy

  4. Restructuring VA Rehab • Between 1995 and 2003, the VA closed 28 of its 59 acute hospital-based inpatient rehabilitation units (ARBUs), or 47% of its original complement of such units • Over the same time, the VA established 24 new subacute nursing home-based inpatient rehabilitation units (SRBUs).

  5. Central Question What has been the impact of this major restructuring on VA rehabilitation costs and outcomes?

  6. Data Sources • Demographic and clinical data from chart abstractions in previous study of the Stroke Impact Scale • 483 post-acute stroke patients from 27 acute and subacute units at 23 different VA Medical Centers in FY2002-FY2005 • VA cost data for index rehab stay and 24 months post-stay from VA Decision Support System National Data Extracts (DSS NDE)

  7. Dependent Variables • Cost data divided into index stay, short-term (0-3 months post-stay), long-term (4-24 months post-stay) and total 24 month costs • Outcomes measured by admission and discharge total, motor, and cognitive Functional Independence MeasureTM (FIMTM) scores

  8. Independent Variables • Both cost and functional status models controlled for: • ARBU vs. SRBU • type of stroke • time from onset to admission • admission motor and cognitive FIMTM scores • demographics (age, martial status, and race) • VA medical center

  9. Methods • Followed standard econometric practice in estimating cost models (Manning and Mullahy, 1998) by choosing between OLS and generalized linear models based on residual kurtosis and heteroskedasticity. • Estimated a distributed lag model of functional outcomes where discharge FIMTM is modeled as a function of admission FIMTM • Examined full and parsimonious models (p<.20)

  10. Descriptive Statistics

  11. Cost and FIMTM Model Runs

  12. Significant Descriptives • ARBU patients had higher admission and discharge FIMTM scores than SRBU patients (71.1 vs. 65.4 at admission; 96.3 vs. 92.0 at discharge) • No differences in total, motor, or cognitive FIMTM gains were significant

  13. Significant Descriptives • Average index stay total cost was lower for ARBU patients ($22,214 vs. $24,861)

  14. Moving On . . . What happens to these results when we control for the independent variables listed above?

  15. Significant Model Results • We find a considerably larger statistically significant difference in total index costs of approximately $6,000 (~25% of the index stay cost) • After regression adjustment, we find statistically significantly higher total discharge FIMTM scores in ARBUs than in SRBUs(~8.6 FIMTM points)

  16. Cost Effectiveness? When outcomes improve and costseither decrease or stay the same,cost-effectiveness is a given.

  17. Implications • While moving patients out of the hospital can often be cost effective, this may not always be the case • VA policymakers may want to reconsider the trend of replacing acute, hospital-based rehab units with subacute, nursing home-based units

  18. Caveats • Failed to find significant differences for short-term, long-term, and total two-year costs – implications? • Observational data – Could unobserved selection bias be driving these results? • Only examined VA cost – “business case” • Only examined stroke patients – Do these results carry over to all rehab patients?

More Related