Home › Research › Costs and economics
Cost-Effective Care Coordination for People With Dementia at Home
Amber Willink, Karen Davis, Deirdre M Johnston, Betty Black, Melissa Reuland, Ian Stockwell, Halima Amjad, Constantine G Lyketsos et al.. Innovation in aging, 2020-01-01
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
The average cost per enrollee per month was $110, or $1,320 per annum. Medicaid expenditures of dually-eligible participants grew 1.12 percentage points per quarter more slowly than that of the matched comparison group. Most savings came from slower growth in inpatient and long-term nursing home use. Net of the cost of the 5-year MIND at Home intervention, 5-year Medicaid savings are estimated at $7,052 per beneficiary, a 1.12-fold return on investment. DISCUSSION AND Managed care plans with the flexibility to engage community health workers could benefit from a low-cost, high-touch intervention to meet the needs of enrollees with dementia. Limitations for using and reimbursing community health workers exist in Medicare fee-for-service, which CMS should address to maximize benefit for PWD.
Key findings
- The average cost per enrollee per month was $110, or $1,320 per annum.
- Medicaid expenditures of dually-eligible participants grew 1.12 percentage points per quarter more slowly than that of the matched comparison group.
- Most savings came from slower growth in inpatient and long-term nursing home use.
- Net of the cost of the 5-year MIND at Home intervention, 5-year Medicaid savings are estimated at $7,052 per beneficiary, a 1.12-fold return on investment.
- DISCUSSION AND Managed care plans with the flexibility to engage community health workers could benefit from a low-cost, high-touch intervention to meet the needs of enrollees with dementia.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Costs & economics →
Study details
- Participants360
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Innovation in aging) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 360 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31911954) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 27 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Willink, A., Davis, K., Johnston, D. M., Black, B., Reuland, M., Stockwell, I., et al. (2020). Cost-Effective Care Coordination for People With Dementia at Home. Innovation in aging. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igz051
Vancouver
Willink A, Davis K, Johnston DM, Black B, Reuland M, Stockwell I, et al. Cost-Effective Care Coordination for People With Dementia at Home. Innovation in aging. 2020. doi:10.1093/geroni/igz051. PMID: 31911954.
BibTeX
@article{willink2020-31911954,
author = {Willink, Amber and Davis, Karen and Johnston, Deirdre M and Black, Betty and Reuland, Melissa and Stockwell, Ian and Amjad, Halima and Lyketsos, Constantine G and others},
title = {{Cost-Effective Care Coordination for People With Dementia at Home}},
journal = {Innovation in aging},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1093/geroni/igz051},
pmid = {31911954},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igz051}
}
Related studies in Costs and economics
Also tagged “assisted-living”
199 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assisted-living”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 199 tagged studies.