HE380 Managed Healthcare Assignment 8 (Partial question)
nmbeytrickrtts
Resource_use_and_costs_of_type.pdf
van der Heijden et al. BMC Health Services Research 2014, 14:280 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/14/280
RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access
Resource use and costs of type 2 diabetes patients receiving managed or protocolized primary care: a controlled clinical trial Amber AWA van der Heijden1,2*, Martine C de Bruijne1,3, Talitha L Feenstra2,4, Jacqueline M Dekker1, Caroline A Baan1,2, Judith E Bosmans5, Sandra DM Bot1, Gé A Donker6 and Giel Nijpels1
Abstract
Background: The 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.
Methods: In 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.
Results: Compared 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).
Conclusions: Compared 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 registration: Current Controlled trials: ISRCTN66124817.
Keywords: Type 2 diabetes mellitus, Controlled clinical trial, Quality of health care, Health economy
* Correspondence: [email protected] 1Department of General Practice, The EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2014 van der Heijden et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
van der Heijden et al. BMC Health Services Research 2014, 14:280 Page 2 of 8 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/14/280
Background The increasing prevalence of diabetes is associated with an increase in health care use and costs [1]. Innovation to improve quality of care, manage the increasing de- mand for health care and control the growth of health care costs is needed [1,2]. There is increasing awareness that tackling the growing societal and economic burden brought about by diabetes will require nothing less than a transformation of health care, from a system that reacts to acute episodes of illness to one that seeks to pro- actively maintain health [3-5]. Several deficiencies exist in the current management of diabetes, including a lack of care coordination, limited follow-up of patients over time, inadequate training in self-management skills and insuffi- cient adherence to evidence-based guidelines by care pro- viders. As a result, discrepancies exist between care as recommended and care as received by patients [6-8]. In recent years, targeted programs have become an im-
portant means of improving the quality of diabetes care and overcoming existing deficiencies [7-9]. A wide array of approaches exists including the Chronic Care Model [10,11] and managed care [12]. A common characteristic of chronic care programs is their underlying assumption that increasing the quality of care will result in improved health outcomes. Studies evaluating the effects and costs of diabetes care, including elements of the Chronic Care Model, have shown inconsistent results [4,9,13-20]. In general, these studies did not include a control group or information on costs from a societal perspective. In two distinct regions of the Netherlands, diabetes
care was implemented at the primary care level with a different degree of organization in each region. In the first region, managed diabetes care based on the Chronic Care Model was implemented, characterized by central- ized organization, coordination, responsibility and central- ized annual assessment. In the second region, protocolized care was implemented at the primary care level, with cen- tralized organisation and coordination and decentralized responsibility and annual assessment. We hypothesized that managed and protocolized care are associated with a better process of care (adherence to diabetes guidelines) and lower costs compared to usual care, which is charac- terized by a decentralized organizational structure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the process and
costs of managed diabetes care and protocolized diabetes care as compared to usual diabetes care.
Methods In this pragmatic controlled trial, the processes and costs of diabetes care were compared between patients receiving managed care, patients receiving protocolized care and patients receiving usual diabetes care. Measure- ments were performed before and after the implementa- tion of protocolized care and compared between the
three groups using a quasi-experimental control group pretest-posttest design. The care groups were compared and evaluated accord-
ing to the Dutch guidelines for type 2 diabetes [21]. Ac- cording to these guidelines, patients should visit their general practitioners’ (GP) practice four times a year for a diabetes assessment in which weight and fasting blood glucose are measured. Blood pressure is recommended to be measured when antihypertensive medication is used. Foot screening is recommended to be performed in patients at risk for developing ulceration. Patients’ well-being, lifestyle and medication use should be dis- cussed. Once a year, the assessment must be expanded to include measurement of blood pressure, lipids and HbA1c and screening for complications, among other things. To perform screening for retinopathy, the patient is referred to a specialist in ophthalmology.
Usual care Usual diabetes care has a decentralized organizational structure and the patient’s own GP is responsible for dia- betes care. Patients of all GPs should receive diabetes care according to the Dutch guidelines for type 2 diabetes [21]. In the usual care group, 17 GP’s throughout the Netherlands were included and their diabetes patients were invited to participate in our study. The GPs in the usual care group are affiliated with the Continuous Mor- bidity Registration sentinel stations of The Netherlands Institute for Health and Services Research [22]. This net- work of general practices represents 0.8% of the Dutch population and is representative at a national level for age, sex, geographic distribution and population density. The possibility exists that GPs in the usual care group partici- pate in some form of disease management for type 2 dia- betes patients.
Managed diabetes care According to the Chronic Care Model, improvement of care can be achieved by separating acute care from the planned management of chronic diseases, offering the pa- tient education about the disease and enabling supporting self-management. A computerized information system is used to provide a reminder to comply with evidence-based guidelines in planning individual patient care and in giving feedback to caregivers about their performance [3,4]. In 1996, managed care was implemented in the Dia-
betes Care System (DCS) in the West-Friesland region of the Netherlands, based on the Chronic Care Model. In contrast with usual care, in which the GP is respon- sible for the diabetes care, the DCS is responsible for the execution and quality of diabetes care and organizes dia- betes care centrally and coordinates the care across all care providers. Using a centrally organized database, pa- tients’ clinical information is accessible to the health care
van der Heijden et al. BMC Health Services Research 2014, 14:280 Page 3 of 8 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/14/280
providers involved. Starting at diabetes diagnosis, patients treated by the DCS receive an annual extended diabetes assessment at the specialized Diabetes Care Centre in addition to the diabetes care offered by the patients’ GPs. During this assessment BMI, blood pressure, HbA1c, lipid levels, fasting glucose level and kidney function are measured. Screening for cardiovascular diseases, retinop- athy and complications of the foot is performed at the centre. Patients have a central role in their care and self- management is stimulated by providing education and in- formation programs. Moreover, individual care plans are discussed with the patient and patients are encouraged to make their own choices with respect to treatment options and lifestyle behaviour. Diabetes nurses visit participating GPs twice a year to provide feedback on their perform- ance. Individual patients are evaluated and mean values of risk factors of the GP’s diabetes population are com- pared to those of the diabetes populations of other par- ticipating GPs.
Protocolized diabetes care In 2007, protocolized care was implemented in 12 general practices in the Amstelland region of the Netherlands. This form of care focuses mainly on the adherence to guidelines for type 2 diabetes. In addition to usual care, a web-based database for the registration of diabetes-related data is used and is also applied to monitor mean values of risk factors and whether or not patients received diabetes care in line with the Dutch guidelines for type 2 diabetes. Education is offered to all health care professionals involved to increase their expertise in the field of type 2 diabetes. In contrast to managed diabetes care, all assessments are performed in a patient’s own GP’s office and there is no centrally organized assessment. The presence of specific elements by type of diabetes
care are presented in more detail in the online Additional file 1: Table S1.
Patient selection Type 2 diabetes patients, between 40 and 75 years of age and capable of understanding the Dutch language were eligible for this study. From July 2007 to May 2009, dia- betes patients that fit these criteria were invited to par- ticipate in the study. The study population consisted of three subpopula-
tions. For the managed care group, a random sample of 643 patients received an invitation to participate in this study and 313 (49%) patients participated. For the proto- colized care group, a random sample of 802 patients re- ceived an invitation to participate of which 293 (37%) patients were included. For the usual care group, a ran- dom sample of 1098 patients was invited and 485 (44%) patients participated. Patients with type 1 diabetes, defined as diabetes with onset before the age of 40 in combination
with insulin treatment, were excluded (managed care: n = 3; protocolized care: n = 4; usual care: n = 13). After exclu- sion of patients without a completed cost diary both at baseline and one year after baseline, 215 patients receiving managed care, 197 patients receiving protocolized care and 333 patients under usual care were eligible for the analyses. Patients who did not complete two cost diaries were younger (64 vs. 65, p = 0.01) and were less likely to be married or living together (73 vs. 80, p = 0.02) com- pared to patients who completed two cost diaries. Other characteristics of the participants included were similar to those who had not completed two cost diaries. All participants provided written informed consent.
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Ethical Review Committee of the VU University Medical Center Amsterdam.
Measurements Information on marital status, educational level, work sta- tus, smoking habits, diabetes duration, type of treatment (dietary advice or medication) and performance of assess- ments and screenings was obtained by self-administered questionnaires.
Costs All participants were asked to complete a prospective cost diary over the course of three months at baseline and over the course of three months one year later. The cost diary is considered a valid method of obtaining infor- mation on costs [23]. If we did not receive a completed cost diary and the patient did not respond to a reminder, or in the event of an incomplete diary, we attempted to collect this missing data in a telephone interview. Information on costs from a societal perspective was
obtained and included direct health care costs, direct non-health care costs and indirect costs attributable to type 2 diabetes. The cost diary included questions re- garding visits to health care providers related to diabetes care. Patients also reported visits, if any, to the GP, men- tal health care providers and complementary health pro- fessionals. Patients were asked to specify visits to other medical specialists and therapists. Laboratory tests, use of home care and hospitalization were also reported. Fi- nally, indirect costs were measured by asking the patient about loss of productivity (absenteeism from paid and un- paid work). Dutch unit prices were used to calculate costs of resource use (online Additional file 1: Table S2) [24].
Statistical analysis Characteristics of the population are presented as means (SD), median (interquartile range) or proportions accord- ing to diabetes care group. To investigate the process of diabetes care, the proportion of patients that received the
van der Heijden et al. BMC Health Services Research 2014, 14:280 Page 4 of 8 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/14/280
assessments or screenings as recommended by the Dutch guidelines for type 2 diabetes was calculated. The cost diary at baseline and one year after baseline
was used to calculate health care use and costs over the course of one year, using linear interpolation between the two time measurements. The proportion of patients visiting each health care pro-
vider (Chi2 tests) and mean number of visits per patient for that specific health care provider (Mann-Whitney test) were calculated. Despite the skewed distribution of health care use and costs in our population, mean number of visits and mean costs were reported because this is the most informative measure from an economic perspective. We differentiated between direct health care costs,
direct non-health care costs and indirect costs. Direct health care costs consisted of costs related to visits to health care providers, laboratory tests, use of home care and hospitalizations. Direct non-health care costs in- cluded the cost of visits to health care providers not paid by patients’ health insurance. Indirect costs were costs related to loss of productivity (paid and unpaid work). Regression analysis was performed with direct health
care and non-health care costs, indirect costs, total direct and total costs as dependent variables and type of care as the independent variables, estimating differences in costs between managed and usual care and between protoco- lized and usual care. Multivariate regression models were used to estimate differences in costs adjusted for con- founding 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 differ- ences in costs [25]. In a sensitivity analysis, differences in costs were ana-
lyzed using linear multilevel regression analyses to ac- count for clustering at the general practice level [26]. 95% CI’s around cost differences were estimated using bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 replications, stratified for general practice to account for the cluster- ing of data. Multilevel analysis was not possible for the managed care group, due to the low number of patients within each general practice included in our study.
Results The mean age of diabetes patients was 65 years. Com- pared to patients under usual care, a lower proportion of patients receiving managed care were highly educated (7.6 vs. 18.6%) and a lower proportion of patients receiv- ing protocolized care was less educated (48.2 vs. 59.5%). The use of glucose lowering medication was highest in patients receiving managed care (88.2%) compared to patients receiving protocolized (76%) care or usual care (79.9%) Patients receiving protocolized care (5.6%) or usual care (13.3%) were more likely to consult a specialist
in internal medicine for diabetes care as compared to pa- tients receiving managed care (1.0%, Table 1). A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving
managed care reported that they received information about self-control of feet, screening of the feet and meas- urement of weight compared to protocolized and usual care patients. Compared to usual care, more patients in the managed care group were screened for retinopathy and a higher proportion of patients in the protocolized care group reported screening for nephropathy (Figure 1). Patients receiving protocolized care had more consul-
tations with the diabetes nurse than patients receiving managed care or usual care. Patients in the managed care group visited the dietician more frequently than pa- tients in the protocolized or usual care groups. Fewer patients in the managed care group visited specialists in internal medicine and ophthalmology and the mean num- ber of these consultations was lower in this group than in the protocolized and usual care groups (Table 2). Direct and total direct health care costs were signifi-
cantly lower in the managed and protocolized care groups compared to the usual care group. After adjustment for confounding factors, differences in direct costs decreased, but direct costs remained statistically significantly lower in managed care than in usual care. Costs associated with productivity loss (indirect costs) were comparable in the protocolized and usual care groups, but was higher in pa- tients receiving managed care as compared to protoco- lized and usual care, although this relationship was not statistically significant. Differences in indirect costs in- creased after adjustment for diabetes duration, marital sta- tus, educational level and retirement. Total costs were lower in managed care and protocolized care compared to usual care, although this relationship was not statistically significant (Table 3). Adjustment for clustering at the general practice levels
did not change the difference in costs between protoco- lized and usual care and slightly increased the statistical uncertainty (direct health care costs: -1057 (95% CI: -2114 to -166); total costs: -1228 (95% CI: -2443 to 67).
Discussion Overall, managed care was associated with a better process of diabetes care, higher use of primary health care, fewer secondary care consultations and lower health care costs compared to usual care. The same trends were seen for protocolized care, however differences in costs were not statistically significant after adjustment for differences in patient characteristics between the care groups. The results of our study are in line with previous stud-
ies showing that an increased focus on the adherence of guidelines leads to an improved process of the diabetes care [27]. More specifically, patients receiving structured or specialized diabetes care were more frequently treated
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the population stratified by diabetes care group
Managed care
Protocolized care
Usual care
P value usual care vs
Managed care
Protocolized care(n = 215) (n = 197) (n = 333)
Men (%) 52.1 53.8 51.1 0.81 0.54
Age (years) 64.6 (7.4) 65.5 (7.5) 64.4 (7.0) 0.66 0.07
Diabetes duration (years) 6 (2-11) 5 (3-10) 6 (3-10) 0.85 0.74
Married/living together (%) 81.1 78.2 80.4 0.84 0.54
Educational level (%) <0.01 0.04
- low 52.8 48.2 59.5
- medium 39.6 28.4 21.9
- high 7.6 23.4 18.6
Paid job (%) 17.9 26.4 18.6 0.84 0.04
Retired (%) 47.2 45.7 44.4 0.53 0.78
Disabled (%) 9.4 3.6 6.0 0.14 0.22
Smoking status (%) 0.48 0.25
- current 16.8 12.3 16.2
- former 55.1 55.2 52.0
- never 28.1 32.5 31.8
Treatment (%) 0.05 <0.01
- diet only 11.8 24.0 20.1
- oral medication 67.3 64.1 56.8
- insulin 8.1 1.6 10.0
- insulin and oral medication 12.8 10.4 13.1
Treated in secondary care (specialist in internal medicine) 1.0 5.6 13.3 <0.01 0.01
Values are presented as mean (SD), median (interquartile range) or proportions.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
in fo
rm at
io n
fe et
fe et
ey es
ki dn
ey s
bl oo
d pr
es su
re
w ei
gh t
Managed care
Protocolized care
Usual care
P a ti
e n
ts (
% )
* * *
*
†
§ §
§
Figure 1 Proportion of patients reporting that they received a specific medical examination during the last year. *Indicates a significant difference (P < 0.05) between managed and usual diabetes care. †Indicates a significant difference between protocolized and usual care. §Indicates a significant difference between managed and protocolized care.
van der Heijden et al. BMC Health Services Research 2014, 14:280 Page 5 of 8 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/14/280
according to the guidelines for type 2 diabetes [14,28,29]. The lower costs associated with managed care compared to usual care is comparable with recent studies showing that an increasing level of structured care was associated with decreased costs [15,30]. In these studies, information on costs was obtained by claims paid for covered health care use. Detailed information on health care use or costs from a societal perspective was unavailable. To obtain information on health care use to calculate costs of care, self-administered three-month cost diaries were used. Self-reporting of information might have led to an under- reporting of health care use due to recall bias [31]. How- ever, because of the prospective design of the cost diary, recall bias and underreporting of data is unlikely. Previous research comparing data obtained by cost diaries with data retrieved from insurance companies showed that cost diaries are a feasible and valid tool with which to measure costs [23]. Furthermore, the use of the cost diary at base- line and at one year after baseline to calculate health care use and costs leads to more reliable estimates than a single measurement. Using this method, we were also able to ob- tain indirect costs and costs not covered by health insur- ance companies. Patients who did not complete two cost
Table 2 Resource use and productivity loss stratified by diabetes care over one year
Managed care Protocolized care‡ Usual care‡
N = 215 N = 197 N =333
Consultation of .. % ≥1 visits Mean (SD) # of visits % ≥1 visits Mean (SD) # of visits % ≥1 visits Mean (SD) # of visits
General practitioner 77.8 7.6 (8.6) 80.0 5.7 (6.9) 78.4 6.1 (6.9)
Diabetes nurse 74.5ab 3.8 (3.8)b 82.6 4.3 (3.5)a 84.5 3.7 (2.8)
Dietician 38.4ab 1.4 (2.4)ab 20.5 0.9 (2.2) 21.9 0.9 (2.4)
Podiatrist 19.4b 0.7 (1.8)b 9.2a 0.4 (1.6)a 24.3 1.2 (2.9)
Physical therapist 25.9 5.3 (13.8) 30.3a 7.3 (18.1)a 21.0 3.9 (11.9)
Specialist in
- Internal medicine 6.9ab 0.4 (2.0)ab 15.4a 0.6 (1.7)a 28.9 1.5 (2.8)
- Ophthalmology 17.6ab 0.8 (2.5)ab 47.7 1.5 (2.5) 52.0 1.8 (2.6)
- Cardiology 15.7 0.6 (2.5) 15.4 0.7 (1.9) 15.2 0.7 (2.3)
- Neurology 5.1 0.2 (0.9) 6.2 1.6 (0.7) 6.4 0.6 (4.0)
- Nephrology 1.4 0.0 (0.4) 3.6 0.2 (1.3) 1.8 0.1 (0.4)
Other specialism 25.9 1.4 (3.1) 27.7 1.4 (2.9) 32.8 1.6 (4.0)
Hospitalization 9.7 0.7 (3.0) 10.3 1.1 (4.7) 12.5 2.7 (14.8)
Absenteeism paid work 8.8 4.9 (27.8) 10.8 2.8 (14.1) 10.0 3.1 (15.2)
Absenteeism unpaid work 13.9 12.3 (50.0) 9.7 18.2 (127.4)a 18.2 20.7 (70.6)
Data are expressed as proportions of patients who used the specific resource and mean (SD) resource use per patient over one year. aSignificantly different (P < 0.05) from usual care. bSignificantly different (P < 0.05) from protocolized care.
van der Heijden et al. BMC Health Services Research 2014, 14:280 Page 6 of 8 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/14/280
diaries were excluded from this study, which may have re- sulted in the selection of healthier diabetes patients. How- ever, with the exception of age and marital status, patient characteristics did not differ statistically significantly be- tween those included in and excluded from the study. In the managed care group, many of the patients were
disabled and more patients reported sick leave compared to patients in the protocolized and usual care groups. It has been shown that individuals with less education are at increased risk for sick leave [32], which may provide an explanation of the high indirect costs seen in this group,
Table 3 Mean (SD) costs (€) over one year and mean differen
Managed care
Protocolized care
Usual care Mean diffe managed
(n = 215) (n = 197) (n = 333) Model 1
Direct health care costs
1259 (2712) 1568 (3288) 2607 (8678) -1348 (-2593 to-5
Direct non-health care costs
17 (102) 19 (127) 13 (92) 4 (-10 to 2
Total direct costs
1276 (2715) 1587 (3293) 2620 (8680) -1344 (-2606 to -5
Indirect costs
1727 (8808) 1125 (4548) 1328 (4840) 461 (-524 to
Total costs 3003 (9457) 2711 (5690) 3949 (10328) -882 (-2415 to
Usual care is the reference category. Model 1: adjusted for age and sex. Model 2: further adjusted for diabetes duration, marital status, educational level and aSignificantly different (P < 0.05) from usual care.
in which only 7.6% of the patients were highly educated. Managed and protocolized care was implemented at the general practice level and organized regionally. Random allocation of patients to the intervention or control group was therefore not feasible. Despite adjustment for differ- ences in patient characteristics between the care groups, uncontrolled biases might have affected the results. Of the characteristics that differed between patients of the three groups, age, educational level and work status significantly affected the results. Differences between groups in treat- ment did not influence the results.
ces in costs (€) between groups
rences in costs between and usual care (95% CI)
Mean differences in costs between protocolized and usual care (95% CI)
Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
31)a -1188
(-2559 to -339)a -1057
(-2333 to -201)a -794 (-2082 to 52)
5) 8 (-6 to 29) 7 (-10 to 33) 6 (-13 to 33)
41)a -1181
(-2597 to -334)a -1050
(-2336 to -191)a -788 (-2042 to 47)
2277) 758 (-353 to 2701) -78 (-782 to 836) -96 (-844 to 823)
932) -423 (-2146 to 1566) -1128 (-2682 to 86) -884 (-2281 to 323)
retirement.
van der Heijden et al. BMC Health Services Research 2014, 14:280 Page 7 of 8 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/14/280
We acknowledge that managed as well as protocolized care were implemented in a well functioning Dutch pri- mary care system which may have resulted in smaller differences between patients receiving managed or pro- tocolized care and patients treated in accordance with usual care. However, we do believe that the results of our study can be extrapolated to other countries and other health care systems with high referral rates to sec- ondary care [33]. Our results indicate that a part of health care use can
be substituted by the implementation of managed care in particular, resulting in fewer consultations with spe- cialists at the secondary care level. This substitution of secondary care for primary care was not associated with a lower quality of care compared to usual care. Instead, managed care performed better in terms of the process of care. More patients in the managed care group re- ceived assessments and screenings according to diabetes guidelines, which might have resulted in the detection of complications at an early stage and early initiation of appropriate treatment, which may, consequently, reduce the number of complications in the long run.
Conclusions The implementation of managed diabetes care, with a high level of centralization, embedded in primary care re- sulted not only in a better process of diabetes care, but also in lower health care costs. The combination of better process of care and reduced costs is of great importance particularly for a highly prevalent, chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, which makes this form of managed care a promising strategy for treating the growing population of type 2 diabetes patients.
Additional file
Additional file 1: Table S1. Characteristics of care by diabetes care group. Table S2. Costs prices used for valuing resources or absenteeism (2008).
Competing interests The authors declare that they have no financial or non-financial competing interests relevant to this article. No author had a relationship with any company that might have an interest in the submitted work; and no author has specified non-financial interests that may be relevant to the submitted work. There are no financial conflicts of interest among any of the authors including but not limited to funding.
Authors' contributions AVDH collected and researched data and wrote the manuscript. GN and JMD conceived and designed the study and reviewed and edited the manuscript. TF and MdB research data, critically revised the manuscript, SB and GD contributed to acquisition of data, reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements This study was funded by ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and by Univé Insurance. We thank the general
practitioners of NIVEL’s CMR sentinel stations and the DCS for their help with patient recruitment and data collection. The researchers were independent of the studies funders and had full access to all required data. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. A.v.d.H had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Author details 1Department of General Practice, The EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands. 3Department of Public and Occupational Health, The EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 5Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6NIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Received: 11 September 2013 Accepted: 9 June 2014 Published: 25 June 2014
References 1. American Diabetes Association: Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in
2012. Diabetes Care 2013, 36:1033–1046. 2. Gruber J: The cost implications of health care reform. N Engl J Med 2010,
362:2050–2051. 3. Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K: Improving primary care for
patients with chronic illness. JAMA 2002, 288:1775–1779. 4. Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K: Improving primary care for
patients with chronic illness: the chronic care model, Part 2. JAMA 2002, 288:1909–1914.
5. Bodenheimer T: The future of primary care: transforming practice. N Engl J Med 2008, 359:2086–2089.
6. Glasgow RE, Strycker LA: Preventive care practices for diabetes management in two primary care samples. Am J Prev Med 2000, 19:9–14.
7. Kirkman MS, Williams SR, Caffrey HH, Marrero DG: Impact of a program to improve adherence to diabetes guidelines by primary care physicians. Diabetes Care 2002, 25:1946–1951.
8. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks JH, DeCristofaro A, Kerr EA: The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003, 348:2635–2645.
9. Knight K, Badamgarav E, Henning JM, Hasselblad V, Gano AD, Ofman JJ, Weingarten SR: A systematic review of diabetes disease management programs. Am J Manag Care 2005, 11:242–250.
10. Wagner EH, Austin BT, Davis C, Hindmarsh M, Schaefer J, Bonomi A: Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action. Health Aff 2001, 20:64–78.
11. Wagner EH, Bennett SM, Austin BT, Greene SM, Schaefer JK, Vonkorff M: Finding common ground: patient-centeredness and evidence-based chronic illness care. J Altern Complement Med 2005, 11(Suppl 1):S7–S15.
12. Ouwens M, Wollersheim H, Hermens R, Hulscher M, Grol R: Integrated care programmes for chronically ill patients: a review of systematic reviews. Int J Qual Health Care 2005, 17:141–146.
13. Herrin J, Cangialose CB, Nicewander D, Ballard DJ: Cost and effects of performance feedback and nurse case management for medicare beneficiaries with diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Dis Manag 2007, 10:328–336.
14. Lairson DR, Yoon SJ, Carter PM, Greisinger AJ, Talluri KC, Aggarwal M, Wehmanen O: Economic evaluation of an intensified disease management system for patients with type 2 diabetes. Dis Manag 2008, 11:79–94.
15. Littenberg B, MacLean CD, Zygarowski K, Drapola BH, Duncan JA, Frank CR: The Vermedx Diabetes Information System reduces healthcare utilization. Am J Manag Care 2009, 15:166–170.
16. Mattke S, Seid M, Ma S: Evidence for the effect of disease management: is $1 billion a year a good investment? Am J Manag Care 2007, 13:670–676.
17. McEwen LN, Hsiao VC, Nota-Kirby EM, Kulpa GJ, Schmidt KG, Herman WH: Effect of a managed care disease management program on diabetes care. Am J Manag Care 2009, 15:575–580.
van der Heijden et al. BMC Health Services Research 2014, 14:280 Page 8 of 8 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/14/280
18. McRae IS, Butler JR, Sibthorpe BM, Ruscoe W, Snow J, Rubiano D, Gardner KL: A cost effectiveness study of integrated care in health services delivery: a diabetes program in Australia. BMC Health Serv Res 2008, 8:205.
19. Wagner EH, Sandhu N, Newton KM, McCulloch DK, Ramsey SD, Grothaus LC: Effect of improved glycemic control on health care costs and utilization. JAMA 2001, 85:182–189.
20. Wagner EH, Grothaus LC, Sandhu N, Galvin MS, McGregor M, Artz K, Coleman EA: Chronic care clinics for diabetes in primary care: a system-wide randomized trial. Diabetes Care 2001, 24:695–700.
21. Rutten GEHM, de Grauw WJC, Nijpels G, Goudswaard AN, Uitewaal PJM, van der Does FEE, Heine RJ, van Ballegooie E, Veduijn MM, Bouma M: NHG-Guidelines type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (second version). Huisarts Wet 2006, 49:137–152.
22. Donker GA: Continuous morbidity registration sentinels Netherlands 2006 NIVEL, annual report; 2007. http://www.nivel.nl/pdf/CMR-Peilstations-2006.pdf.
23. Goossens ME, Rutten-van Molken MP, Vlaeyen JW, van der Linden SM: The cost diary: a method to measure direct and indirect costs in cost-effectiveness research. J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53:688–695.
24. Oostenbrink JB, Bouwmans CAM, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH: Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek: Methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Geactualiseerde versie 2004 [Handbook for cost studies: methods and standard costs for economic evaluation in health care. Updated version 2004]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: College voor Zorgverzekeringen; 2004.
25. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ: Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997, 6:327–340.
26. Twisk J: Applied Multilevel Analysis: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
27. de Belvis AG, Pelone F, Biasco A, Ricciardi W, Volpe M: Can primary care professionals' adherence to evidence based medicine tools improve quality of care in type 2 diabetes mellitus? A systematic review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2009, 85:119–131.
28. Gnavi R, Picariello R, la Karaghiosoff L, Costa G, Giorda C: Determinants of quality in diabetes care process: the population-based Torino study. Diabetes Care 2009, 32:1986–1992.
29. Giorda CB, Picariello R, Nada E, Tartaglino B, Marafetti L, Costa G, Petrelli A, Gnavi R: Comparison of direct costs of type 2 diabetes care: different care models with different outcomes. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2014, 28:S0939–S4753.
30. Giorda C, Picariello R, Nada E, Tartaglino B, Marafetti L, Costa G, Gnavi R: The impact of adherence to screening guidelines and of diabetes clinics referral on morbidity and mortality in diabetes. PLoS One 2012, 7:e33839.
31. Verbrugge LM: Health diaries. Med Care 1980, 18:73–95. 32. Lund T, Labriola M, Villadsen E: Who is at risk for long-term sickness
absence? A prospective cohort study of Danish employees. Work 2007, 28:225–230.
33. Donker GA, Fleming DM, Schellevis FG, Spreeuwenberg P: Differences in treatment regimes, consultation frequency and referral patterns of diabetes mellitus in general practice in five European countries. Fam Pract 2004, 21:364–369.
doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-280 Cite this article as: van der Heijden et al.: Resource use and costs of type 2 diabetes patients receiving managed or protocolized primary care: a controlled clinical trial. BMC Health Services Research 2014 14:280.
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central and take full advantage of:
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• No space constraints or color figure charges
• Immediate publication on acceptance
• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
• Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
- 1472-6963-14-280.pdf
