BACKGROUND Community health worker (CHW) programs take many forms and have been shown to be effective in improving health in several contexts. The extent to which they reduce unnecessary care is not firmly established. OBJECTIVES This study estimates the number of hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits that would need to be avoided to recoup program costs for a CHW program that addressed both medical and social needs. RESEARCH DESIGN A programmatic cost analysis is conducted using 6 different categories: personnel, training, transportation, equipment, facilities, and administrative costs. First, baseline costs are established for the current program and then estimate the number of avoided ED visits or hospitalizations needed to recoup program costs using national average health care estimates for different patient populations. MEASURES Data on program costs are taken from administrative program records. Estimates of ED visit and hospitalization costs (or charges in some cases) are taken from the literature. RESULTS To fully offset program costs, each CHW would need to work with their annual caseload of 150 participants to avoid almost 50 ED visits collectively. If CHW participants also avoided 2 hospitalizations, the number of avoided ED visits needed to offset costs reduces to about 34. CONCLUSIONS Estimates of avoided visits needed to reach the break-even point are consistent with the literature. The analysis does not take other outcomes of the program from the clients' or workers' perspectives into account, so it is likely an upper bound on the number of avoided visits needed to be cost-effective.

Where Is the Break-even Point for Community Health Workers? Using National Data and Local Programmatic Costs to Find the Break-even Point for a Metropolitan Community Health Worker Program.

ABSTRACT Background Emergency departments (EDs) continue to struggle with overcrowding, increasing wait times, and a surge in patients with non-urgent conditions. Patients frequently choose the ED for non-emergent medical issues or injuries that could readily be handled in a primary care setting. We analyzed encounters in the ED at the Brooke Army Medical Center—the largest hospital in the Department of Defense—to determine the percentage of visits that could potentially be managed in a lower cost, appointment-based setting. Materials and Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients within our electronic medical record system from September 2019 to August 2020, which represented equidistance from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in a shift in ED used based on previously published data. Our study also compared the number of ED visits pre-covid vs. post-covid. We defined visits to be primary care eligible if they were discharged home and received no computed tomography imaging, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, intravenous medications, or intramuscular-controlled substances. Results During the 12 month period, we queried data on 75,205 patient charts. We categorized 56.7% (n = 42,647) of visits as primary care eligible within our chart review. Most primary-care-eligible visits were ESI level 4 (59.2%). The largest proportion of primary-care-eligible patients (28.3%) was seen in our fast-track area followed by our pediatric pod (21.9%). The total number of ED visits decreased from 7,477 pre-covid to 5,057 post-covid visits. However, the proportion of patient visits that qualified as primary care eligible was generally consistent. Conclusions Over half of all ED visits in our dataset could be primary care eligible. Our findings suggest that our patient population may benefit from other on-demand and appointment-based healthcare delivery to decompress the ED.

/pdf/a-retrospective-review-of-emergency-department-visits-that-ulkly3d5.pdf

A Retrospective Review of Emergency Department Visits That May Be Appropriate for Management in Non-Emergency Settings

This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of an insurance administration-free, hospital-based clinic designed to provide a full array of primary care services to low-income individuals at little or no cost. In addition to low/no-cost visits, individuals have the option to purchase a low-cost health insurance plan similar to any traditional health plan (eg, prescriptions, primary care, specialty care, durable medical equipment, radiology, laboratory test results). We used 3 years of data (2009-2012) on emergency department (ED) visits and inpatient hospital admissions from clinic patients and patients at the community's 2 largest private physician groups to assess the cost-effectiveness of the hospital-based clinic in terms of ED and inpatient admission costs avoided and financial sustainability of the low-cost insurance plan. Estimated annual savings in hospital inpatient and ED costs were approximately 1.4 million. Insurance plan data indicated sound fiscal sustainability with modest provider reimbursement growth and zero annual premium growth.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2333392814557011

Patrick Reilly

Papers

Cost-Effectiveness of a Low-Cost, Hospital-Based Primary Care Clinic: