scholarly journals How Much Do Mental Health and Substance Use/Addiction Affect Use of General Medical Services? Extent of Use, Reason for Use, and Associated Costs

2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Graham ◽  
Joyce Cheng ◽  
Sharon Bernards ◽  
Samantha Wells ◽  
Jürgen Rehm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Substance Use ◽  
Health Care Costs ◽  
Emergency Departments ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Service Use ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Care Costs

Objective: To measure service use and costs associated with health care for patients with mental health (MH) and substance use/addiction (SA) problems. Methods: A 5-year cross-sectional study (2007-2012) of administrative health care data was conducted (average annual sample size = 123,235 adults aged >18 years who had a valid Ontario health care number and used at least 1 service during the year; 55% female). We assessed average annual use of primary care, emergency departments and hospitals, and overall health care costs for patients identified as having MH only, SA only, co-occurring MH and SA problems (MH+SA), and no MH and/or SA (MH/SA) problems. Total visits/admissions and total non-MH/SA visits (i.e., excluding MH/SA visits) were regressed separately on MH, SA, and MH+SA cases compared to non-MH/SA cases using the 2011-2012 sample ( N = 123,331), controlling for age and sex. Results: Compared to non-MH/SA patients, MH/SA patients were significantly ( P < 0.001) more likely to visit primary care physicians (1.82 times as many visits for MH-only patients, 4.24 for SA, and 5.59 for MH+SA), use emergency departments (odds, 1.53 [MH], 3.79 [SA], 5.94 [MH+SA]), and be hospitalized (odds, 1.59 [MH], 4.10 [SA], 7.82 [MH+SA]). MH/SA patients were also significantly more likely than non-MH/SA patients to have non-MH/SA-related visits and accounted for 20% of the sample but over 30% of health care costs. Conclusions: MH and SA are core issues for all health care settings. MH/SA patients use more services overall and for non-MH/SA issues, with especially high use and costs for MH+SA patients.

Health care costs associated with primary care physicians versus nurse practitioners and physician assistants

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Suja S. Rajan ◽  
Julia M. Akeroyd ◽  
Sarah T. Ahmed ◽  
David J. Ramsey ◽  
Christie M. Ballantyne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Costs ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Care Costs

Regulation of Managed Care Incentive Payments to Physicians

1996 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 399-432
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Latham
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Managed Care ◽  
Health Care Costs ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Incentive Schemes ◽  
Physician Compensation ◽  
Care Costs ◽  
Incentive Payments

A large and growing number of physicians in today’s managed care market are paid for their services according to incentive schemes that offer financial rewards for the provision of less, and less expensive, medical care. Such schemes typically reward physicians for reducing their own costs of care and reward primary care physicians for reducing the number and cost of referrals for inpatient and specialty care. Consumers, fearful that such schemes will prompt physicians to deny them medically necessary care, have protested the implementation of such incentive plans. Various states are considering bills to ban or to limit physician incentive payments.Federal policy with regard to incentive schemes has been confused and contradictory. On one hand, regulators concerned with controlling health care costs and limiting the provision of unnecessary care have encouraged such financial incentives. For example, federal Stark regulations, which ban referrals tied to physician compensation, include explicit exceptions for incentive schemes.

scholarly journals Analgesic Usage for Low Back Pain: Impact on Health Care Costs and Service Use

Spine ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. 1075-1081 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly T. Vogt ◽  
C Kent Kwoh ◽  
Doris K. Cope ◽  
Thaddeus A. Osial ◽  
Michael Culyba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Health Care Costs ◽  
Service Use ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Care Costs

scholarly journals Transit use and health care costs: A cross-sectional analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 101294
Author(s):  
Brian E. Saelens ◽  
Richard T. Meenan ◽  
Erin M. Keast ◽  
Lawrence D. Frank ◽  
Deborah R. Young ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Costs ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cross Sectional Analysis ◽  
Transit Use ◽  
Sectional Analysis ◽  
Care Costs

scholarly journals Costing Methodology and Key Drivers of Health Care Costs Within Economic Analyses in Musculoskeletal Community and Primary Care Services: A Systematic Review of the Literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 215013271989976
Author(s):  
Roanna Burgess ◽  
James Hall ◽  
Annette Bishop ◽  
Martyn Lewis ◽  
Jonathan Hill
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Costs ◽  
Community Settings ◽  
Outpatient Visits ◽  
Key Drivers ◽  
Gp Visits ◽  
Economic Analyses ◽  
Care Costs

Background: Identifying variation in musculoskeletal service costs requires the use of specific standardized metrics. There has been a large focus on costing, efficiency, and standardized metrics within the acute musculoskeletal setting, but far less attention in primary care and community settings. Objectives: To ( a) assess the quality of costing methods used within musculoskeletal economic analyses based primarily in primary and community settings and ( b) identify which cost variables are the key drivers of musculoskeletal health care costs within these settings. Methods: Medline, AMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, BNI, and HBE electronic databases were searched for eligible studies. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality of costing methods using an established checklist. Results: Twenty-two studies met the review inclusion criteria. The majority of studies demonstrated moderate- to high-quality costing methods. Costing issues included studies failing to fully justify the economic perspective, and not distinguishing between short- and long-run costs. Highest unit costs were hospital admissions, outpatient visits, and imaging. Highest mean utilization were the following: general practitioner (GP) visits, outpatient visits, and physiotherapy visits. Highest mean costs per patient were GP visits, outpatient visits, and physiotherapy visits. Conclusion: This review identified a number of key resource use variables that are driving musculoskeletal health care costs in the community/primary care setting. High utilization of these resources (rather than high unit cost) appears to be the predominant factor increasing mean health care costs. There is, however, need for greater detail with capturing these key cost drivers, to further improve the accuracy of costing information.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document