These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A comparison of functional outcomes after hip fracture in group/staff HMOs and fee-for-service systems.
    Author: Coleman EA, Kramer AM, Kowalsky JC, Eckhoff D, Lin M, Hester EJ, Morgenstern N, Steiner JF.
    Journal: Eff Clin Pract; 2000; 3(5):229-39. PubMed ID: 11185328.
    Abstract:
    CONTEXT: Previous studies examining differences in the quality of care between capitated and fee-for-service payment systems have focused on the care delivered in a single setting. No study to date has compared outcomes over an entire episode of care delivered across multiple settings. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of care for patients receiving institutional rehabilitation for hip fracture in fee-for-service and group/staff HMO delivery systems. DESIGN: One-year prospective inception cohort. SETTING: Six hospital-based, integrated care systems paid on a traditional fee-for-service model and five group/staff HMOs (paid fixed capitation rate by Medicare). The 11 delivery systems were selected because of their commitment to geriatric rehabilitation. PATIENTS: 196 fee-for-service and 140 group/staff HMO patients with acute hip fracture were identified on admission to inpatient rehabilitation. MEASURES: Four primary outcomes--recovery of activities of daily living, improvement in ambulation, return to community living, and mortality--were measured at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Service utilization was assessed in the acute-care hospital setting, rehabilitation setting, and at each 3-month follow-up interval. Risk adjustment was performed by using multiple and logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, no differences were found between patients in group/staff HMOs and fee-for-service patients. Group/staff HMO patients experienced improved functional recovery at 6 months (P < 0.01) and improved ambulation at 12 months (P = 0.05) compared with fee-for-service patients, although these were isolated findings. With regard to utilization, group/staff HMO delivery systems used physician services less intensively and substituted less-skilled allied health personnel. CONCLUSION: Compared with fee-for-service delivery systems, with a similar commitment to excellence in geriatric rehabilitation, group/staff HMOs can achieve equivalent outcomes in older patients recovering from hip fracture with less-intense service utilization.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]