This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: j.jacc.2005.05.042v1 46/4/660    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gregory, D. Articles by Konstam, M. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gregory, D. Articles by Konstam, M. A.

HEART FAILURE

The Economic Effect of a Tertiary Hospital-Based Heart Failure Program

Douglas Gregory, PhD^_*,_*, David DeNofrio, MD and Marvin A. Konstam, MD

^_* Cardiovascular Clinical Studies and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
Tufts-New England Medical Center, Department of Cardiology, and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts

Manuscript received November 23, 2004; revised manuscript received April 12, 2005, accepted May 3, 2005.

^_* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Douglas Gregory, 75 Kneeland Street, #705, Boston, Massachusetts 02111 (Email: dgregory{at}ccstrials.com).

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine the economic effect of a tertiary heart failure (HF) program at an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Most hospitals use cross-sectional financial models to analyze the economic contribution of clinical programs for a budget period. We estimated the incremental value of a tertiary hospital HF program on the basis of the longitudinal utilization of a sample of HF patients.

METHODS: The primary data source was a sample of 82 HF patients referred for cardiac transplant evaluation at an academic medical center during calendar years 2000 to 2001. Cumulative recurrent rates of utilization, cost, and reimbursement for hospital services were computed as functions of time using reliability models. The economic contribution of patients transplanted was contrasted with those not transplanted.

RESULTS: Mean hospitalizations and outpatient encounters per patient at the end of the first year of follow-up for those transplanted were 2.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6 to 2.7) and 11.9 (95% CI 9.2 to 15.4), compared with 1.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.6) and 6.0 (95% CI 4.8 to 7.6), respectively, for those not transplanted. Mean revenue and direct cost per patient were $194,470 (95% CI $136,683 to $276,689) and $146,623 (95% CI $96,377 to $233,065), respectively, for transplanted patients and $43,587 (95% CI $28,149 to $67,503) and $33,424 (95% CI $21,584 to $51,760), respectively, for non-transplanted patients. The point estimates of first-year contribution margins per patient for transplanted and non-transplanted patients were $47,847 and $10,163, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Newly evaluated patients for cardiac transplantation at an academic medical center generated substantial incident demands for inpatient and outpatient services over a two-year follow-up period. The estimated contribution margin associated with these services was positive. Hospitals without cardiac transplantation that serve high-acuity HF patients may generate favorable long-term contribution margins, on the basis of the results for the non-transplant group.

Abbreviations and Acronyms   CI = confidence interval   HF = heart failure

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. N. DeMaria, O. Ben-Yehuda, D. Berman, G. K. Feld, G. S. Ginsburg, B. H. Greenberg, W. Y.W. Lew, D. Sahn, and S. Tsimikas Highlights of the Year in JACC 2005 J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 3, 2006; 47(1): 184 - 202. [Full Text] [PDF]