Provider Differences in Costs, Utilization, and Quality of Primary Care for Traumatic Brain Injury in the Military.

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Patrick Richard, Daniel Gedeon, Jangho Yoon, Nilam Gibson, Marie-Rachelle Narcisse, Khalilhah McCants, Samya Ligonde, Taj Keshav, Thomas DeGraba
{"title":"Provider Differences in Costs, Utilization, and Quality of Primary Care for Traumatic Brain Injury in the Military.","authors":"Patrick Richard, Daniel Gedeon, Jangho Yoon, Nilam Gibson, Marie-Rachelle Narcisse, Khalilhah McCants, Samya Ligonde, Taj Keshav, Thomas DeGraba","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.06.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Differences in costs, utilization, and quality of care provided by primary care physicians (PCPs) versus nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) for mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) were examined to determine savings and address PCPs shortage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Military Data Repository, which includes claims records for beneficiaries in the Military Health System, was used. Active-duty service members, retirees, and military dependents diagnosed with mTBI from 2011 to 2021 were included. Total cost, relative value units, and quality indicators of primary visits were dependent variables. The sample was stratified into patient-risk categories (high, low) and evaluation and management services (new and established patients).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Per military patient, PAs and NPs provided care at a lower cost than PCPs, with savings of $53.2 to $99.9 and $72.0 to $275.5, respectively. Per dependent patient, PAs provided care at a lower cost than PCPs, with savings of $64.3 to $91.1; NPs provided care at a lower cost than PCPs, with savings of $71.4 and $81.6. For quality for military patients, PAs ordered fewer brain and spine imaging (4.2%) and conducted fewer depression assessments (6%) than PCPs for patients with \"new/high\" risk. NPs conducted a higher proportion of neuropsychological testing (1.6%) for patients with \"existing/high\" risk compared with PCPs. For dependents, PAs conducted more health risk assessments and physical exams (2.5%) for patients with \"existing/low\" risk compared with PCPs. A total of 7.5% of patients with \"new/low\" risk treated by NPs compared to PCPs experienced fewer readmissions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>NPs and PAs provide services for mTBI at lower costs than PCPs, with mixed results for quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.06.016","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Differences in costs, utilization, and quality of care provided by primary care physicians (PCPs) versus nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) for mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) were examined to determine savings and address PCPs shortage.

Methods: The Military Data Repository, which includes claims records for beneficiaries in the Military Health System, was used. Active-duty service members, retirees, and military dependents diagnosed with mTBI from 2011 to 2021 were included. Total cost, relative value units, and quality indicators of primary visits were dependent variables. The sample was stratified into patient-risk categories (high, low) and evaluation and management services (new and established patients).

Results: Per military patient, PAs and NPs provided care at a lower cost than PCPs, with savings of $53.2 to $99.9 and $72.0 to $275.5, respectively. Per dependent patient, PAs provided care at a lower cost than PCPs, with savings of $64.3 to $91.1; NPs provided care at a lower cost than PCPs, with savings of $71.4 and $81.6. For quality for military patients, PAs ordered fewer brain and spine imaging (4.2%) and conducted fewer depression assessments (6%) than PCPs for patients with "new/high" risk. NPs conducted a higher proportion of neuropsychological testing (1.6%) for patients with "existing/high" risk compared with PCPs. For dependents, PAs conducted more health risk assessments and physical exams (2.5%) for patients with "existing/low" risk compared with PCPs. A total of 7.5% of patients with "new/low" risk treated by NPs compared to PCPs experienced fewer readmissions.

Conclusions: NPs and PAs provide services for mTBI at lower costs than PCPs, with mixed results for quality.

军队创伤性脑损伤初级保健费用、利用和质量的提供者差异。
目的:检查初级保健医生(pcp)与执业护士(NPs)和医师助理(PAs)在轻度创伤性脑损伤(mTBI)中提供的护理成本、利用和质量的差异,以确定节省和解决pcp短缺问题。方法:使用军事数据存储库,其中包括军队卫生系统受益人的索赔记录。2011年至2021年期间被诊断患有mTBI的现役军人、退休人员和军人家属被纳入研究范围。总成本、相对价值单位和初诊质量指标为因变量。样本按患者风险类别(高、低)和评估和管理服务(新患者和老患者)进行分层。结果:每名军人患者,PAs和NPs提供的护理费用低于pcp,分别节省53.2美元至99.9美元和72.0美元至275.5美元。每名受抚养患者,护理人员提供的护理费用低于pcp,节省64.3美元至91.1美元;NPs提供的护理费用低于pcp,每位患者分别节省71.4美元和81.6美元。对于军人患者的质量,与pcp相比,PAs对“新/高风险”患者的脑部和脊柱成像(4.2%)和抑郁症评估(6%)的要求更少。与pcp相比,NPs对“现有/高风险”患者进行了更高比例的神经心理测试(1.6%)。对于家属而言,与pcp相比,PAs对“现有/低”风险患者进行了更多的风险评估和体检(2.5%)。与pcp相比,NPs治疗的7.5%的“新/低”风险患者再入院率更低。结论:NPs和PAs为mTBI提供的服务成本低于pcp,但质量好坏参半。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信