Article

Health Care Reform and Cost Control

White House Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, USA.
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 08/2010; 363(7):601-3. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1006571
Source: PubMed
0 Bookmarks
 · 
106 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Early hospital readmissions, defined as rehospitalization within 30 days from a previous discharge, represent an economic and social burden for public health management. As data about early readmission in Italy are scarce, we aimed to relate the phenomenon of 30-day readmission to factors identified at the time of emergency department (ED) visits in subjects admitted to medical wards of a general hospital in Italy.Methods We performed a retrospective 30-month observational study, evaluating all patients admitted to the Department of Medicine of the Hospital of Ferrara, Italy. Our study compared early and late readmission: patients were evaluated on the basis of the ED admission diagnosis and classified differently on the basis of a concordant or discordant readmission diagnosis in respect to the diagnosis of a first hospitalization.ResultsOut of 13,237 patients admitted during the study period, 3,631 (27.4%) were readmitted; of those, 656 were 30-day rehospitalizations (5% of total admissions). Early rehospitalization occurred 12 days (median) later than previous discharge. The most frequent causes of rehospitalization were cardiovascular disease (CVD) in 29.3% and pulmonary disease (PD) in 29.7% of cases. Patients admitted with the same diagnosis were younger, had lower length of stay (LOS) and higher prevalence of CVD, PD and cancer. Age, CVD and PD were independently associated with 30-day readmission with concordant diagnosis and kidney disease with 30-day rehospitalization with a discordant diagnosis.Conclusions Comorbid patients are at higher risk for 30-day readmission. Reduction of LOS, especially in elderly subjects, could increase early rehospitalization rates.
    European journal of medical research 01/2015; 20(1):6. DOI:10.1186/s40001-014-0081-5 · 1.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Making patients protagonists of decisions about their care is a primacy in the 21st century medical ethics. Precisely, to favor shared treatment decisions potentially enables patients' autonomy and self-determination, and protects patients' rights to make decisions about their own future care. To fully accomplish this goal, medicine should take into account the complexity of the healthcare decision making processes: patients may experience dilemmas when having to take decisions that not only concern their patient role/identity but also involve the psychosocial impact of treatments on their overall life quality. A deeper understanding of the patients' expected role in the decision making process across their illness journey may favor the optimal implementation of this practice into the day-today medical agenda. In this paper, authors discuss the value of assuming the Patient Health Engagement Model to sustain successful pathways for effective medical decision making throughout the patient's illness course. This model and its relational implication for the clinical encounter might be the base for an innovative " patient-doctor relational agenda " able to sustain an " engagement-sensitive " medical decision making.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) represents a milestone in U.S. health care policy. The ACA moves the American health care system away, in important respects, from market-driven health care, including imposing new regulations on health insurers. Yet the ACA also relies, in other respects, on market forces to achieve its aims, including its embrace of health plan competition and high-deductible insurance. This article explores how the ACA balances liberal aspirations and market principles, and the implications for health reform implementation and the future of U.S. health care.
    The Journal of Law Medicine &amp Ethics 12/2014; 42(4). DOI:10.1111/jlme.12166 · 0.94 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
3 Downloads
Available from