Article

A benefit-cost analysis of a worksite nurse practitioner program: first impressions.

Department of Health Education and Promotion, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina 28562-2907, USA.
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (Impact Factor: 1.8). 12/2005; 47(11):1110-6. DOI: 10.1097/01.jom.0000182093.48440.4c
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study aimed to assess the initial impact of an on-site nurse practitioner (NP) initiative on the health care costs (HCC) among 4,284 employees and their dependents.
The authors analyzed HCC by two methods. First, they compared annualized actual values for the first 6 months of the startup year (2004) with those projected for 2004 on the basis of claims paid in 2002 and 2003. Both aggregate and per-individual HCC were used as the basis for comparison. The difference in HCC between projected and observed values for 2004 was defined as the benefit of the NP program. In a second analysis, HCC were calculated using 2003 paid claims for major diagnostic categories (MDC). These HCC were compared with those that would have been incurred had off-site care been used for the (annualized) number of such patients cared for by the NP in 2004 with the same MDC. The cost of the NP program was used as the denominator in calculating the benefit-to-cost ratio using the savings in HCC estimated by the two previously mentioned methods.
Annualized cost of the NP program was 82,716 dollars. Savings in HCC using the first method were 1,313,756 dollars per year, yielding a benefit-to-cost ratio of 15 to 1. Using the MDC analysis, the ratio was 2.4 to 1. This difference in ratios between the two estimates may partly be attributable to effects of other initiatives such as the wellness program and the Nurse Health Line. The latter was begun 10 weeks before the NP program, is available at all times, and is intended to minimize the need for workers and families to seek high-cost care at hospital emergency departments.
The first 6 months of a new NP initiative yielded substantial reductions in HCC that warrant further analysis over longer periods of observation. However, the initial estimates may understate the aggregate value of the program because it may also reduce on-site injury and illness patterns and improve productivity, end points that were not assessed in this initial snapshot.

2 Followers
 · 
318 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to use cost-benefit analysis of activity to clarify the economic effect of prepared nurses versus atmospheric environment managing engineers as healthcare managers. For the study 111 workplaces were surveyed, workplaces in which nurses or atmospheric environment managing engineers were employed as healthcare managers. The survey content included annual gross salaries, participation in external job training, costs in joining association covered by the company, location and year of construction of the healthcare office, various kinds of healthcare expenditures, costs in operating healthcare office, health education, and activity performance in the work of environment management. In the case of the healthcare manager being a nurse, benefit was larger than input costs at a ratio of 2.31. On the other hand, in the case of healthcare manager being an atmospheric environment managing engineer, input costs were larger than benefits (benefit-cost ratio 0.88). Results indicate that nurses are an effective healthcare human resource and can offer good quality healthcare service. Therefore companies should hire nurses and actively promote the economic efficiency of nurses in workplace.
    Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing 08/2013; 43(4):507-16. DOI:10.4040/jkan.2013.43.4.507
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: On March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act became law. The need for healthcare reform was prompted by an imperative to reduce the relentless increase in spending on medical care in the United States. One approach to examining and solving the problem of escalating costs is to focus on applying proven principles of evidence-based practice and cost-effectiveness practices to find the least-expensive way to ensure clinical services of acceptable quality without sacrificing patient satisfaction. Advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) have positioned themselves to serve an integral role in national health care reform. A successful transformation of the nation's health system will require utilization of all clinicians, including highly qualified APRNs, to provide cost-effective, accessible, patient-centered care. There is extensive, consistent evidence that nurse practitioners (NPs) provide care of equal or better quality at lower cost than comparable services provided by other qualified health professionals. However, current policies in many states prevent NPs from practicing within their full, legally defined scopes of practice. The Office of Technology Assessment's conclusions noted in 1981 that APRNs can be substituted for physicians in a significant portion of medical services with at least similar outcomes. Since then, numerous studies have supported that the care provided is equal to those provided by physicians for services within the overlapping scopes of licensed practice. This paper combines economic analysis with review of literature on health care reform initiatives to explore how the goals of healthcare reform can be accomplished by advanced nurse practitioners to provide their wide range of services directly to patients in a variety of clinical settings.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study assessed the impact and cost-effectiveness of an on-site health clinic at a self-insured university. Health care costs and number of claims filed to primary care providers were trended before and after the clinic was established to determine savings. A retrospective chart review of all full-time, insured employees treated for upper respiratory tract infections (URIs) during a 1-year study period was conducted. On-site clinic costs for the treatment of URIs were compared to costs at outside community providers for similar care. Community cost norms for the treatment of URIs were provided by Primary Physicians Care, the administrator of insurance claims for the University. A cost-benefit analysis compared the cost of services on-site versus similar services at an outside community provider. Based on the results of this study, the University's on-site health care services were determined to be more cost-effective than similar off-site health care services for the treatment of URIs. [Workplace Health Saf 2014;62(4):162-169.].
    04/2014; 62(4):162-9. DOI:10.3928/21650799-20140305-01

Preview

Download
9 Downloads
Available from