CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Chronic Disease Management StrategiesHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

What Can a Pilot Congestive Heart Failure Disease Management Program Tell Us about Likely Return on Investment?: A Case Study from a Program Offered to Federal Employees

Open access
VanVonno, Catherine J., Ozminkowski, Ronald J., Smith, Mark W., Thomas, Eileen G., Kelley, Doniece, Goetzel, Ron, Berg, Gregory D., Jain, Susheel K. +1 more·2005·Disease Management
DOI 10.1089/dis.2005.8.346
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In 1999, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Federal Employee Program (FEP) implemented a pilot disease management program to manage congestive heart failure (CHF) among members. The purpose of this project was to estimate the financial return on investment in the pilot CHF program, prior to a full program rollout. A cohort of 457 participants from the state of Maryland was matched to a cohort of 803 nonparticipants from a neighboring state where the CHF program was not offered. Each cohort was followed for 12 months before the program began and 12 months afterward. The outcome measures of primary interest were the differences over time in medical care expenditures paid by FEP and by all payers. Independent variables included indicators of program participation, type of heart disease, comorbidity measures, and demographics. From the perspective of the funding organization (FEP), the estimated return on investment for the pilot CHF disease management program was a savings of $1.08 in medical expenditure for every dollar spent on the program. Adding savings to other payers as well, the return on investment was a savings of $1.15 in medical expenditures per dollar spent on the program. The amount of savings depended upon CHF risk levels. The value of a pilot initiative and evaluation is that lessons for larger-scale efforts can be learned prior to full-scale rollout.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/dis.2005.8.346

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
VanVonno, C. J., Ozminkowski, R. J., Smith, M. W., Thomas, E. G., Kelley, D., Goetzel, R., Berg, G. D., Jain, S. K., & Walker, D. R.
Affiliations
  • Independent Consultant, Clifton, Virginia.
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
  • Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (US)
  • McKesson (United States) (US)
  • CorSolutions (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
Disease Management
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2005-12
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
346-360
ISSN
  • 1093-507X (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-8860
DOI
10.1089/dis.2005.8.346
OpenAlex
W2094809811
Cited by
7
References
25
Citations by year
2017: 1
FWCI
0.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.liebertpub.com/nv/resources-tools/text-and-data-mining-policy/121/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Disease Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
congestive heart failure, disease management programs, return on investment, health care costs, federal employees, pilot program evaluation, cost reduction, comorbidities, risk stratification
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Health Expenditures, Female, Government Agencies, Health Benefit Plans, Employee, Health Services Research, Heart Failure, Humans, Investments, Male, Maryland, Middle Aged, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Pilot Projects, Virginia, Disease Management, Federal Government, Blue Cross Blue Shield Insurance Plans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review