1 Does organizing nursing home workforce in teams save costs? Dana B. Mukamel - University of California, Irvine - Center for Health Policy Research Shubing Cai & Helena Temkin-Greener - University of Rochester School of Medicine - Department of Community & Preventive Medicine Funding: NIA grant # AG23077
2 Team care is viewed as effective Especially for chronic and long-term care Better patient outcomes Lower error rates Better care coordination Better work environment Better staff outcomes
3 Teams in nursing homes Interdisciplinary care planning –Mandated by CMS In most facilities Daily care teams –Prevalence is unknown –Few studies, mostly convenience sample
4 Less is known about the cost implications of teams in nursing homes Physician / nurse practitioner teams were shown to be more cost effective than physicians alone Burl JB, 1991; 1994 & 1998 and Aigner, Specialized wound teams have been shown to be cost effective Vu T, 2007.
5 Study objective: To examine the cost impact of daily care teams in nursing homes
6 Daily care teams defined by the direct care staff in the nursing home as: 1.Formal teams: if staff assigned by management 2.Self-managed teams: if staff self-organized their daily work in teams
7 Sample: 162 free standing nursing homes in New York State with at least 50 beds 7,418 direct care staff
8 Data: Survey of direct care staff Medicaid cost reports Case mix data from the NYS DOH
9 Methods: Hybrid cost function: Weighted regression to account for under response by for profits Inference based on robust standard errors and joint F-tests for highly collinear terms
10 *Information based on the survey question: “Who else is on your team?” 46% of responders report meeting daily 27% of responders report meeting at least weekly
11 Sample (N=135)All NYS study eligible nursing homes (N=531) MeanStandard deviation MeanStandard deviation Percent of direct care staff organized in formal teams n/a Percent of direct care staff in self managed teams n/a Annual variable costs ($1000)20,13517,94917,98816,896 Inpatient days77,071*48,27368,70940,942 Inpatient admissions Average RUG scores n/a Adult day care days2,481*5,0413,53017,125 Number of beds Home health care visits7,96442,5808,28159,039 Outpatient clinics1,0837, ,720 Management hourly wage43.35* CNA hourly wage Non-profit ownership (%)66%*51% * Significant difference at the 0.05 level
12 Independent VariablesCoefficientP Value* Beds0.214 x Case mix adjusted days/1000: Linear Squared x Cubed1.76 x Admissions0.213 x Adult day care days/ Home health care visits/ Outpatient clinic visits/ Log management wages Log CNA wages Non-profit facility Constant N = 135 R2 = 0.97 * Based on robust standard errors. Estimated annual variable cost function with probability weights Dependent variable: Log of variable cost
13 Independent VariablesCoefficientP Value* % direct care staff in formal teams: Linear ** Squared ** Cubed ** % of direct care staff in self managed teams: Linear *** Squared *** Cubed *** ** P value for the hypotheses that the linear, squared and cubed terms are jointly significant is *** P value for the hypotheses that the linear, squared and cubed terms are jointly significant is Estimated annual variable cost function with probability weights Dependent variable: Log of variable cost
14
15 Conclusions: Formal teams are a cost saving strategy The range of cost savings estimated at $174,000 per year Self-managed teams do not seem to have the same impact on cost
16 Why are costs increasing at higher penetration levels? Higher quality? Pushing teams “too far”? Different team types? – more specialists