We have a huge healthcare problem in the U.S., spending way more than other wealthy countries, expenses that not only burden state and federal governments, but that also take money out of American pockets.
Some people hope that better primary care will reduce U.S. healthcare spending. They point out that a small number of chronically ill patients—super-utilizers—account for half of healthcare spending. The hope is that taking better care of these super-utilizers, with more robust and improved care coordination, will improve their health and reduce healthcare spending.
Or perhaps not. When the Palo Alto VA tested an intensive primary care program for its super-utilizers, healthcare spending and utilization didn’t budge. One iota. Except for primary care utilization which, unsurprisingly, rose significantly among people receiving intensive primary care.
The Palo Alto study was well-designed. The researchers targeted patients who were in the top 5% of healthcare utilization. These patients were typically elderly, and on average had 10 chronic health conditions. Two-thirds carried mental health diagnoses, and a quarter had a history of homelessness. The population included people I am very familiar with from my almost 20 years in the VA: older men with PTSD and anxiety; hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, emphysema, and a touch of renal failure; recent hospitalizations for pneumonia, leg wound infections, or maybe a mild stroke.
(To read the rest of this article, please visit Forbes.)
The post Why Investing in Better Primary Care Failed to Save Money appeared first on PeterUbel.com.