|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$39||Benefits minus costs||($37)|
|Participants||$11||Benefit to cost ratio||$0.56|
|Others||$40||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($42)||benefits greater than the costs||36 %|
|Net program cost||($84)|
|Benefits minus cost||($37)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Health care (total costs)||$39||$11||$40||$0||$90|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($42)||($42)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$83||2016||Present value of net program costs (in 2017 dollars)||($84)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2016||Cost range (+ or -)||16 %|
|Estimated Cumulative Net Benefits Over Time (Non-Discounted Dollars)|
|The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in non-discounted dollars to simplify the “break-even” point from a budgeting perspective. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.|
|Meta-Analysis of Program Effects|
|Outcomes measured||Treatment age||No. of effect sizes||Treatment N||Adjusted effect sizes(ES) and standard errors(SE) used in the benefit - cost analysis||Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)|
|First time ES is estimated||Second time ES is estimated|
|Emergency department visits*||45||6||112332||-0.038||0.015||45||0.000||0.000||46||-0.038||0.010|
|Health care costs*||45||4||68571||-0.013||0.024||45||0.000||0.000||46||-0.013||0.575|
David, G., Gunnarsson, C., Saynisch, P.A., Chawla, R., & Nigam, S. (2014). Do patient-entered medical homes reduce emergency department visits? Health Services Research, 5.
Friedberg, M.W., Schneider, E.C., Friedberg, M.W., Schneider, E.C., Friedberg, M.W., Schneider, E.C., . . . Volpp, K.G. (2014). Association between participation in a multipayer medical home intervention and changes in quality, utilization, and costs of care. Jama, 311(8), 815-825.
Rosenthal, M.B., Sinaiko, A.D., Eastman, D., Chapman, B., & Partridge, G. (2015). Impact of the Rochester medical home initiative on primary care practices, quality, utilization, and costs. Medical Care, 53(11), 967-973.
Rosenthal, M.B., Alidina, S., Friedberg, M.W., Singer, S.J., Eastman, D., Li, Z., & Schneider, E.C. (2016). Impact of the Cincinnati aligning forces for quality multi-payer patient centered medical home pilot on health care quality, utilization, and costs. Medical Care Research and Review, 73(5), 532-545.
Rosenthal, M.B. (2013). Effect of a multipayer patient-centered medical home on health care utilization and quality: the Rhode Island chronic care sustainability initiative pilot program. Jama Internal Medicine, 173(20), 1907.
Werner, R.M., Duggan, M., Duey, K., Zhu, J., & Stuart, E.A. (2013). The patient-centered medical home: an evaluation of a single private payer demonstration in New Jersey. Medical Care Philadelphia, 51(6), 487-493.