Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Asunto principal
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Am Health Drug Benefits ; 13(3): 95-101, 2020 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32699570

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Hospital-based, nutrition-focused interventions have significantly lowered the cost-associated burden of poor nutrition through a reduction in healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). However, for patients at risk for poor nutrition who receive nutritional care at home, limited evidence exists on the economic impact of nutrition-focused interventions. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the 30-day cost-savings associated with an at-home nutrition-focused quality improvement program in the postacute care setting for patients at risk for poor nutrition from the perspective of a hospital system. METHODS: We compared the HCRU of 1546 patients enrolled in a quality improvement program during 1 year versus 7413 patients in a pre-program historical cohort who received care during the 1 year before the quality improvement program implementation. The analysis included the number of 30-day hospitalizations, emergency department and outpatient visits for both cohorts, and the associated costs. The main analysis included the fixed and variable costs for the program, and the costs of oral nutritional supplement and delivery. The costs for hospitalization, emergency department, and outpatient visit costs were based on the 2013 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. RESULTS: Based on the 2013 survey, the baseline costs for hospitalization, emergency department, and outpatient visit costs were $18,296, $1312, and $535, respectively. Our health economic analysis about the 30-day overall HCRU has shown that the quality improvement program group resulted in a total cost-savings of $2,408,668 for the 1546 patients in the program and a net savings of $1558 per patient compared with the costs for the pre-quality improvement program historical cohort. CONCLUSION: The use of a nutrition-focused quality improvement program led to significant 30-day cost-savings, by reducing HCRU for adults who received nutritional-based care at home. The improvements in HCRU highlight the importance of implementing nutrition-focused quality improvement programs for hospital systems that provide care for patients who are at risk for poor nutrition across a variety of care settings.

2.
J Hepatocell Carcinoma ; 7: 423-433, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33376711

RESUMEN

A virtual expert roundtable was convened on April 16, 2020, to discuss the evolving landscape of care for treating patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and discuss questions related to patient care and treatment selection. This commentary presents highlights from this discussion and provides an expert opinion about approaches to treatment for HCC in the Americas and the European Union. We anticipate that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab will become the standard of care for advanced HCC patients. However, this approach will make decisions regarding the sequencing of treatments for second-line therapies and beyond more challenging. Therapy will require individualization based on patient characteristics and preferences, while insurance coverage decisions and requirements may also impact the options that patients can access. Additional research regarding prognostic and predictive biomarkers is needed to help better identify optimal treatment approaches for specific patient populations. Multidisciplinary tumor boards will continue to play a critical role in guiding treatment selection for individual patients. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab offers a promising new first-line therapeutic option for patients with advanced HCC, but more research is needed to optimize and individualize patient therapy.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA