Primary care provider perceptions of an asthma home visiting program.

INTRODUCTION: Pediatric asthma home visiting programs have improved clinical outcomes, but little is known about how providers perceive these programs. The purpose of this study was to understand how primary care providers and their colleagues in a medical home perceive an asthma home visiting program that is available at no cost to their patients. METHODS: After several years of running an asthma home visiting program using community health workers (CHW) in 10 pediatric primary care offices in the South Coast of Massachusetts, we surveyed the providers of patients who had enrolled in the program. An anonymous online survey was developed by the program leaders, the program analytics team, and the CHWs for quality improvement purposes. Survey domains included the perceived utility of various aspects of the program, impact on patients, and interaction with CHWs, as well as demographic information about the providers. RESULTS: Of the 24 providers asked to complete the survey from eight primary care practices, 21 completed the survey (88%). Respondents perceived that the most beneficial aspects were environmental assessment (95%), asthma education (91%), and addressing environmental issues (86%). In addition to numerous positive free-text responses, suggestions for improvement were in the areas of referral completion, post-visit communication, and patient identification in the medical record. All respondents would continue to refer to the program. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers and medical home staff perceived an asthma home visiting program to have high utility, particularly the environmental assessment, asthma education, and mitigation of environmental issues. Additional opportunities for improvement were identified.

Improved 10-year cost savings for patients served by the Boston Children's Hospital Community Asthma Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a 10-year follow-up of asthma cost-savings for patients served by the Community Asthma Initiative (CAI) group compared to a coarsely cost-matched comparison group from similar neighborhoods (comparison group). METHODS: CAI provided home visits and case management services for patients identified through emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. Asthma costs for the two groups were extracted from the hospital administrative database for ED visits and hospitalizations for one year before and 10 years of follow-up. To eliminate cost differences at intake, a coarse cost-matching was implemented by randomly selecting comparison patients with similar costs to CAI patients (N = 208 pairs). The difference in cost-reduction between CAI and comparison patients was used to compute the adjusted Return on Investment (aROI). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between CAI and comparison groups, including baseline age (5.9 years [SD 2.9] v. 4.4 [SD 3.1]); Hispanic (46.2% v. 35.1%) and Black (43.9% v. 53.0%) race/ethnicity; and public insurance (71.2% v. 68.8%). The cost reduction difference for CAI was significant at one year (P = 0.0001) and two years (P = 0.03), but did not reach the level of significance for years 3-10. The CAI group had a greater cumulative cost reduction of $5,321 (P = 0.08, not significant). Average program cost per patient was $2,636. CAI broke-even after 3 years (aROI = 1.04) and yielded an adjusted ROI of 1.99 at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: The greater reduction in cumulative cost for CAI patients suggested a shift in trajectory at 10 years of follow-up, resulting in a positive aROI after three years.