Implementing Group Medical Visits for Older Adults at Group Health Cooperative

• Published in: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) 2010-01, Vol.58 (1), p.168-172
• Main Authors: Levine, Martin D., Ross, Tyler R., Balderson, Benjamin H. K., Phelan, Elizabeth A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Biological and medical sciences; Case-Control Studies; Female; General aspects; group visits; Health care delivery; Health care expenditures; health services for the aged; Health Services for the Aged - organization & administration; Health Services for the Aged - standards; healthcare costs; Home health care; Humans; Intervention; intervention studies; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Miscellaneous; Older people; organization and administration; Primary care; primary health care; Public health. Hygiene; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine; translational research
• ISSN: 0002-8614; 1532-5415
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02628.x

In a pair of randomized controlled trials in the Kaiser Permanente delivery system in Colorado in the 1990s, group visits for older adults (monthly non‐disease‐specific group medical appointments for a cohort of patients led by primary care teams) were proven to reduce costs, decrease hospitalizations, and improve patient and provider satisfaction. As part of a translational effort, this group visit intervention was replicated in a delivery system in Seattle, Washington, and the log of total healthcare costs was measured in the first year of the intervention. Utilization and patient and physician satisfaction were secondary outcomes. For the cost and utilization analysis, a retrospective case–control design compared 221 case patients aged 65 and older with high outpatient usage in the previous 18 months with 1,015 control patients selected randomly from clinics not participating in the intervention. Controls were matched to cases on the number of primary care visits in the prior 18 months. Total costs were not statistically different for intervention patients and controls ($8,845 vs $10,288, P=.11), nor were there statistically significant differences in utilization, including hospital admissions and outpatient visits, but patient and provider satisfaction with the intervention was high. This translational effort did not demonstrate the cost savings of the original efficacy trials. Possible explanations for these divergent results may have to do with differences between those who participated and differences between the two delivery systems.