No abstract

Background Virtual care (VC) and remote patient monitoring programs were deployed widely during the COVID-19 pandemic. Deployments were heterogeneous and evolved as the pandemic progressed, complicating subsequent attempts to quantify their impact. The unique arrangement of the US Military Health System (MHS) enabled direct comparison between facilities that did and did not implement a standardized VC program. The VC program enrolled patients symptomatic for COVID-19 or at risk for severe disease. Patients’ vital signs were continuously monitored at home with a wearable device (Current Health). A central team monitored vital signs and conducted daily or twice-daily reviews (the nurse-to-patient ratio was 1:30). Objective Our goal was to describe the operational model of a VC program for COVID-19, evaluate its financial impact, and detail its clinical outcomes. Methods This was a retrospective difference-in-differences (DiD) evaluation that compared 8 military treatment facilities (MTFs) with and 39 MTFs without a VC program. Tricare Prime beneficiaries diagnosed with COVID-19 (Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group 177 or International Classification of Diseases–10 codes U07.1/07.2) who were eligible for care within the MHS and aged 21 years and or older between December 2020 and December 2021 were included. Primary outcomes were length of stay and associated cost savings; secondary outcomes were escalation to physical care from home, 30-day readmissions after VC discharge, adherence to the wearable, and alarms per patient-day. Results A total of 1838 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to an MTF with a VC program of 3988 admitted to the MHS. Of these patients, 237 (13%) were enrolled in the VC program. The DiD analysis indicated that centers with the program had a 12% lower length of stay averaged across all COVID-19 patients, saving US $2047 per patient. The total cost of equipping, establishing, and staffing the VC program was estimated at US $3816 per day. Total net savings were estimated at US $2.3 million in the first year of the program across the MHS. The wearables were activated by 231 patients (97.5%) and were monitored through the Current Health platform for a total of 3474 (median 7.9, range 3.2-16.5) days. Wearable adherence was 85% (IQR 63%-94%). Patients triggered a median of 1.6 (IQR 0.7-5.2) vital sign alarms per patient per day; 203 (85.7%) were monitored at home and then directly discharged from VC; 27 (11.4%) were escalated to a physical hospital bed as part of their initial admission. There were no increases in 30-day readmissions or emergency department visits. Conclusions Monitored patients were adherent to the wearable device and triggered a manageable number of alarms/day for the monitoring–team-to-patient ratio. Despite only enrolling 13% of COVID-19 patients at centers where it was available, the program offered substantial savings averaged across all patients in those centers without adversely affecting clinical outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

To compare overall number of downstream tests and total costs between negative exercise stress echocardiograms (ESE) or cardiac computed tomography angiography scans (CCTA) in symptomatic Tricare beneficiaries suspected of having coronary artery disease (CAD). This is a retrospective cohort study examining 651 propensity-matched patients who underwent ESE or CCTA with normal results between 2008 and 2014 at the United States’ largest Department of Defense hospital. The total number of additional downstream tests over the next five years was determined. The total costs associated with each arm, inclusive of the initial test and all subsequent tests, were calculated using the 2018 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. 18.5 percent of patients with a normal ESE result underwent some additional form of cardiac testing over the five years after initial testing compared to 12.8 percent of patients with a normal CCTA. The absolute difference in total number of downstream tests between both study groups was 5.7 percent (p = 0.03). When factoring the costs of the initial test as well as the downstream tests, the ESE group was associated with overall lower costs compared to the CCTA group, 351 United States Dollars (USD) versus 496 USD (p < 0.0001). This study demonstrates that, when compared to CCTA, ESE is associated with a higher total number of downstream tests, but overall lower total costs when chosen as initial testing strategy for suspected CAD.