|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||($7)||Benefits minus costs||($141)|
|Participants||($2)||Benefit to cost ratio||($0.74)|
|Others||($9)||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($42)||benefits greater than the costs||7 %|
|Net program cost||($81)|
|Benefits minus cost||($141)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Health care (total costs)||($7)||($2)||($9)||($1)||($20)|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($41)||($41)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$81||2014||Present value of net program costs (in 2015 dollars)||($81)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2014||Cost range (+ or -)||10 %|
|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||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|
|Health care costs||4||59980||0.001||0.006||50||0.000||0.000||51||0.001||0.830|
Boult, C., Reider, L., Leff, B., Frick, K.D., Boyd, C.M., Wolff, J.L., Frey, K., ... Scharfstein, D. (2011). The effect of guided care teams on the use of health services: results from a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Archives of Internal Medicine, 171(5), 460-6.
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, early online publication.
Fifield, J., Forrest, D.D., Burleson, J.A., Martin-Peele, M., & Gillespie, W. (2013). Quality and efficiency in small practices transitioning to patient centered medical homes: a randomized trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 28(6), 778-86.
Friedberg, M.W., Schneider, E.C., Friedberg, M.W., Schneider, E.C., Friedberg, M.W., Schneider, E.C., 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. Journal of the American Medical Association, 311(8), 815-825.
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.
Wang, Q.C., Chawla, R., Colombo, C.M., Snyder, R.L., & Nigam, S. (2014). Patient-centered medical home impact on health plan members with diabetes. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 20(5), E12-E20.
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.