Why the study?
The benefits of coordinating care between healthcare professionals and institutions drive payment and delivery reforms, but costs incurred for the comprehensive care model for patients after myocardial infarction in Poland needed analysis.
Does a comprehensive care model improve survival and affect costs in patients after myocardial infarction?
Does a comprehensive care model improve survival and affect costs in patients after myocardial infarction?
A comprehensive care model for post-MI patients is associated with higher healthcare costs but significantly improved survival compared to standard care.
May support comprehensive post-MI care despite higher costs; leaves open cost-effectiveness and requires prospective confirmation.
The benefits of coordinating care between healthcare professionals and institutions are the main drivers behind reforms to the payment and delivery system for healthcare services. The purpose of this study was to analyse the costs incurred by the National Health Fund in Poland related to the comprehensive care model for patients after myocardial infarction (CCMI, in Polish: KOS-Zawał). Methods: The analysis involved data from 1 October 2017 to 31 March 2020 for 263,619 patients who received treatment after a diagnosis of first or recurrent myocardial infarction as well as data for 26,457 patients treated during that period under the CCMI programme. Results: The average costs of treating patients covered by the full scope of comprehensive care and cardiac rehabilitation under the programme (EUR 3113.74/person) were higher than the costs of treating patients outside of that programme (EUR 2238.08/person). At the same time, a survival analysis revealed a statistically significantly lower probability of death (p < 0.0001) in the group of patients covered by CCMI compared to the group not covered by the programme. Conclusions: The coordinated care programme introduced for patients after myocardial infarction is more expensive than the care for patients who do not participate in the programme. Patients covered by the programme were more often hospitalised, which might have been due to the good coordination between specialists and responses to sudden changes in patients’ conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kubielas et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: