Hospital in the home is cost saving for appropriately selected patients: a comparison with in-hospital care.
BACKGROUND
As the cost of acute care in hospitals increases, there is an increasing need to find alternative means of providing acute care. Hospital in the home (HITH) has developed in response to this challenge. Current evidence is conflicting as to whether HITH provides cost savings compared with in-hospital care (IHC). The heterogeneous nature of HITH and the clinical complexity of patients is the greatest obstacle to making valid comparisons between the two modes of care.


OBJECTIVE
To compare costs and outcomes of HITH to IHC in hospitals in Victoria, Australia.


METHODS
Hospital morbidity data and medical records from Victoria, Australia.


METHODS
A costing study of 924 randomly selected episodes of HITH care, individually matched to 924 comparable IHC episodes.


METHODS
Unadjusted total episode costs (TEC) and averaged daily costs for HITH and IHC were calculated. Mortality and length of stay (LOS) were compared for HITH and IHC episodes. Simple linear and multiple regression were used to analyse costing data, while logistic regression was used to compare in-hospital mortality and LOS in HITH versus IHC episodes.


RESULTS
The 1848 episodes of care in the sample represented a heterogeneous range of acute conditions in 31 Victoria hospitals. HITH consisted of two distinct subgroups: pure-HITH (total episode substitution) and mixed-HITH (partial episode substitution). The cost of episodes of acute care containing a HITH component were overall 9% less expensive than IHC (P = 0.04), while pure-HITH was 38% cheaper than matched IHC (P < 0.001). The variable HITH, along with LOS and chemotherapy, explained the 60% variation in TEC. The mean cost of pure-HITH episodes was 22% lower compared to mixed-HITH (P = 0.004). The in-hospital mortality rate in HITH (3.8%) and IHC (5.2%) was not significantly different. Pure-HITH was associated with shorter LOS, while mixed HITH was strongly associated with longer LOS.


CONCLUSIONS
In our study the adjusted cost of HITH was significantly cheaper than IHC, particularly as total episode substitution. The cost needs to be adjusted because many factors other than HITH or IHC can influence crude costs. There may be potential for wider use of HITH for appropriately selected patients.
MacIntyre
C Raina
CR
National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance of Vaccine Preventable Diseases, Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia. RainaM@chw.edu.au
Ruth
Denise
D
Ansari
Zahid
Z
D000208:Acute Disease / Q000191:economics* / Q000628:therapy; D015986:Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic; D017046:Cost Savings / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D003953:Diagnosis-Related Groups; D017050:Episode of Care; D017048:Health Care Costs / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006302:Health Services Research; D018575:Home Care Services, Hospital-Based / Q000191:economics*; D017052:Hospital Mortality; D006760:Hospitalization / Q000191:economics*; D006801:Humans; D007902:Length of Stay; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D018579:Patient Selection; D012044:Regression Analysis; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D014739:Victoria