Introducing coordinated care (2): evaluation of design features and implementation processes implications for a preferred health system reform model.
The study investigated why the goals of the Australian Coordinated Care trials for clients with complex care needs were not achieved. Significantly higher health service use and costs were incurred in the absence of clear evidence of improved client health outcomes. The validity of assumptions underpinning trial design and the success of implementation at each step in application of the model were examined. There were failures in both design and implementation. Many clients did not require care coordination. The funds pooling arrangements contributed to limited possibilities for service substitution and training of GP care coordinators was inadequate. Trial design did not focus on either clinical guidelines or consumer empowerment. Furthermore, the expectations of the overall national trial were unrealistic both in trial design and expected outcomes given the rigidities and realities of the Australian health care system. Broader system reform in the form of funds pooling and health services planning at the regional level, based on large populations, may be a more effective means to address problems of care coordination and an inflexible supply system.
Segal
Leonie
L
Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, P.O. Box 477, West Heidelberg, Vic. 3081, Australia. lsegal@connexus.net.au
Dunt
David
D
Day
Susan E
SE
D001315:Australia; D019090:Case Management / Q000191:economics / Q000458:organization & administration*; D018166:Health Care Reform; D006297:Health Services Accessibility; D006301:Health Services Needs and Demand / Q000191:economics; D006801:Humans; D017146:Models, Organizational; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D010821:Physicians, Family; D015397:Program Evaluation