title: Evaluation of a modified community based care transitions model to reduce costs and improve outcomes.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The Affordable Care Act of 2010 proposed maximum penalty equal to 1% of regular Medicare reimbursements which prompted change in how hospitals regard 30-day readmissions. While several hospital to home transitional care models demonstrated a reduction in readmissions and cost savings, programs adapted to population needs and existing resources was essential.
  
  
  METHODS
  Focusing on process and outcomes evaluation, a retrospective analysis of a modified community based care transitions program was conducted.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In addition to high levels of patient satisfaction with the care transitions program, participants' confidence with self care was significantly improved. Further, the program evaluation demonstrated a 73% reduction in readmissions and an actual Medicare cost savings during the 9-month study period of $214,192, excluding the cost to administer the program.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  While there are several transitional care programs in existence, a customized approach is desirable and often required as the most cost effective way to manage care transitions and employ evidence based policy making. This study established some of the pitfalls when implementing a community-based transitional care program and demonstrated encouraging outcomes.
authors.affiliation: University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA. mlogue@email.arizona.edu.
authors.forename: Melanie D
authors.initials: MD
authors.lastname: Logue
authors.forename: Jennifer
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Drago
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D003153:Community Health Services / Q000191:economics* / Q000592:standards; D003266:Continuity of Patient Care / Q000191:economics* / Q000592:standards; D017046:Cost Savings / Q000191:economics*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D018803:Models, Economic; D017060:Patient Satisfaction / Q000191:economics*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D016896:Treatment Outcome
references.citation: Gerontologist. 2008 Aug;48(4):495-504
references.pmid: 18728299
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2011 Jul 25;171(14):1232-7
references.pmid: 21788540
references.citation: Front Health Serv Manage. 2009 Spring;25(3):11-32
references.pmid: 19382514
references.citation: JAMA. 2012 Jan 4;307(1):66-74
references.pmid: 22215167
references.citation: Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2004 Jun;2(2):141-7
references.pmid: 15555490
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2005 Sep 12;165(16):1842-7
references.pmid: 16157827
references.citation: Med Care. 2005 Mar;43(3):246-55
references.pmid: 15725981
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2006 Sep 25;166(17):1822-8
references.pmid: 17000937
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 2;360(14):1418-28
references.pmid: 19339721
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Jun;55(6):573-87
references.pmid: 12063099
references.citation: Health Care Financ Rev. 2008 Fall;30(1):75-91
references.pmid: 19040175
references.citation: J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991 Feb;39(2):142-8
references.pmid: 1991946
references.citation: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004 May;52(5):675-84
references.pmid: 15086645
references.citation: Health Policy. 2002 Sep;61(3):269-78
references.pmid: 12098520
references.citation: Med Care. 2003 Nov;41(11):1284-92
references.pmid: 14583691
references.citation: Geriatr Nurs. 2010 May-Jun;31(3):188-96
references.pmid: 20525523