Comparative Effectiveness of a Complex Care Program for High-Cost/High-Need Patients

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Evidence about the patient benefits of alternative primary care delivery models for high-cost/high needs patients is mixed. We conducted a follow-up study of a program designed to improve outcomes of seriously ill adult patients in an integrated delivery system. METHODS: Using a quasi-experimental design, we examined the 180-day mortality of patients empaneled to a complex care program (CCP, n=1445) compared with that of eligible but unempaneled patients who continued to receive usual primary care (UPC, n=6409) for January 2019 through June 2021. Patients in the CCP and UPC were propensity score-matched on demographics, comorbidities, and frailty. In the propensity score matched samples (n=1440 in each group), the hazard of mortality was estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: The CCP continued to empanel eligible adults with more comorbidities and greater frailty compared with the eligible patient population in UPC. In the matched samples, CCP patients had a significantly lower hazard of 180-day mortality compared with UPC in this replication cohort (0.71, 95% CI: 0.61-0.82). This was higher than the hazard ratio in the prior inception cohort (0.58, 95% CI: 0.47-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: A reduced hazard of death was reproduced within a second incident cohort of among seriously ill adult patients who were empaneled to a CCP in an integrated health care system compared with matched, but unempaneled patients whose care remained within UPC.