↓ Skip to main content

Community Health Workers Bring Cost Savings to Patient-Centered Medical Homes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Health, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Community Health Workers Bring Cost Savings to Patient-Centered Medical Homes
Published in
Journal of Community Health, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10900-017-0403-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maurice L. Moffett, Arthur Kaufman, Andrew Bazemore

Abstract

The Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) model demonstrated that processes of care can be improved while unnecessary care, such as preventable emergency department utilization, can be reduced through better care coordination. A complementary model, the Integrated Primary Care and Community Support (I-PaCS) model, which integrates community health workers (CHWs) into primary care settings, functions beyond improved coordination of primary medical care to include management of the social determinants of health. However, the PCMH model puts downward pressure on the panel sizes of primary care providers, increasing the average fixed costs of care at the practice level. While the I-PaCS model layers an additional cost of the CHWs into the primary care cost structure, that additional costs is relatively small. The purpose of this study is to simulate the effects of the PCMH and I-PaCS models over a 3-year period to account for program initiation to maturity. The costs and cost offsets of the model were estimated at the clinic practice level. The studies which find the largest cost savings are for high-risk, paneled patients and therefore do not represent the effects of the PCMH model on moderate-utilizing patients or practice-level effects. We modeled a 12.6% decrease in the inpatient hospital, outpatient hospital and emergency department costs of high and moderate risk patients. The PCMH is expected to realize a 1.7% annual savings by year three while the I-PaCS program is expected to a 7.1% savings in the third year. The two models are complementary, the I-PaCS program enhancing the cost reduction capability of the PCMH.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Social Sciences 6 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,261,708
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Health
#139
of 1,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,157
of 312,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Health
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,225 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,556 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.