To plan integrated care at end of life for people with either heart failure or lung disease, we used a case conference between the patient’s general practitioner (GP), specialist services and a palliative care consultant physician. This intervention significantly reduced hospitalisations and emergency department visits. This paper reports estimates of potential savings of reduced hospitalisation through end of life case conferences in a pilot study. We used Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Group codes to obtain data on hospitalisations and costs. The Australian health system is a federation: the national government is responsible for funding community based care, while state and territory governments fund public hospitals. There were 35 case conferences for patients with end stage heart failure or lung disease, who were patients of the public hospital system, involving 30 GPs in a regional health district. The annualised total cost per patient was AUD$90,060 before CC and AUD$11,841 after CC. The mean per person cost saving was AUD$41,023 ($25,274 excluding one service utilisation outlier). For every 100 patients with end of life heart failure and lung disease each year, the case conferencing intervention would save AUD$4.1 million (AUD$2.5 million excluding one service utilisation outlier). Multidisciplinary case conferences that promote integrated care among specialists and GPs resulted in substantial cost savings while providing care. Cost shifting between national and state or territory governments may impede implementation of this successful health service intervention. An integrated model such as ours is very relevant to initiatives to reform national health care. Australian and New Zealand Controlled Trials Register ACTRN12613001377729 : Registered 16/12/2013.

Objective: This study compared the cost of an integrated primary–secondary care general practitioner (GP)-based Beacon model with usual care at hospital outpatient departments (OPDs) for patients with complex type 2 diabetes. Methods: A costing analysis was completed alongside a non-inferiority randomised control trial. Costs were calculated using information from accounting data and interviews with clinic managers. Two OPDs and three GP-based Beacon practices participated. In the Beacon practices, GPs with a special interest in advanced diabetes care worked with an endocrinologist and diabetes nurse educator to care for referred patients. The main outcome was incremental cost saving per patient course of treatment from a health system perspective. Uncertainty was characterised with probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. Results: The Beacon model is cost saving: the incremental cost saving per patient was A$365 (95% confidence interval –A$901, A$55) and was cost saving in 93.7% of simulations. The key contributors to the variance in the cost saving per patient course of treatment were the mean number of patients seen per site and the number of additional presentations per course of treatment associated with the Beacon model. Conclusions: Beacon clinics were less costly per patient course of treatment than usual care in hospital OPDs for equivalent clinical outcomes. Local contractual arrangements and potential variation in the operational cost structure are of significant consideration in determining the cost-efficiency of Beacon models. What is known about this topic?: Despite the growing importance of achieving care quality within constrained budgets, there are few costing studies comparing clinically-equivalent hospital and community-based care models. What does this paper add?: Costing analyses comparing hospital-based to GP-based health services require considerable effort and are complex. We show that GP-based Beacon clinics for patients with complex chronic disease can be less costly per patient course of treatment than usual care offered in hospital OPDs. What are the implications for practitioners?: In addition to improving access and convenience for patients, transferring care from hospital to the community can reduce health system costs.

Introduction Traumatic spinal cord injuries have significant consequences both for the injured individual and the healthcare system, usually resulting in lifelong disability. Evidence has shown that timely medical and surgical interventions can lead to better patient outcomes with implicit cost savings. Potentially preventable secondary complications are therefore indicators of the effectiveness of acute care following traumatic injury. The extent to which policy and clinical variation within the healthcare service impact on outcomes and acute care costs for patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) in Australia is not well described. Methods and analysis A comprehensive data set will be formed using record linkage to combine patient health and administrative records from seven minimum data collections (including costs), with an existing data set of patients with acute TSCI (Access to Care Study), for the time period June 2013 to June 2016. This person-level data set will be analysed to estimate the acute care treatment costs of TSCI in New South Wales, extrapolated nationally. Subgroup analyses will describe the associated costs of secondary complications and regression analysis will identify drivers of higher treatment costs. Mapping patient care and health service pathways of these patients will enable measurement of deviations from best practice care standards and cost-effectiveness analyses of the different pathways. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval has been obtained from the New South Wales Population and Health Services Research Ethics Committee. Dissemination strategies include peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals and conference presentations to enable translation of study findings to clinical and policy audiences.

This study aimed to describe the epidemiological characteristics, the occupational context, and the cost of hospitalised work-related traumatic spinal injuries, across New South Wales, Australia. A record-linkage study of hospitalised cases of work-related spinal injury (ICD10-AM code U73.0 or workers compensation) was conducted. Study period 2013–2016. Eight hundred and twenty-four individuals sustained work-related spinal injuries; 86.2% of whom were males and had a mean age of 46.6 years. Falls led to 50% of the injuries; predominantly falls from building/structures, ladders or between levels. Falls occurred predominantly in the construction industry (78%). Transport crashes caused 31% of injuries and 24% in heavy vehicles. Half of all the transport injuries occurred ‘off road’. The external cause was coded as ‘non-specific work activity’ in 44.5% of cases; missing in 11.5%. Acute care bed days numbered at 13,302; total cost $19,500,000. High numbers of work-related spinal injuries occurred in the construction industry; particularly falling from a height. Off-road transport-related injuries were significant and likely unaddressed by ‘on-road’ prevention policies. Medical record documentation was insufficient in injury mechanism and context specificity. Workers in the construction industry or those using vehicles off-road were at high risk of spinal injury, suggesting inefficient systems approaches or ineffective prevention policies. Reducing the use of non-specific external cause codes in patients’ medical records would improve the measurement of policy effectiveness.

Objective: The aim of this study was to estimate the difference between treatment costs in acute care settings and the level of funding public hospitals would receive under the activity-based funding model. Methods: Patients aged =16 years who had sustained an incident traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) between June 2013 and June 2016 in New South Wales were included in the study. Patients were identified from record-linked health data. Costs were estimated using two approaches: (1) using District Network Return (DNR) data; and (2) based on national weighted activity units (NWAU) assigned to activity-based funding activity. The funding gap in acute care treatment costs for TSCI patients was determined as the difference in cost estimates between the two approaches. Results: Over the study period, 534 patients sustained an acute incident TSCI, accounting for 811 acute care hospital separations within index episodes. The total acute care treatment cost was estimated at A$40.5 million and A$29.9 million using the DNR- and NWAU-based methods respectively. The funding gap in total costs was greatest for the specialist spinal cord injury unit (SCIU) colocated with a major trauma service (MTS), at A$4.4 million over the study period. Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest a substantial gap in funding for resource-intensive patients with TSCI in specialist hospitals under current DRG-based funding methods. What is known about the topic?: DRG-based funding methods underestimate the treatment costs at the hospital level for patients with complex resource-intensive needs. This underestimation of true direct costs can lead to under-resourcing of those hospitals providing specialist services. What does this paper add?: This study provides evidence of a difference between true direct costs in acute care settings and the level of funding hospitals would receive if funded according to the National Efficient Price and NWAU for patients with TSCI. The findings provide evidence of a shortfall in the casemix funding to public hospitals under the activity-based funding for resource-intensive care, such as patients with TSCI. Specifically, depending on the classification system, the principal referral hospitals, the SCIU colocated with an MTS and stand-alone SCIU were underfunded, whereas other non-specialist hospitals were overfunded for the acute care treatment of patients with TSCI. What are the implications for practitioners?: Although health care financing mechanisms may vary internationally, the results of this study are applicable to other hospital payment systems based on diagnosis-related groups that describe patients of similar clinical characteristics and resource use. Such evidence is believed to be useful in understanding the adequacy of hospital payments and informing payment reform efforts. These findings may have service redesign policy implications and provide evidence for additional loadings for specialist hospitals treating low-volume, resource-intensive patients.