IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i5p596-605.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Economic Analysis of Intensive Multidisciplinary Interventions for Treating Medicaid-Insured Children with Pediatric Feeding Disorders

Author

Listed:
  • Nicoleta Serban

    (H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA)

  • Pravara M. Harati

    (H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA)

  • Jose Manuel Munoz Elizondo

    (H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA)

  • William G. Sharp

    (Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
    Children’s Multidisciplinary Feeding Program, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, USA)

Abstract

Background . Intensive multidisciplinary intervention (IMI) represents a well-established treatment for pediatric feeding disorders (PFDs), but program availability represents an access care barrier. We develop an economic analysis of IMI for weaning from gastronomy tube (G-tube) treatment for children diagnosed with PFDs from the Medicaid programs’ perspective, where Medicaid programs refer to both fee-for-service and managed care programs. Methods . The 2010–2012 Medicaid Analytic eXtract claims provided health care data for children aged 13 to 72 months. An IMI program provided data on average admission costs. We employed a finite-horizon Markov model to simulate PFD treatment progression assuming 2 treatment arms: G-tube only v. IMI targeting G-tube weaning. We compared the expenditure differential between the 2 arms under varying time horizons and treatment effectiveness. Results . Overall Medicaid expenditure per member per month was $6814, $2846, and $1550 for the study population of children with PFDs and G-tube treatment, the control population with PFDs without G-tube treatment, and the no-PFD control population, respectively. The PFD-diagnosed children with G-tube treatment only had the highest overall expenditures across all health care settings except psychological services. The expenditure at the end of the 8-year time horizon was $405,525 and $208,218 per child for the G-tube treatment only and IMI arms, respectively. Median Medicaid expenditure was between 1.7 and 2.2 times higher for the G-tube treatment arm than for the IMI treatment arm. Limitations . Data quality issues could cause overestimates or underestimates of Medicaid expenditure. Conclusions . This study demonstrated the economic benefits of IMI to treat complex PFDs from the perspective of Medicaid programs, indicating this model of care not only holds benefit in terms of improving overall quality of life but also brings significant expenditure savings in the short and long term.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicoleta Serban & Pravara M. Harati & Jose Manuel Munoz Elizondo & William G. Sharp, 2020. "An Economic Analysis of Intensive Multidisciplinary Interventions for Treating Medicaid-Insured Children with Pediatric Feeding Disorders," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(5), pages 596-605, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:5:p:596-605
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20932158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20932158
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20932158?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:5:p:596-605. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.