Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-7
Economic Analysis of the Tailored Activity Program: A Nonpharmacological Approach to Improve Quality of Life in People Living With Dementia and their Caregivers
We investigated costs of delivering the Tailored Activity Program (TAP) and cost savings from two perspectives (health sector and societal) for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers (dyads) compared to attention control (AC) using data from a randomized controlled trial. The evaluation assessed intervention delivery costs and caregiver reported health care utilization. The total intervention cost of TAP was $1707/dyad versus $864/dyad for AC, and total costs over 6 months for TAP dyads as compared to AC were $1299 (CI: -$10,496, $7898) less from the healthcare perspective, and $761 (CI: -$10,133, $8611) less from the societal perspective. TAP cost savings are driven by lower use of healthcare services among participating dyads, but further analyses with larger samples is warranted to confirm its financial impact.
American Medical Association. (2017). National fee analyzer: Charge data for evaluating fees nationally 2017. Ingenix.
3.
BoustaniM.AlderC. A.SolidC. A.ReubenD. (2019, Jan). An alternative payment model to support widespread use of collaborative dementia care models. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 38(1), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05154
4.
BuckC. J. (2017). 2017 HCPCS level II professional edition-e-book. Elsevier Health Sciences.
Cohen-MansfieldJ.MarxM. S.Dakheel-AliM.RegierN. G.TheinK.FreedmanL. (2010, Aug). Can agitated behavior of nursing home residents with dementia be prevented with the use of standardized stimuli?Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 58(8), 1459–1464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02951.x
8.
DimickJ. B.RyanA. M. (2014). Methods for evaluating changes in health care policy: The difference-in-differences approach. JAMA, 312(22), 2401–2402. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.16153
9.
FolsteinM. F.FolsteinS. E.McHughP. R. (1975, Nov). “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
10.
FortinskyR. H.GitlinL. N.PizziL. T.PiersolC. V.GradyJ.RobisonJ. T.MolonyS. (2016). Translation of the Care of Persons with Dementia in their Environments (COPE) intervention in a publicly-funded home care context: Rationale and research design. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 49, 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2016.07.006
11.
GertlerP. J.MartinezS.PremandP.RawlingsL. B.VermeerschC. M. (2016). Impact evaluation in practice (pp. 129–142). The World Bank.
12.
GitlinL. N.ArthurP.PiersolC.HesselsV.WuS. S.DaiY.MannW. C. (2018, Feb). Targeting behavioral symptoms and functional decline in dementia: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 66(2), 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15194
13.
GitlinL. N.HodgsonN.JutkowitzE.PizziL. (2010). The cost-effectiveness of a nonpharmacologic intervention for individuals with dementia and family caregivers: The tailored activity program. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry: official Journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, 18(6), 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181c37d13
14.
GitlinL. N.WinterL.BurkeJ.ChernettN.DennisM. P.HauckW. W. (2008). Tailored activities to manage neuropsychiatric behaviors in persons with dementia and reduce caregiver burden: A randomized pilot study. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry: official Journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, 16(3), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1097/JGP.0b013e318160da72
15.
JutkowitzE.KaneR. L.GauglerJ. E.MacLehoseR. F.DowdB.KuntzK. M. (2017, Oct). Societal and family lifetime cost of dementia: Implications for policy. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 65(10), 2169–2175. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15043
16.
JutkowitzE.ScerpellaD.PizziL. T.MarxK.SamusQ.PiersolC. V.GitlinL. N. (2019). Dementia family caregivers’ willingness to pay for an in-home program to reduce behavioral symptoms and caregiver stress. Pharmacoeconomics, 37(4), 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00785-6
17.
KaplanR. S.AndersonS. R. (2003). Time-driven activity-based costing. Available at SSRN 485443.
18.
KelleyA. S.McGarryK.Bollens-LundE.RahmanO. K.HusainM.FerreiraK. B.SkinnerJ. S. (2020). Residential setting and the cumulative financial burden of dementia in the 7 Years before death. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 68(6), 1319–1324. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16414
19.
KolanowskiA.BuettnerL. (2008). Prescribing activities that engage passive residents. An innovative method. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 34(1), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20080101-08
20.
KolanowskiA. M.LitakerM.BuettnerL. (2005). Efficacy of theory-based activities for behavioral symptoms of dementia. Nursing Research, 54(4), 219–228, https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-200507000-00003
21.
LongK. H.MoriartyJ. P.MittelmanM. S.FoldesS. S. (2014). Estimating the potential cost savings from the New York university caregiver intervention in Minnesota. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 33(4), 596–604. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1257
22.
MorrisJ. C. (1993). The clinical dementia rating (CDR): Current version and scoring rules. Neurology, 43(11), 2412–2414. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.43.11.2412-a
23.
MurmanD. L.ChenQ.PowellM. C.KuoS. B.BradleyC. J.ColendaC. C. (2002). The incremental direct costs associated with behavioral symptoms in AD. Neurology, 59(11), 1721–1729. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000036904.73393.e4
24.
NicholsL. O.Martindale-AdamsJ.ZhuC. W.KaplanE. K.ZuberJ. K.WatersT. M. (2017). Impact of the REACH II and REACH VA dementia caregiver interventions on healthcare costs. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 65(5), 931–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.14716
25.
PenrodJ. D.KaneR. L.FinchM. D.KaneR. A. (1998). Effects of post-hospital Medicare home health and informal care on patient functional status. Health Services Research, 33(3 Pt 1), 513–529.
26.
PizziL. T.JutkowitzE.FrickK. D.SuhD. C.PrioliK. M.GitlinL. N. (2014). Cost-effectiveness of a community-integrated home-based depression intervention in older African Americans. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 62(12), 2288–2295. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.13146
27.
PizziL. T.JutkowitzE.NymanJ. (2016). Economic evaluations of behavioral interventions. In GitlinL.CzajaS. (Eds.), Behavioral intervention research: Designing, evaluating, and implementing (pp. 333–357). springer publishing company.
28.
PizziL. T.JutkowitzE.PrioliK. M.LuE. Y.BabcockZ.McAbee-SevickH.WakefieldD. B.RobisonJ.MolonyS.PiersolC. V.GitlinL. N.FortinskyR. H. (2022). Cost-benefit analysis of the COPE program for persons living with dementia: Toward a payment model. Innovation in Aging, 6(1), igab042, igab042. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igab042
29.
RahjaM.NguyenK. H.LaverK.ClemsonL.CrottyM.ComansT. (2020, May 19). Implementing an evidence-based dementia care program in the Australian health context: A cost-benefit analysis. Health Soc Care Community. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13013
30.
RattingerG. B.SchwartzS.MullinsC. D.CorcoranC.ZuckermanI. H.SandersC.NortonM. C.FauthE. B.LeoutsakosJ.-M. S.LyketsosC. G.TschanzJ. T. (2015). Dementia severity and the longitudinal costs of informal care in the Cache County population. Alzheimer's & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 11(8), 946–954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2014.11.004
31.
RayM.PrioliK.JutkowitzE.GitlinL.RovnerB.CastenR.PizziL. (2019). PMU105 impact of behavioral interventions for chronic diseases on health utility: Assessment of three trials of older adults. Value in Health, 22, S268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1266
32.
ReubenD.PossinK. L.Epstein-LudlowG.BorsonS. T.AngalosE. G.LambaP. (2020). Dementia care management: A proposed framework for an alternative payment model alzheimer’s associationhttps://alzimpact.org/media/serve/id/5f1b511b98110
33.
SandersG. D.NeumannP. J.BasuA.BrockD. W.FeenyD.KrahnM.KuntzK. M.MeltzerD. O.OwensD. K.ProsserL. A.SalomonJ. A.SculpherM. J.TrikalinosT. A.RussellL. B.SiegelJ. E.GaniatsT. G. (2016). Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA, 316(10), 1093–1103. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12195
34.
TwiskJ.BosmanL.HoekstraT.RinjhartJ.WelteM.HeymansM. (2018). Different ways to estimate treatment effects in randomised controlled trials. . Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 10, 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2018.03.008
35.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Healthcare cost and utilization Project. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. http://www.ahrq.gov
36.
WimoA.JonssonL.ZbrozekA. (2010). The Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) instrument is valid for assessing informal care time in community-living patients with dementia. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 14(8), 685–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-010-0316-2
37.
WingC.SimonK.Bello-GomezR. A. (2018). Designing difference in difference studies: Best practices for public health policy research. Annual Review of Public Health, 39, 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-013507
38.
YangZ.LinP. J.LeveyA. (2013). Monetary costs of dementia in the United States. The New England Journal of Medicine, 369(5), 489–490. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1305541
39.
ZhouH.TaberC.ArconaS.LiY. (2016). Difference-in-differences method in comparative effectiveness research: Utility with unbalanced groups. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 14(4), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-016-0249-y
40.
ZhuC. W.ScarmeasN.TorganR.AlbertM.BrandtJ.BlackerD.SanoM.SternY. (2006). Longitudinal study of effects of patient characteristics on direct costs in Alzheimer disease. Neurology, 67(6), 998–1005. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000230160.13272.1b
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
