An Alternative Approach to Reducing the Costs of Patient Care?

A Controlled Trial of the Multi-Disciplinary Doctor-Nurse Practitioner (MDNP) Model

Published in: Medical Decision Making, v. 26, no. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2006, p. 9-17

Posted on on January 01, 2006

by Susan L. Ettner, Jenny Kotlerman, A. A. Afifi, Sondra Vazirani, Ron D. Hays, Martin F. Shapiro, Marie Cowan

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

OBJECTIVE: Hospitals adapt to changing market conditions by exploring new care models that allow them to maintain high quality while containing costs. The authors examined the net cost savings associated with care management by teams of physicians and nurse practitioners, along with daily multidisciplinary rounds and postdischarge patient follow-up. METHODS: One thousand two hundred and seven general medicine inpatients in an academic medical center were randomized to the intervention versus usual care. Intervention costs were compared to the difference in nonintervention costs, estimated by comparing changes between preadmission and postadmission in regression-adjusted costs for intervention versus usual care patients. Intervention costs were calculated by assigning hourly costs to the time spent by different providers on the intervention. Patient costs during the index hospital stay were estimated from administrative records and during the 4-month follow-up by weighting selfreported utilization by unit costs. RESULTS: Intervention costs were $1187 per patient and associated with a significant $3331 reduction in nonintervention costs. About $1947 of the savings were realized during the initial hospital stay, with the remainder attributable to reductions in postdischarge service use. After adjustment for possible attrition bias, a reasonable estimate of the cost offset was $2165, for a net cost savings of $978 per patient. Because health outcomes were comparable for the 2 groups, the intervention was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Wider adoption of multidisciplinary interventions in similar settings might be considered. The savings previously reported with hospitalist models may also be achievable with other models that focus on efficient inpatient care and appropriate postdischarge care.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.