8.4 COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to succinctly summarize the cost impacts of TIPs. We calculated the annual costs of the TIPs program to Grace West residents based on internal estimates of the cost to deliver services plus any relevant line items in the JRCo budget. We monetized the changes in healthcare utilization based on the changes in outcomes measured from the healthcare usage analysis. Any such analysis is always filled with limitations, and unique circumstances due to the COVID pandemic even further that. We outline several of these caveats below. I. COST OF TIPS PROGRAM
To estimate the cost of TIPs, we used existing estimates for “TIPs-classic” for one full year. Since the TIPs program was interrupted due to COVID, annual numbers may overstate the full costs. The TIPs costs include the costs of a nurse, TTA, travel, hardware, software, licensing, and other administration tasks. Given that TIPs as delivered at Grace West involved additional costs (involvement of a residential service coordinator, promotions, and other activities to recruit participants, and a security guard) not included in the TIPs classic estimate, we also included costs from the JRCo budget for these items. Exhibit 5 reflects the overall costs to deliver TIPs at Grace West.
Exhibit 5. Estimated Costs to Deliver TIPs program at GW TIPs costs to serve 50 participants (in first year)
$60,000
TIPs costs per additional 50 participants
$25,000
Number of participants at Grace West
150
Additional budget items Total costs
$59,886 $169,866
We did not include the cost of wrap-around services since some already existed absent TIPs, and many were secured at no cost. We also did not include indirect costs associated with the project team to coordinate and analyze TIPs. These costs center on establishing TIPs as a viable service and providing proof of concept. That is, these are costs that are not necessary for establishing a new TIPs program and would not be part of the calculus for assessing financial sustainability.
8. Analysis
41
