Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 16, 2025

A Treatment Package without Escape Extinction to Address Food Selectivity
Published on: August 21, 2015
An Economic Analysis of Intensive Multidisciplinary Interventions for Treating Medicaid-Insured Children with
Nicoleta Serban1, Pravara M Harati1, Jose Manuel Munoz Elizondo1
1H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Insights
Intensive multidisciplinary intervention (IMI) for pediatric feeding disorders (PFDs) significantly reduces costs for Medicaid programs by weaning children from gastronomy tubes (G-tubes). This approach offers substantial short- and long-term financial savings compared to G-tube treatment alone.
Area of Science:
- Health Economics
- Pediatric Gastroenterology
- Healthcare Management
Background:
- Pediatric feeding disorders (PFDs) often necessitate gastronomy tube (G-tube) treatment.
- Limited availability of Intensive Multidisciplinary Intervention (IMI) programs creates access barriers for PFD care.
- Economic analysis is crucial to evaluate IMI's cost-effectiveness for G-tube weaning in PFD patients.
Purpose of the Study:
- To conduct an economic analysis of IMI for G-tube weaning in children with PFDs.
- To compare healthcare expenditures between IMI and G-tube-only treatment from a Medicaid program perspective.
- To assess the cost-effectiveness of IMI across different time horizons and treatment success rates.
Main Methods:
- Utilized Medicaid Analytic eXtract claims data (2010-2012) for children aged 13-72 months.
- Employed a finite-horizon Markov model to simulate treatment pathways for G-tube weaning.
- Compared expenditures between G-tube only and IMI treatment arms, considering varying effectiveness.
Main Results:
- Children with PFDs and G-tube treatment incurred the highest Medicaid expenditures ($6814/member/month).
- At an 8-year horizon, IMI resulted in lower per-child expenditure ($208,218) compared to G-tube only ($405,525).
- Medicaid expenditure was 1.7 to 2.2 times higher for the G-tube arm than the IMI arm.
Conclusions:
- Intensive Multidisciplinary Intervention (IMI) demonstrates significant economic benefits for Medicaid programs in treating complex PFDs.
- IMI facilitates G-tube weaning, leading to substantial short- and long-term cost savings.
- This model of care improves quality of life and reduces overall healthcare expenditures for pediatric feeding disorders.
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.
Related Concept Videos
Enteral Nutrition II: Nasointestinal and Gastrostomy Feeding
Nasointestinal Feeding
Nasointestinal feeding involves placing a tube...
Inflammatory Bowel Disease III: Diagnostic Studies and Management I-Nutritional Therapy
Diagnostic studies
A colonoscopy is the definitive screening test, distinguishing ulcerative colitis from other colon diseases with similar symptoms. During a colonoscopy test, inflamed mucosa with exudate ulcerations can be observed, and biopsies are taken to determine the histologic characteristics of the...
Binge Eating Disorders
Nursing Interventions II: Selecting and Classifying the Nursing Interventions
Nursing Interventions I: Taxonomy of Nursing Interventions
A nursing intervention is a treatment or action based on scientific concepts and knowledge from the nursing, behavioral, and physical sciences. Identifying and prioritizing nursing interventions based on the desired outcome...
Chronic Kidney Disease III: Interprofessional Care

