-
PloS One 2018Hospital inpatients often experience medical and psychiatric problems simultaneously. Although this implies a certain relationship between healthcare utilization and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hospital inpatients often experience medical and psychiatric problems simultaneously. Although this implies a certain relationship between healthcare utilization and costs, this relationship has never been systematically reviewed.
OBJECTIVE
The objective is to examine the extent to which medical-psychiatric comorbidities relate to health-economic outcomes in general and in different subgroups. If the relationship is significant, this would give additional reasons to facilitate the search for targeted and effective treatments for this complex population.
METHOD
A systematic review in Embase, Medline, Psycinfo, Cochrane, Web of Science and Google Scholar was performed up to August 2016 and included cross-references from included studies. Only peer-reviewed empirical studies examining the impact of inpatient medical-psychiatric comorbidities on three health-economic outcomes (length of stay (LOS), medical costs and rehospitalizations) were included. Study design was not an exclusion criterion, there were no restrictions on publication dates and patients included had to be over 18 years. The examined populations consisted of inpatients with medical-psychiatric comorbidities and controls. The controls were inpatients without a comorbid medical or psychiatric disorder. Non-English studies were excluded.
RESULTS
From electronic literature databases, 3165 extracted articles were scrutinized on the basis of title and abstract. This resulted in a full-text review of 86 articles: 52 unique studies were included. The review showed that the presence of medical-psychiatric comorbidity was related to increased LOS, higher medical costs and more rehospitalizations. The meta-analysis revealed that patients with comorbid depression had an increased mean LOS of 4.38 days compared to patients without comorbidity (95% CI: 3.07 to 5.68, I2 = 31%).
CONCLUSIONS
Medical-psychiatric comorbidity is related to increased LOS, medical costs and rehospitalization; this is also shown for specific subgroups. This study had some limitations; namely, that the studies were very heterogenetic and, in some cases, of poor quality in terms of risk of bias. Nevertheless, the findings remain valid and justify the search for targeted and effective interventions for this complex population.
Topics: Comorbidity; Delivery of Health Care; Humans; Inpatients; Length of Stay; Mental Disorders; Mental Health; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29534097
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194029 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Apr 2016Over the last decade, various pay-for-performance (P4P) programs have been implemented to improve quality in health systems, including the VHA. P4P programs are complex,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Over the last decade, various pay-for-performance (P4P) programs have been implemented to improve quality in health systems, including the VHA. P4P programs are complex, and their effects may vary by design, context, and other implementation processes. We conducted a systematic review and key informant (KI) interviews to better understand the implementation factors that modify the effectiveness of P4P.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL through April 2014, and reviewed reference lists. We included trials and observational studies of P4P implementation. Two investigators abstracted data and assessed study quality. We interviewed P4P researchers to gain further insight.
RESULTS
Among 1363 titles and abstracts, we selected 509 for full-text review, and included 41 primary studies. Of these 41 studies, 33 examined P4P programs in ambulatory settings, 7 targeted hospitals, and 1 study applied to nursing homes. Related to implementation, 13 studies examined program design, 8 examined implementation processes, 6 the outer setting, 18 the inner setting, and 5 provider characteristics. Results suggest the importance of considering underlying payment models and using statistically stringent methods of composite measure development, and ensuring that high-quality care will be maintained after incentive removal. We found no conclusive evidence that provider or practice characteristics relate to P4P effectiveness. Interviews with 14 KIs supported limited evidence that effective P4P program measures should be aligned with organizational goals, that incentive structures should be carefully considered, and that factors such as a strong infrastructure and public reporting may have a large influence.
DISCUSSION
There is limited evidence from which to draw firm conclusions related to P4P implementation. Findings from studies and KI interviews suggest that P4P programs should undergo regular evaluation and should target areas of poor performance. Additionally, measures and incentives should align with organizational priorities, and programs should allow for changes over time in response to data and provider input.
Topics: Ambulatory Care Facilities; Clinical Trials as Topic; Delivery of Health Care; Hospitals; Humans; Nursing Homes; Observational Studies as Topic; Program Evaluation; Quality of Health Care; Reimbursement, Incentive
PubMed: 26951276
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-015-3567-0 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Apr 2015To examine the available evidence on safety, competency and cost-effectiveness of nursing staff providing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy services. (Review)
Review
AIM
To examine the available evidence on safety, competency and cost-effectiveness of nursing staff providing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy services.
METHODS
The literature was searched for publications reporting nurse endoscopy using several databases and specific search terms. Studies were screened against eligibility criteria and for relevance. Initial searches yielded 74 eligible and relevant articles; 26 of these studies were primary research articles using original datasets relating to the ability of non-physician endoscopists. These publications included a total of 28883 procedures performed by non-physician endoscopists.
RESULTS
The number of publications in the field of non-specialist gastrointestinal endoscopy reached a peak between 1999 and 2001 and has decreased thereafter. 17/26 studies related to flexible sigmoidoscopies, 5 to upper GI endoscopy and 6 to colonoscopy. All studies were from metropolitan centres with nurses working under strict supervision and guidance by specialist gastroenterologists. Geographic distribution of publications showed the majority of research was conducted in the United States (43%), the United Kingdom (39%) and the Netherlands (7%). Most studies conclude that after appropriate training nurse endoscopists safely perform procedures. However, in relation to endoscopic competency, safety or patient satisfaction, all studies had major methodological limitations. Patients were often not randomized (21/26 studies) and not appropriately controlled. In relation to cost-efficiency, nurse endoscopists were less cost-effective per procedure at year 1 when compared to services provided by physicians, due largely to the increased need for subsequent endoscopies, specialist follow-up and primary care consultations.
CONCLUSION
Contrary to general beliefs, endoscopic services provided by nurse endoscopists are not more cost effective compared to standard service models and evidence suggests the opposite. Overall significant shortcomings and biases limit the validity and generalizability of studies that have explored safety and quality of services delivered by non-medical endoscopists.
Topics: Clinical Competence; Cost Savings; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Education, Nursing; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Health Care Costs; Humans; Nurse Practitioners; Nursing Staff
PubMed: 25945022
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i16.5056 -
European Journal of Cancer (Oxford,... Nov 2017The economic evaluation (EE) of healthcare interventions has become a necessity. However, high quality needs to be ensured in order to achieve validated results and help... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The economic evaluation (EE) of healthcare interventions has become a necessity. However, high quality needs to be ensured in order to achieve validated results and help making informed decisions. Thus, the objective of the present study was to systematically identify and review published pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma-related EEs and to assess their quality.
METHODS
Systematic literature research was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane to identify published EEs between 2000 and 2015. The quality of each selected EE was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the Drummond's checklist.
RESULTS
Our systematic review was based on 32 EEs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including different perspectives, time horizon, and cost effectiveness analyses. Nearly two-thirds of EEs are full EEs (n = 21), and about one-third of EEs had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous with 'high quality'. Close to 50% of full EEs had a Drummond score ≥7, whereas all of partial EEs had a Drummond score <7 (n = 11).
CONCLUSIONS
Over the past 15 years, a lot of interest has been evinced over the EE of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and its direct impact on therapeutic advances in PDAC. To provide a framework for health care decision-making, to facilitate transferability and to lend credibility to health EEs, their quality must be improved. For the last 4 years, a tendency towards a quality improvement of these studies has been observed, probably coupled with a context of rational decision-making in health care, a better and wider spread of recommendations and thus, medical practitioners' full endorsement.
Topics: Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Health Care Costs; Humans; Medical Oncology; Models, Economic; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Process Assessment, Health Care; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29024890
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.08.035 -
Public Health Nov 2023The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the current economic burden of coronary heart disease (CHD) in mainland China and provide a reference for the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the current economic burden of coronary heart disease (CHD) in mainland China and provide a reference for the formulation of policies to reduce the economic burden of CHD.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic literature review was conducted of empirical studies on the economic burden of CHD over the past 20 years.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database and the WANFANG database were comprehensively searched for relevant articles published between 1 January 2000 and 22 December 2021. Content analysis was used to extract the data, and Stata 17.0 software was used for analysis. The median values were used to describe trends.
RESULTS
A total of 35 studies were included in this review. The annual median per-capita hospitalisation expense and the average expense per hospitalisation were $3544.40 ($891.64-$18,371.46) and $5407.34 ($1139.93-$8277.55), respectively. The median ratio on medical consumables expenses, drug expenses, medical examination expenses and treatment expenses were 41.59% (12.40%-63.73%), 26.90% (7.30%-60.00%), 9.45% (1.65%-33.40%) and 10.10% (2.36%-66.00%), respectively. The median per-capita hospitalisation expense in the eastern, central and western regions were $9374.45 ($2056.13-$18,371.46), $4751.5 ($2951.95-$8768.93) and $3251.25 ($891.64-$13,986.38), respectively. The median average expense per hospitalisation in the eastern and central regions were $6177.15 ($1679.15-$8277.55) and $1285.49 ($1239.93-$2197.36), respectively. The median average length of stay in the eastern, central and western regions were 9.3 days, 15.2 days and 16.1 days, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The economic burden of CHD is more severe in mainland China than in developed countries, especially in terms of the direct economic burden. In terms of the types of direct medical expenses, a proportion of medical examination expenses, treatment expenses and drug expenses were lowest in the eastern region, but medical consumables expenses were the highest in this region. This study provides guidance for the formulation of policies to reduce the economic burden of CHD in mainland China.
Topics: Humans; China; Coronary Disease; Cost of Illness; Hospitalization; Health Care Costs
PubMed: 37797560
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2023.08.034 -
Journal of Managed Care & Specialty... Jul 2018Prophylaxis with clotting factor replacement products is recommended by the Medical and Scientific Advisory Council of the National Hemophilia Foundation as the optimal... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Prophylaxis with clotting factor replacement products is recommended by the Medical and Scientific Advisory Council of the National Hemophilia Foundation as the optimal therapy for the prevention of bleeding episodes in individuals with severe hemophilia A or B (< 1 IU per dL endogenous factor VIII or factor IX activity, respectively). Prophylaxis is associated with an improved health-related quality of life and has been shown to be cost-effective compared with on-demand therapy. However, the overall cost of treatment remains high, particularly among patients with a greater propensity to bleed. The overall value of hemophilia treatments and their associated benefits, measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and dollar costs compared with other interventions can be evaluated through the use of cost-utility analyses (CUAs). Previous CUA studies in hemophilia have focused primarily on patients with more severe forms of hemophilia and on prophylaxis compared with on-demand treatment. However, to our knowledge, no studies to date have utilized QALYs as a standardized outcome measure to systematically evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of current hemophilia treatment options.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the CUA literature of hemophilia treatments and demonstrate the challenges in producing cost-utility evidence compared with other rare diseases.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature review using the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database for English-language CUAs published from 2000 through 2015 with the search terms hemophilia, haemophilia, factor VIII, or factor IX. Two trained reviewers independently reviewed every study to extract relevant data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were converted to 2014 U.S. dollars using exchange rates for currency conversion and the Consumer Price Index to adjust for inflation.
RESULTS
Our search yielded 52 studies, 11 of which met our inclusion criteria. The cost-effectiveness of hemophilia treatments varied widely based on variations in the study designs, including differences in time horizon, discount rates, and medical interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
We found the cost-effectiveness of hemophilia treatments to be broadly comparable to that of other orphan drugs. Improved standardization of future CUA studies will be important for further evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of hemophilia treatments.
DISCLOSURES
This research was funded by Biogen, which provided an unrestricted research grant to the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at Tufts Medical Center. Biogen and Sobi reviewed and provided feedback on the manuscript. The authors had full editorial control of the manuscript and provided final approval of all content. The authors report no conflict of interest regarding the material discussed in this article. Neumann and Chambers are employed at the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at Tufts Medical Center. Thorat was an employee of Center for Evaluation Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center when the analyses were carried out. Chambers has participated on advisory boards for Sanofi and Astellas Pharma.
Topics: Blood Coagulation Factors; Cost of Illness; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Health Care Costs; Hemophilia A; Hemophilia B; Humans; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Rare Diseases; Registries; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 29952709
DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2018.24.7.632 -
PloS One 2018To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing (NMP). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing (NMP).
DESIGN
Systematic review. Two reviewers independently completed searches, eligibility assessment and assessment of risk of bias.
DATA SOURCES
Pre-defined search terms/combinations were utilised to search electronic databases. In addition, hand searches of reference lists, key journals and grey literature were employed alongside consultation with authors/experts.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INCLUDED STUDIES
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical or cost-effectiveness of NMP. Measurements reported on one or more outcome(s) of: pain, function, disability, health, social impact, patient-safety, costs-analysis, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), patient satisfaction, clinician perception of clinical and functional outcomes.
RESULTS
Three RCTs from two countries were included (n = 932 participants) across primary and tertiary care settings. One RCT was assessed as low risk of bias, one as high risk of bias and one as unclear risk of bias. All RCTs evaluated clinical effectiveness with one also evaluating cost-effectiveness. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated using a range of safety and patient-reported outcome measures. Participants demonstrated significant improvement in outcomes when receiving NMP compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in all RCTs. An associated cost analysis showed NMP to be more expensive than TAU (regression coefficient p = 0.0000), however experimental groups generated increased QALYs compared to TAU.
CONCLUSION
Limited evidence with overall unclear risk of bias exists evaluating clinical and cost-effectiveness of NMP across all professions and clinical settings. GRADE assessment revealed moderate quality evidence. Evidence suggests that NMP is safe and can provide beneficial clinical outcomes. Benefits to the health economy remain unclear, with the cost-effectiveness of NMP assessed by a single pilot RCT of low risk of bias. Adequately powered low risk of bias RCTs evaluating clinical and cost effectiveness are required to evaluate NMP across clinical specialities, professions and settings.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42015017212).
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Delivery of Health Care; Drug Prescriptions; Health Personnel; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29509763
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193286 -
BMC Health Services Research Aug 2017Formularies often employ restriction policies to reduce pharmacy costs. Pregabalin, an alpha-2-delta ligand, is approved for treatment of fibromyalgia (FM); neuropathic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Formularies often employ restriction policies to reduce pharmacy costs. Pregabalin, an alpha-2-delta ligand, is approved for treatment of fibromyalgia (FM); neuropathic pain (NeP) due to postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), spinal cord injury; and as adjunct therapy for partial onset seizures. Pregabalin is endorsed as first-line therapy for these indications by several US and EU medical professional societies. However, restriction policies such as prior authorization (PA) and step therapy (ST) often favor less costly generic pain medications over pregabalin.
METHODS
A structured literature search (PubMed, past 11 years) was conducted to evaluate whether restriction policies against pregabalin support real-world economic and healthcare utilization benefits.
RESULTS
Search criteria identified three claims analyses and a modeling study that evaluated patients with NeP and/or FM with and without PA restrictions; three other studies included patients with FM and NeP in plans with ST requirements, and one evaluated a mail order requirement program. All studies evaluated outcomes during follow-up periods of 6 months or longer. Overall, PA, ST, and mail order restriction policies effectively reduced pregabalin usage, but the effects were inconsistent with reducing pharmacy costs and were non-significant for total disease-related medical costs. Two studies (one PA; one ST) reported significantly higher disease-related costs in restricted plans. The modeling study failed to demonstrate cost savings with PA. Opioid usage was higher in PA-restricted plans (two studies). The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several professional NeP guidelines recommend opioid use only in cases when other non-opioid pain therapies have proven ineffective. New US Government taskforce guidelines now seek to reduce opioid exposure. Additionally, in both ST studies, gabapentin utilization (a common ST edit) was significantly increased. Both studies had substantial proportions of FM and pDPN patients and the only pain condition gabapentin is approved to treat in the United States is PHN.
CONCLUSION
PA and ST restriction policies significantly decrease utilization of pregabalin, but do not consistently demonstrate cost savings for US health plans. More research is needed to evaluate whether these policies may lead to increased opioid usage as found in some studies.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
N/A.
Topics: Analgesics; Cost of Illness; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Guideline Adherence; Health Services Accessibility; Health Services Research; Humans; Neuralgia; Pharmaceutical Services; Pregabalin; United States
PubMed: 28841868
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-017-2503-x -
The Diabetes Educator Feb 2016The primary purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence regarding risk factors associated with nonadherence to prescribed glucose-lowering agents,... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The primary purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence regarding risk factors associated with nonadherence to prescribed glucose-lowering agents, the impact of nonadherence on glycemic control and the economics of diabetes care, and the interventions designed to improve adherence.
METHODS
Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaborative, BIOSIS, and the Health and Psychosocial Instruments databases were searched for studies of medication adherence for the period from May 2007 to December 2014. Inclusion criteria were study design and primary outcome measuring or characterizing adherence. Published evidence was graded according to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists protocol for standardized production of clinical practice guidelines.
RESULTS
One hundred ninety-six published articles were reviewed; 98 met inclusion criteria. Factors including age, race, health beliefs, medication cost, co-pays, Medicare Part D coverage gap, insulin use, health literacy, primary nonadherence, and early nonpersistence significantly affect adherence. Higher adherence was associated with improved glycemic control, fewer emergency department visits, decreased hospitalizations, and lower medical costs. Adherence was lower when medications were not tolerated or were taken more than twice daily, with concomitant depression, and with skepticism about the importance of medication. Intervention trials show the use of phone interventions, integrative health coaching, case managers, pharmacists, education, and point-of-care testing improve adherence.
CONCLUSION
Medication adherence remains an important consideration in diabetes care. Health professionals working with individuals with diabetes (eg, diabetes educators) are in a key position to assess risks for nonadherence, to develop strategies to facilitate medication taking, and to provide ongoing support and assessment of adherence at each visit.
Topics: Cost of Illness; Diabetes Mellitus; Health Care Costs; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Medication Adherence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 26637240
DOI: 10.1177/0145721715619038 -
Archives of Dermatological Research Nov 2016In the course of the chronic skin disease psoriasis, where a variety of treatment interventions is available, a strong growth of health economic studies comparing... (Review)
Review
In the course of the chronic skin disease psoriasis, where a variety of treatment interventions is available, a strong growth of health economic studies comparing treatment costs and benefits can be noticed. The objective was to identify health economic evaluations of psoriasis treatments that have been published to date. Of particular interest were the mostly used analysis and outcome parameters, the compared treatments, and the question, if available health economic studies may be used to perform a meta-analysis of qualitative findings. A systematic literature search using PubMed Medline, Ovid Medline, and Cochrane Library was performed for articles, published and available until mid of January 2016. Among the key words were the terms "psoriasis" and "cost-effectiveness". The search resulted in 318 articles without duplicates. Thereof 60 health economic analyses in psoriasis management were identified. Most of these are cost-effectiveness evaluations (45). The clinical parameter PASI (Psoriasis Area Severity Index) is the most often used cost-effectiveness outcome (33) followed by the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) (6). In case of cost-utility analyses, QALYs (quality-adjusted life-years) were mostly generated with the help of EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) (12), which was partly based on PASI and DLQI values. The majority of health economic studies is focusing on the direct medical and non-medical costs without consideration of productivity losses. Almost 70 % of 60 publications were conducted in Europe. Overall, most considered systemic treatments were the biological agents etanercept (36), adalimumab (27), and infliximab (26) followed by ustekinumab (17) and phototherapy (incl. UV-B, PUVA/psoralen combined with UV-A) (14). Comparisons including only topical treatments mostly focused on vitamin D treatment (14), corticosteroids (13), and coal tar products (6) followed by dithranol (5) and tazarotene (4). Given the setting, compared treatments, and study conditions, different results can be found for medical decision-making. Thereby, it can be noted that there are no standards on methods and outcomes measures available. This leads to a very limited comparability of health economic studies and presents no comfortable basis to examine a meta-analysis of health economic results. The presented systematic review shows the need for nationwide data and interpretation.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Clinical Decision-Making; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dermatologic Agents; Glucocorticoids; Health Care Costs; Humans; Phototherapy; Psoriasis; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27435415
DOI: 10.1007/s00403-016-1673-4