scholarly journals Do out-of-hours general practitioner services and emergency departments cost more by collaborating or by working separately? A cost analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sjoerd Broekman ◽  
Elisabeth Van Gils-Van Rooij ◽  
Berthold Meijboom ◽  
Dingenus De Bakker ◽  
Christoffel Yzermans
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Emergency Departments ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Out Of Hours ◽  
Gp Services ◽  
The Cost

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION In the Netherlands, general practitioners (GPs) and emergency departments (EDs) collaborate increasingly in urgent care collaborations (UCCs) in which the two services share one combined entrance and joint triage. AIM The objective of this study is to determine if UCCs are cost-effective compared to the usual care setting where out-of-hours GP services and EDs work separately. METHODS This observational study compared UCCs with the usual care setting on costs by performing linear regression analyses. These costs were also combined with two performance indicators: level of patient satisfaction and the length of stay. A non-parametric bootstrap (resampling) method was performed in order to analyze the cost-effect pairs. RESULTS During the study period, 122,061 patients visited EDs and the out-of-hours GP services. Total mean costs per episode were substantially higher in UCCs: ?480 versus ?392 respectively. In this study, two factors that contributed to higher costs in UCCs compared to usual care were identified. First, there was a higher proportion of GP consultations instead of cheaper medical advice for self-care in UCCs. Second, in UCCs there were more often double costs per episode, as more patients were referred to an ED after triage or consulting GP services. The cost-effectiveness analyses show that UCCs were not dominant on cost-effectiveness compared to the usual care setting. DISCUSSION A substitution of, often self-referring, patients from EDs to GP services does not result in lower costs to society, a shorter length of stay or a higher level of patient satisfaction.

scholarly journals Cross-sectional study of prevalence and risk factors, and a cost-effectiveness evaluation of screening and preventive treatment strategies for latent tuberculosis among migrants in Singapore

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e050629
Author(s):  
Vanessa W Lim ◽  
Hwee Lin Wee ◽  
Phoebe Lee ◽  
Yijun Lin ◽  
Yi Roe Tan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Latent Tuberculosis ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Ltbi Prevalence ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesWHO recommends that low burden countries consider systematic screening and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in migrants from high incidence countries. We aimed to determine LTBI prevalence and risk factors and evaluate cost-effectiveness of screening and treating LTBI in migrants to Singapore from a government payer perspective.DesignCross-sectional study and cost-effectiveness analysis.SettingMigrants in Singapore.Participants3618 migrants who were between 20 and 50 years old, have not worked in Singapore previously and stayed in Singapore for less than a year were recruited.Primary and secondary outcome measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), threshold length of stay, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), cost per active TB case averted.ResultsOf 3584 migrants surveyed, 20.4% had positive interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) results, with the highest positivity in Filipinos (33.2%). Higher LTBI prevalence was significantly associated with age, marital status and past TB exposure. The cost-effectiveness model projected an ICER of S$57 116 per QALY and S$12 422 per active TB case averted for screening and treating LTBI with 3 months once weekly isoniazid and rifapentine combination regimen treatment compared with no screening over a 50-year time horizon. ICER was most sensitive to the cohort’s length of stay in Singapore, yearly disease progression rates from LTBI to active TB, followed by the cost of IGRA testing.ConclusionsFor LTBI screening and treatment of migrants to be cost-effective, migrants from high burden countries would have to stay in Singapore for ~50 years. Risk-stratified approaches based on projected length of stay and country of origin and/or age group can be considered.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Alongside Randomised Controlled Trials of Acupuncture

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 273-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Song-Yi Kim ◽  
Hyangsook Lee ◽  
Younbyoung Chae ◽  
Hi-Joon Park ◽  
Hyejung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
German Studies ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

Objective To summarise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture. Methods We identified full economic evaluations such as cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the consequences and costs of acupuncture for any medical condition. Eleven electronic databases were searched up to March 2011 without language restrictions. Eligible RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane criteria for risk of bias and a modified version of the checklist for economic evaluation. The general characteristics and the results of each economic analysis such as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were extracted. Results Of 17 included studies, nine were CUAs that measured quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and eight were CEAs that assessed effectiveness of acupuncture based on improvements in clinical symptoms. All CUAs showed that acupuncture with or without usual care was cost-effective compared with waiting list control or usual care alone, with ICERs ranging from ¢3011/QALY (dysmenorrhoea) to ¢22 298/QALY (allergic rhinitis) in German studies, and from £3855/QALY (osteoarthritis) to £9951/QALY (headache) in UK studies. In the CEAs, acupuncture was beneficial at a relatively low cost in six European and Asian studies. All CUAs were well-designed with a low risk of bias, but this was not the case for CEAs. Conclusions Overall, this review demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture. Despite such promising results, any generalisation of these results needs to be made with caution given the diversity of diseases and the different status of acupuncture in the various countries.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Kloramfenikol Dan Seftriakson Untuk Pengobatan Demam Tifoid Pada Pasien Dewasa Di Rumah Sakit Sanglah Denpasar

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-112
Author(s):  
Amelia Lorensia ◽  
Doddy De Queljoe ◽  
Made Dwike Swari Santi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Typhoid Fever ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Hospital Perspective ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Two Alternatives

The number of typhoid fever patient in Indonesia is still high. Typhoid fever can be treated by antibiotic therapy such as chloramphenicol and ceftriaxone. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of chloramphenicol and ceftriaxone which was given to adult patients who were diagnosed with typhoid fever in Sanglah Denpasar Hospital. A comparative study between two alternatives was conducted using the hospital perspective. Retrospective method was used to collect data from patient medical records, who was diagnosed and hospitalized in Sanglah Denpasar Hospital during January 2017 until July 2018. The cost analysis was perform using cost-effectiveness grid and cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) methods. Cost-effectiveness grid showed that dominant of ceftriaxone for patient with typhoid fever. ACER analysis for ceftriaxone was IDR 2,097,170.88 with effectivenes (length of stay) 4.27 days, and was IDR 2,097,170.88 with effectiveness (the time of reaching normal temperature) 2.42 days. ACER analysis for chloramphenicol was IDR 2,555,464.22        with effectivenes (length of stay) 10.22 days, and was IDR 2,555,464.22 with effectiveness (the time of reaching normal temperature) 3.44 days. ACER analysis showed lower degree of ceftriaxone and higher effectiveness based on length of stay and the time of reaching normal temperature. The conclusion of this study is that ceftriaxone is more cost-effective than chloramphenicol.

scholarly journals Modelling the cost-effectiveness of person-centred care for patients with acute coronary syndrome

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 1317-1327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Pirhonen ◽  
Hanna Gyllensten ◽  
Andreas Fors ◽  
Kristian Bolin
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Time Perspective ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Person-centred care has been shown to be cost-effective compared to usual care for several diseases, including acute coronary syndrome, in a short-term time perspective (< 2 years). The cost-effectiveness of person-centred care in a longer time perspective is largely unknown. Objectives To estimate the mid-term cost-effectiveness of person-centred care compared to usual care for patients (< 65) with acute coronary syndrome, using a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective. Methods The mid-term cost-effectiveness of person-centred care compared to usual care was estimated by projecting the outcomes observed in a randomized-controlled trial together with data from health registers and data from the scientific literature, 3 years beyond the 2-year follow-up, using the developed simulation model. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed using Monte Carlo simulation. Results Person-centred care entails lower costs and improved effectiveness as compared to usual care, for a 2-year time and a 5-year perspective. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that the likelihoods of the person-centred care being cost-effective compared to usual care were between 80 and 99% and between 75 and 90% for a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective (using a 500,000 SEK/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold). Conclusions Person-centred care was less costly and more effective compared to usual care in a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective for patients with acute coronary syndrome under the age of 65.

scholarly journals Update of Markov Model on the Cost-effectiveness of Nonpharmacologic Interventions for Chronic Low Back Pain Compared to Usual Care

Spine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (19) ◽  
pp. 1383-1385
Author(s):  
Patricia M. Herman ◽  
Ryan K. McBain ◽  
Nicholas Broten ◽  
Ian D. Coulter
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
The Cost

scholarly journals Electroacupuncture with Usual Care for Patients with Non-Acute Pain after Back Surgery: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 5033
Author(s):  
NamKwen Kim ◽  
Kyung-Min Shin ◽  
Eun-Sung Seo ◽  
Minjung Park ◽  
Hye-Yoon Lee
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Societal Perspective ◽  
National Health ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Acute Low Back Pain ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Back Surgery ◽  
The Cost

Electroacupuncture (EA) is used to treat pain after back surgery. Although this treatment is covered by national health insurance in Korea, evidence supporting its cost-effectiveness and contribution to the sustainability of the national health care system has yet to be published. Therefore, an economic evaluation, alongside a clinical trial, was conducted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of EA and usual care (UC) versus UC alone to treat non-acute low back pain (LBP). In total, 108 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to treatment groups; 106 were included in the final cost utility analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EA plus UC was estimated as 7,048,602 Korean Rate Won (KRW) per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the societal perspective (SP). If the national threshold was KRW 30 million per QALY, the cost-effectiveness probability of EA plus UC was an estimated 85.9%; and, if the national threshold was over KRW 42,496,372 per QALY, the cost-effectiveness probability would be over 95% percent statistical significance. Based on these results, EA plus UC combination therapy for patients with non-acute LBP may be cost-effective from a societal perspective in Korea.

scholarly journals Cost Effectiveness of Gene Expression Profile Testing in Community Practice

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 554-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Young Chandler ◽  
Clyde B. Schechter ◽  
Jinani Jayasekera ◽  
Aimee Near ◽  
Suzanne C. O’Neill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Gene Expression Profile ◽  
Expression Profile ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Community Practice ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Purpose Gene expression profile (GEP) testing can support chemotherapy decision making for patients with early-stage, estrogen receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor 2–negative breast cancers. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of one GEP test, Onco type DX (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA), in community practice with test-eligible patients age 40 to 79 years. Methods A simulation model compared 25-year societal incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of community Onco type DX use from 2005 to 2012 versus usual care in the pretesting era (2000 to 2004). Inputs included Onco type DX and chemotherapy data from an integrated health care system and national and published data on Onco type DX accuracy, chemotherapy effectiveness, utilities, survival and recurrence, and Medicare and patient costs. Sensitivity analyses varied individual parameters; results were also estimated for ideal conditions (ie, 100% testing and adherence to test-suggested treatment, perfect test accuracy, considering test effects on reassurance or worry, and lowest costs). Results Twenty-four percent of test-eligible patients had Onco type DX testing. Testing was higher in younger patients and patients with stage I disease ( v stage IIA), and 75.3% and 10.2% of patients with high and low recurrence risk scores received chemotherapy, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratio for testing ( v usual care) was $188,125 per QALY. Considering test effects on worry versus reassurance decreased the cost-effectiveness ratio to $58,431 per QALY. With perfect test accuracy, the cost-effectiveness ratio was $28,947 per QALY, and under ideal conditions, it was $39,496 per QALY. Conclusion GEP testing is likely to have a high cost-effectiveness ratio on the basis of community practice patterns. However, realistic variations in assumptions about key variables could result in GEP testing having cost-effectiveness ratios in the range of other accepted interventions. The differences in cost-effectiveness ratios on the basis of community versus ideal conditions underscore the importance of considering real-world implementation when assessing the new technology.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention for the Prevention of Falls in Older People: The REducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention Trial Findings

Gerontology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (5) ◽  
pp. 503-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belen Corbacho ◽  
Sarah Cockayne ◽  
Caroline Fairhurst ◽  
Catherine E. Hewitt ◽  
Kate Hicks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Older People ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Falls Prevention ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Background: Falls are a major cause of morbidity among older people. Multifaceted interventions may be effective in preventing falls and related fractures. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness alongside the REducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention (REFORM) trial. Methods: REFORM was a pragmatic multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial in England and Ireland; 1,010 participants (> 65 years) were randomised to receive either a podiatry intervention (n = 493), including foot and ankle strengthening exercises, foot orthoses, new footwear if required, and a falls prevention leaflet, or usual podiatry treatment plus a falls prevention leaflet (n = 517). Primary outcome: incidence of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. Secondary outcomes: proportion of fallers and quality of life (EQ-5D-3L) which was converted into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each participant. Differences in mean costs and QALYs at 12 months were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention relative to usual care. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted in accordance with National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence reference case standards, using a regression-based approach with costs expressed in GBP (2015 price). The base case analysis used an intention-to-treat approach on the imputed data set using multiple imputation. Results: There was a small, non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.73–1.05, p = 0.16). Participants allocated to the intervention group accumulated on average marginally higher QALYs than the usual care participants (mean difference 0.0129, 95% CI –0.0050 to 0.0314). The intervention costs were on average GBP 252 more per participant compared to the usual care participants (95% CI GBP –69 to GBP 589). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between GBP 19,494 and GBP 20,593 per QALY gained, below the conventional National Health Service cost-effectiveness thresholds of GBP 20,000 to GBP 30,000 per additional QALY. The probability that the podiatry intervention is cost-effective at a threshold of GBP 30,000 per QALY gained was 0.65. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: The benefits of the intervention justified the moderate cost. The intervention could be a cost-effective option for falls prevention when compared with usual care in the UK.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document