PURPOSE: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Low Vision Intervention Trial (LOVIT) developed an outpatient low-vision programme for patients with macular diseases providing low-vision rehabilitation comparable to VA inpatient blind rehabilitation centres (BRCs). This programme targets veterans who do not need or chose not to participate in a comprehensive inpatient blind rehabilitation programme. We examined costs and consequences using veterans in LOVIT and comparable veterans in an inpatient BRC. METHODS: We compared costs and consequences between treatment patients who participated in LOVIT, a two-site randomized clinical trial, and a sample of comparable patients who received treatment at a VA inpatient BRC. We measured consequences as the change in functional visual ability from baseline to follow-up (LOVIT: 4 months after randomization; BRC: 3 months after discharge) using the VA Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (VA LV VFQ-48). RESULTS: There were 55 LOVIT and 121 BRC patients for our analyses. Average costs were $38,627.3 higher for BRC patients ($5,054.4 +/- $404.7 SD for LOVIT vs. $43,681.7 +/- $8,853.6 SD for BRC, p < 0.0001). Thus, the BRC cost $38,627.3 per patient more than the LOVIT programme (95% CI: $17,414 to $273,482). There was a greater improvement in overall visual ability, mobility, and visual motor skill scores for BRC patients; however, there was no significant difference in improvement in reading ability or visual information processing scores. CONCLUSIONS: As VA increases outpatient blind rehabilitation services, LOVIT provides a model for expanding outpatient low-vision rehabilitation services for veterans at substantially lower costs than current inpatient BRC services.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Low Vision Intervention Trial (LOVIT) developed an outpatient low-vision programme for patients with macular diseases providing low-vision rehabilitation comparable to VA inpatient blind rehabilitation centres (BRCs). This programme targets veterans who do not need or chose not to participate in a comprehensive inpatient blind rehabilitation programme. We examined costs and consequences using veterans in LOVIT and comparable veterans in an inpatient BRC. METHODS: We compared costs and consequences between treatment patients who participated in LOVIT, a two-site randomized clinical trial, and a sample of comparable patients who received treatment at a VA inpatient BRC. We measured consequences as the change in functional visual ability from baseline to follow-up (LOVIT: 4 months after randomization; BRC: 3 months after discharge) using the VA Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (VA LV VFQ-48). RESULTS: There were 55 LOVIT and 121 BRC patients for our analyses. Average costs were $38,627.3 higher for BRC patients ($5,054.4 +/- $404.7 SD for LOVIT vs. $43,681.7 +/- $8,853.6 SD for BRC, p < 0.0001). Thus, the BRC cost $38,627.3 per patient more than the LOVIT programme (95% CI: $17,414 to $273,482). There was a greater improvement in overall visual ability, mobility, and visual motor skill scores for BRC patients; however, there was no significant difference in improvement in reading ability or visual information processing scores. CONCLUSIONS: As VA increases outpatient blind rehabilitation services, LOVIT provides a model for expanding outpatient low-vision rehabilitation services for veterans at substantially lower costs than current inpatient BRC services.
Authors: Hanno Matthaei; Alexis L Norris; Athanasios C Tsiatis; Kelly Olino; Seung-Mo Hong; Marco dal Molin; Michael G Goggins; Marcia Canto; Karen M Horton; Keith D Jackson; Paola Capelli; Giuseppe Zamboni; Laura Bortesi; Toru Furukawa; Shinichi Egawa; Masaharu Ishida; Shigeru Ottomo; Michiaki Unno; Fuyuhiko Motoi; Christopher L Wolfgang; Barish H Edil; John L Cameron; James R Eshleman; Richard D Schulick; Anirban Maitra; Ralph H Hruban Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Osamah Saeedi; Hasan Ashraf; Eric P Slade; Deborah R Medoff; Lan Li; David S Friedman; Julie Kreyenbuhl Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Ruth Ma van Nispen; Gianni Virgili; Mirke Hoeben; Maaike Langelaan; Jeroen Klevering; Jan Ee Keunen; Ger Hmb van Rens Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-01-27
Authors: Hilde P A van der Aa; Ger H M B van Rens; Judith E Bosmans; Hannie C Comijs; Ruth M A van Nispen Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 3.630