Literature DB >> 22232367

The cost-effectiveness of Welcome to Medicare visual acuity screening and a possible alternative welcome to medicare eye evaluation among persons without diagnosed diabetes mellitus.

David B Rein, John S Wittenborn, Xinzhi Zhang, Thomas J Hoerger, Ping Zhang, Barbara Eden Kobrin Klein, Kris E Lee, Ronald Klein, Jinan B Saaddine.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of visual acuity screening performed in primary care settings and of dilated eye evaluations performed by an eye care professional among new Medicare enrollees with no diagnosed eye disorders. Medicare currently reimburses visual acuity screening for new enrollees during their initial preventive primary care health check, but dilated eye evaluations may be a more cost-effective policy.
DESIGN: Monte Carlo cost-effectiveness simulation model with a total of 50 000 simulated patients with demographic characteristics matched to persons 65 years of age in the US population.
RESULTS: Compared with no screening policy, dilated eye evaluations increased quality-adjusted life-years(QALYs) by 0.008 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.005-0.011) and increased costs by $94 (95% CrI, −$35 to$222). A visual acuity screening increased QALYs in less than 95% of the simulations (0.001 [95% CrI, −0.002 to 0.004) and increased total costs by $32 (95% CrI, −$97 to $159) per person. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a visual acuity screening and an eye examination compared with no screening were $29 000 and$12 000 per QALY gained, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay value of $15 000 or more per QALY gained, a dilated eye evaluation was the policy option most likely to be cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: The currently recommended visual acuity screening showed limited efficacy and cost-effectiveness compared with no screening. In contrast, anew policy of reimbursement for Welcome to Medicare dilated eye evaluations was highly cost-effective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22232367      PMCID: PMC3759517          DOI: 10.1001/archopthalmol.2011.1921

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0003-9950


  33 in total

Review 1.  Health care economic analyses and value-based medicine.

Authors:  Melissa M Brown; Gary C Brown; Sanjay Sharma; Jennifer Landy
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.048

2.  Screening for myopia and refractive errors using LogMAR visual acuity by optometrists and a simplified visual acuity chart by nurses.

Authors:  Louis Tong; Seang-Mei Saw; Edwin Shih-Yen Chan; Mabel Yap; Heow-Yong Lee; Yoke-Pin Kwang; Donald Tan
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 1.973

3.  Argon laser photocoagulation for neovascular maculopathy. Five-year results from randomized clinical trials. Macular Photocoagulation Study Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1991-08

4.  Incidence of age-related cataract over a 10-year interval: the Beaver Dam Eye Study.

Authors:  Barbara E K Klein; Ronald Klein; Kristine E Lee
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 12.079

5.  Comparison between ophthalmoscopy and fundus photography in determining severity of diabetic retinopathy.

Authors:  S E Moss; R Klein; S D Kessler; K A Richie
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1985-01       Impact factor: 12.079

6.  Prevalence of age-related lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.

Authors:  B E Klein; R Klein; K L Linton
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 12.079

7.  Cost savings associated with detection and treatment of diabetic eye disease.

Authors:  J C Javitt
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of high-dose supplementation with vitamins C and E, beta carotene, and zinc for age-related macular degeneration and vision loss: AREDS report no. 8.

Authors: 
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-10

9.  Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. A practical approach.

Authors:  P Doubilet; C B Begg; M C Weinstein; P Braun; B J McNeil
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Monitoring visual status: why patients do or do not comply with practice guidelines.

Authors:  Frank A Sloan; Derek S Brown; Emily Streyer Carlisle; Gabriel A Picone; Paul P Lee
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.402

View more
  3 in total

1.  Mild Visual Impairment and Its Impact on Self-Care Among Older Adults.

Authors:  Rachel O'Conor; Samuel G Smith; Laura M Curtis; Julia Yoshino Benavente; Daniel P Vicencio; Michael S Wolf
Journal:  J Aging Health       Date:  2016-11-10

2.  Geographic disparity of severe vision loss - United States, 2009-2013.

Authors:  Karen A Kirtland; Jinan B Saaddine; Linda S Geiss; Ted J Thompson; Mary F Cotch; Paul P Lee
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2015-05-22       Impact factor: 17.586

3.  An evaluation of a community-based vision care programme for the elderly.

Authors:  She Chiu Yang; Tsz Kin Law; Yan Lok Lucas Leung; Yim Ying Tam; Rita Sum; Jinxiao Lian; Maurice Yap
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2022-08-27       Impact factor: 4.070

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.