OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the health system cost of a home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) program versus usual care in an integrated healthcare system. STUDY DESIGN: This cost-effectiveness analysis was based upon a previously completed randomized controlled trial of 348 hypertensive patients, in which mean systolic blood pressure (BP) was lowered 21 versus 8 mm Hg in the HBPM and usual care groups, respectively, and BP control was achieved in 54% versus 35% of patients (P < .001). METHODS: This analysis compared direct costs from the health plan perspective, including clinic visits, e-mail and telephone encounters, laboratory tests, medications, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits between the 2 groups. Primary outcomes were the incremental hypertension care-related cost of HBPM per mmHg lowering of systolic BP per patient, per additional BP controlled, and per life-year gained. RESULTS:Median hypertension-related cost per patient over 6 months was $455 in the HBPM group and $179 for usual care (P < .001). This increase was attributable to additional e-mail and telephone encounters, greater antihypertensive medication use, additional laboratory monitoring, and the BP monitor. Median total cost per patient was $1530 and $1283 for the HBPM and usual care groups, respectively (P = .034). The HBPM program increased hypertension-related expenditures by $20.50 per mm Hg lowering of systolic BP, $1331 per additional patient achieving BP control at 6 months, and $3330 per life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: The HBPM program requires investment in outpatient encounters, medications, and laboratory monitoring, but produces significantly improved BP control.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the health system cost of a home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) program versus usual care in an integrated healthcare system. STUDY DESIGN: This cost-effectiveness analysis was based upon a previously completed randomized controlled trial of 348 hypertensivepatients, in which mean systolic blood pressure (BP) was lowered 21 versus 8 mm Hg in the HBPM and usual care groups, respectively, and BP control was achieved in 54% versus 35% of patients (P < .001). METHODS: This analysis compared direct costs from the health plan perspective, including clinic visits, e-mail and telephone encounters, laboratory tests, medications, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits between the 2 groups. Primary outcomes were the incremental hypertension care-related cost of HBPM per mm Hg lowering of systolic BP per patient, per additional BP controlled, and per life-year gained. RESULTS: Median hypertension-related cost per patient over 6 months was $455 in the HBPM group and $179 for usual care (P < .001). This increase was attributable to additional e-mail and telephone encounters, greater antihypertensive medication use, additional laboratory monitoring, and the BP monitor. Median total cost per patient was $1530 and $1283 for the HBPM and usual care groups, respectively (P = .034). The HBPM program increased hypertension-related expenditures by $20.50 per mm Hg lowering of systolic BP, $1331 per additional patient achieving BP control at 6 months, and $3330 per life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: The HBPM program requires investment in outpatient encounters, medications, and laboratory monitoring, but produces significantly improved BP control.
Authors: Verughese Jacob; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Krista K Proia; David P Hopkins; Jeffrey Reynolds; Anilkrishna B Thota; Christopher D Jones; Daniel T Lackland; Kimberly J Rask; Nicolaas P Pronk; John M Clymer; Ron Z Goetzel Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Sharada S Shantharam; Mallika Mahalingam; Aysha Rasool; Jeffrey A Reynolds; Aunima R Bhuiya; Tyra D Satchell; John M Chapel; Nikki A Hawkins; Christopher D Jones; Verughese Jacob; David P Hopkins Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-10-20 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Steven P Dehmer; Michael V Maciosek; Nicole K Trower; Stephen E Asche; Anna R Bergdall; Rachel A Nyboer; Patrick J O'Connor; Pamela A Pawloski; JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen; Beverly B Green; Karen L Margolis Journal: J Am Coll Clin Pharm Date: 2018-04-14