Vilma Carande-Kulis1, Judy A Stevens2, Curtis S Florence3, Bonita L Beattie4, Ileana Arias5. 1. Office of the Associate Director for Science, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Mailstop D-72, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA. 2. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop F-62, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA. Electronic address: jas2@cdc.gov. 3. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop F-62, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA. 4. National Council on Aging, 1901 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA. 5. Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: One out of three persons aged 65 and older falls annually and 20% to 30% of falls result in injury. The purpose of this cost-benefit analysis was to identify community-based fall interventions that were feasible, effective, and provided a positive return on investment (ROI). METHODS: A third-party payer perspective was used to determine the costs and benefits of three effective fall interventions. Intervention effectiveness was based on randomized controlled trial results. National data were used to estimate the average annual benefits from averting the direct medical costs of a fall. The net benefit and ROI were estimated for each of the interventions. RESULTS: For the Otago Exercise Program delivered to persons aged 65 and older, the net benefit was $121.85 per participant and the ROI was 36% for each dollar invested. For Otago delivered to persons aged 80 and older, the net benefit was $429.18 and the ROI was 127%. Tai chi: Moving for Better Balance had a net benefit of $529.86 and an ROI of 509% and Stepping On had a net benefit of $134.37 and an ROI of 64%. CONCLUSIONS: All three fall interventions provided positive net benefits. The ROIs showed that the benefits not only covered the implementation costs but also exceeded the expected direct program delivery costs. These results can help health care funders and other community organizations select appropriate and effective fall interventions that also can provide positive returns on investment. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: One out of three persons aged 65 and older falls annually and 20% to 30% of falls result in injury. The purpose of this cost-benefit analysis was to identify community-based fall interventions that were feasible, effective, and provided a positive return on investment (ROI). METHODS: A third-party payer perspective was used to determine the costs and benefits of three effective fall interventions. Intervention effectiveness was based on randomized controlled trial results. National data were used to estimate the average annual benefits from averting the direct medical costs of a fall. The net benefit and ROI were estimated for each of the interventions. RESULTS: For the Otago Exercise Program delivered to persons aged 65 and older, the net benefit was $121.85 per participant and the ROI was 36% for each dollar invested. For Otago delivered to persons aged 80 and older, the net benefit was $429.18 and the ROI was 127%. Tai chi: Moving for Better Balance had a net benefit of $529.86 and an ROI of 509% and Stepping On had a net benefit of $134.37 and an ROI of 64%. CONCLUSIONS: All three fall interventions provided positive net benefits. The ROIs showed that the benefits not only covered the implementation costs but also exceeded the expected direct program delivery costs. These results can help health care funders and other community organizations select appropriate and effective fall interventions that also can provide positive returns on investment. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Authors: Bahman S Roudsari; Beth E Ebel; Phaedra S Corso; Noelle-Angelique M Molinari; Thomas D Koepsell Journal: Injury Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Fuzhong Li; Peter Harmer; K John Fisher; Edward McAuley; Nigel Chaumeton; Elizabeth Eckstrom; Nicole L Wilson Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Inge H J Logghe; Arianne P Verhagen; Arno C H J Rademaker; Petra E M Zeeuwe; Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra; Erik Van Rossum; Marjan J Faber; Jolanda C M Van Haastregt; Bart W Koes Journal: Arch Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Lindy Clemson; Robert G Cumming; Hal Kendig; Megan Swann; Robert Heard; Kirsty Taylor Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: On-Yee Lo; Lisa A Conboy; Alexandra Rukhadze; Caroline Georgetti; Margaret M Gagnon; Brad Manor; Margie E Lachman; Lewis A Lipsitz; Peter M Wayne Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2020-05-15