Elaine De Gruyter1, Greg Ford2, Bill Stavreski2. 1. EY, Economics, Regulation and Policy, Melbourne, Vic., Australia. Electronic address: elaine.de.gruyter@au.ey.com. 2. Heart Foundation (Victoria), Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation can reduce mortality, improve cardiac risk factor profile and reduce readmissions; yet uptake remains low at 30%. This research aims to investigate the social and economic impact of increasing the uptake of cardiac rehabilitation in Victoria, Australia using cost benefit analysis (CBA). METHODS: Cost benefit analysis has been undertaken over a 10-year period to analyse three scenarios: (1) Base Case: 30% uptake; (2) Scenario 1: 50% uptake; and (3) Scenario 2: 65% uptake. Impacts considered include cardiac rehabilitation program costs, direct inpatient costs, other healthcare costs, burden of disease, productivity losses, informal care costs and net deadweight loss. RESULTS: There is a net financial saving of $46.7-$86.7 million under the scenarios. Compared to the Base Case, an additional net benefit of $138.9-$227.2 million is expected. This results in a Benefit Cost Ratio of 5.6 and 6.8 for Scenarios 1 and 2 respectively. Disability Adjusted Life Years were 21,117-37,565 years lower than the Base Case. CONCLUSIONS: Greater uptake of cardiac rehabilitation can reduce the burden of disease, directly translating to benefits for society and the economy. This research supports the need for greater promotion, routine referral to be made standard practice and implementation of reforms to boost uptake.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation can reduce mortality, improve cardiac risk factor profile and reduce readmissions; yet uptake remains low at 30%. This research aims to investigate the social and economic impact of increasing the uptake of cardiac rehabilitation in Victoria, Australia using cost benefit analysis (CBA). METHODS: Cost benefit analysis has been undertaken over a 10-year period to analyse three scenarios: (1) Base Case: 30% uptake; (2) Scenario 1: 50% uptake; and (3) Scenario 2: 65% uptake. Impacts considered include cardiac rehabilitation program costs, direct inpatient costs, other healthcare costs, burden of disease, productivity losses, informal care costs and net deadweight loss. RESULTS: There is a net financial saving of $46.7-$86.7 million under the scenarios. Compared to the Base Case, an additional net benefit of $138.9-$227.2 million is expected. This results in a Benefit Cost Ratio of 5.6 and 6.8 for Scenarios 1 and 2 respectively. Disability Adjusted Life Years were 21,117-37,565 years lower than the Base Case. CONCLUSIONS: Greater uptake of cardiac rehabilitation can reduce the burden of disease, directly translating to benefits for society and the economy. This research supports the need for greater promotion, routine referral to be made standard practice and implementation of reforms to boost uptake.
Authors: Catherine Giuliano; Belinda J Parmenter; Michael K Baker; Braden L Mitchell; Andrew D Williams; Katie Lyndon; Tarryn Mair; Andrew Maiorana; Neil A Smart; Itamar Levinger Journal: Clin Med Insights Cardiol Date: 2017-06-12
Authors: Jing Ma; Jian Wei Zhang; Hua Li; Lian Shan Zhao; Ai Ying Guo; Zai Hao Chen; Wen Yuan; Tian Ming Gao; Ya Meng Li; Cui Han Li; Hong Wei Wang; Bo Song; Yu Long Lu; Mei Ze Cui; Qiu Yang Wei; Shao Jun Lyu; Heng Chan Yin Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Gemma E Shields; Adrian Wells; Patrick Doherty; Anthony Heagerty; Deborah Buck; Linda M Davies Journal: Heart Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Rutger W M Brouwers; Esmée K J van der Poort; Hareld M C Kemps; M Elske van den Akker-van Marle; Jos J Kraal Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-12-01