Richard E Nelson1, Nicholas Okon2, Alexandra C Lesko3, Jennifer J Majersik4, Archit Bhatt3, Elizabeth Baraban3. 1. Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Health Care System, USA Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, USA richard.nelson@utah.edu. 2. Northwest Stroke Solutions, USA. 3. Providence Brain and Spine Institute, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Utah School of Medicine, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Using real-world data from the Providence Oregon Telestroke Network, we examined the cost-effectiveness of telestroke from both the spoke and hub perspectives by level of financial responsibility for these costs and by patient stroke severity. METHODS: We constructed a decision analytic model using patient-level clinical and financial data from before and after telestroke implementation. Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and was combined with cost per patient outcomes to calculate incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Outcomes were generated (a) overall; (b) by stroke severity, via the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at time of arrival, defined as low (<5), medium (5-14) and high (>15); and (c) by percentage of implementation costs paid by spokes (0%, 50%, 100%). RESULTS: Data for 864 patients, 98 pre- and 766 post-implementation, were used to parameterize our model. From the spoke perspective, telestroke had ICERs of US$1322/QALY, US$25,991/QALY and US$50,687/QALY when responsible for 0%, 50%, and 100% of these costs, respectively. Overall, the ICER ranged from US$22,363/QALY to US$71,703/QALY from the hub perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support previous models showing good value, overall. However, costs and ICERs varied by stroke severity, with telestroke being most cost-effective for severe strokes. Telestroke was least cost effective for the spokes if spokes paid for more than half of implementation costs.
INTRODUCTION: Using real-world data from the Providence Oregon Telestroke Network, we examined the cost-effectiveness of telestroke from both the spoke and hub perspectives by level of financial responsibility for these costs and by patientstroke severity. METHODS: We constructed a decision analytic model using patient-level clinical and financial data from before and after telestroke implementation. Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and was combined with cost per patient outcomes to calculate incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Outcomes were generated (a) overall; (b) by stroke severity, via the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at time of arrival, defined as low (<5), medium (5-14) and high (>15); and (c) by percentage of implementation costs paid by spokes (0%, 50%, 100%). RESULTS: Data for 864 patients, 98 pre- and 766 post-implementation, were used to parameterize our model. From the spoke perspective, telestroke had ICERs of US$1322/QALY, US$25,991/QALY and US$50,687/QALY when responsible for 0%, 50%, and 100% of these costs, respectively. Overall, the ICER ranged from US$22,363/QALY to US$71,703/QALY from the hub perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support previous models showing good value, overall. However, costs and ICERs varied by stroke severity, with telestroke being most cost-effective for severe strokes. Telestroke was least cost effective for the spokes if spokes paid for more than half of implementation costs.
Authors: Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Kea Turner; Dunc Williams; Nimmy Babu; Steve North; Christopher M Shea Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Centaine L Snoswell; Monica L Taylor; Tracy A Comans; Anthony C Smith; Leonard C Gray; Liam J Caffery Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Dominique A Cadilhac; Lauren Sheppard; Joosup Kim; Elise Tan; Lan Gao; Garveeta Sookram; Helen M Dewey; Christopher F Bladin; Marj Moodie Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Ann Van de Winckel; James R Carey; Teresa A Bisson; Elsa C Hauschildt; Christopher D Streib; William K Durfee Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 4.262