Apostolos Tsiachristas1, Laura Burgers2, Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken2. 1. Nuffield Department of Population Health, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Health Policy and Management, Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: apostolos.tsiachristas@dph.ox.ac.uk. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disease management programs (DMPs) for cardiovascular risk (CVR) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are increasingly implemented in The Netherlands to improve care and patient's health behavior. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide evidence about the (cost-) effectiveness of Dutch DMPs as implemented in daily practice. METHODS: We compared the physical activity, smoking status, quality-adjusted life-years, and yearly costs per patient between the most and the least comprehensive DMPs in four disease categories: primary CVR prevention, secondary CVR prevention, both types of CVR prevention, and COPD (N = 1034). Propensity score matching increased comparability between DMPs. A 2-year cost-utility analysis was performed from the health care and societal perspectives. Sensitivity analysis was performed to estimate the impact of DMP development and implementation costs on cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Patients in the most comprehensive DMPs increased their physical activity more (except for primary CVR prevention) and had higher smoking cessation rates. The incremental QALYs ranged from -0.032 to 0.038 across all diseases. From a societal perspective, the most comprehensive DMPs decreased costs in primary CVR prevention (certainty 57%), secondary CVR prevention (certainty 88%), and both types of CVR prevention (certainty 98%). Moreover, the implementation of comprehensive DMPs led to QALY gains in secondary CVR prevention (certainty 92%) and COPD (certainty 69%). CONCLUSIONS: The most comprehensive DMPs for CVR and COPD have the potential to be cost saving, effective, or cost-effective compared with the least comprehensive DMPs. The challenge for Dutch stakeholders is to find the optimal mixture of interventions that is most suited for each target group.
BACKGROUND: Disease management programs (DMPs) for cardiovascular risk (CVR) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are increasingly implemented in The Netherlands to improve care and patient's health behavior. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide evidence about the (cost-) effectiveness of Dutch DMPs as implemented in daily practice. METHODS: We compared the physical activity, smoking status, quality-adjusted life-years, and yearly costs per patient between the most and the least comprehensive DMPs in four disease categories: primary CVR prevention, secondary CVR prevention, both types of CVR prevention, and COPD (N = 1034). Propensity score matching increased comparability between DMPs. A 2-year cost-utility analysis was performed from the health care and societal perspectives. Sensitivity analysis was performed to estimate the impact of DMP development and implementation costs on cost-effectiveness. RESULTS:Patients in the most comprehensive DMPs increased their physical activity more (except for primary CVR prevention) and had higher smoking cessation rates. The incremental QALYs ranged from -0.032 to 0.038 across all diseases. From a societal perspective, the most comprehensive DMPs decreased costs in primary CVR prevention (certainty 57%), secondary CVR prevention (certainty 88%), and both types of CVR prevention (certainty 98%). Moreover, the implementation of comprehensive DMPs led to QALY gains in secondary CVR prevention (certainty 92%) and COPD (certainty 69%). CONCLUSIONS: The most comprehensive DMPs for CVR and COPD have the potential to be cost saving, effective, or cost-effective compared with the least comprehensive DMPs. The challenge for Dutch stakeholders is to find the optimal mixture of interventions that is most suited for each target group.
Authors: Maria Rubio-Valera; Antoni Serrano-Blanco; Ignacio Aznar-Lou; Edurne Zabaleta-Del-Olmo; Marc Casajuana-Closas; Alba Sánchez-Viñas; Elizabeth Parody-Rúa; Bonaventura Bolíbar; Montserrat Iracheta-Todó; Oana Bulilete; Tomàs López-Jiménez; Haizea Pombo-Ramos; María Victoria Martín Miguel; Rosa Magallón-Botaya; Jose Ángel Maderuelo-Fernández; Emma Motrico; Juan Bellón; Ruth Martí-Lluch Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Abraham Alí; Luis Fernando Giraldo-Cadavid; Elizabeth Karpf; Luz Adriana Quintero; Carlos Eduardo Aguirre; Emily Rincón; Alma Irina Vejarano; Ivonne Perlaza; Carlos A Torres-Duque; Alejandro Casas Journal: Biomedica Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 0.935