Literature DB >> 26908086

Massachusetts Health Reform Cost Less and Was More Effective for Uninsured Individuals With Venous Thromboembolism: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Alok Kapoor1, Nicholas Shaffer, Amresh Hanchate, Mark Roberts, Kenneth Smith.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) require access to comprehensive physician and pharmacy benefits to prevent recurrence and hemorrhage. Before 2006, Massachusetts provided these benefits through a program restricted to safety net hospitals called Free Care. Providing portable health insurance through Massachusetts health reform could improve outcomes for uninsured with VTE but its cost-effectiveness is unknown. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We constructed a Markov decision analysis model comparing our conceptualization of the Massachusetts health reform (health reform strategy) to no health reform strategy for a patient beginning warfarin for new episode of VTE. In the model, a patient may develop recurrent VTE or develop hemorrhage or stop warfarin after 6 months if no event occurs. To measure effectiveness, we analyzed laboratory data from Boston Medical Center, the largest safety net hospital in Massachusetts. Specifically, we measured the probability of having a subtherapeutic warfarin level for patients newly insured compared with those on Free Care prereform adjusting for secular trends. To calculate inpatient costs, we used the Health Care Utilization Project. We then calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the health reform strategy adjusted to 2014 USD per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and performed sensitivity analyses. The health reform strategy cost less and gained more QALYs than the no health reform strategy. Our result was most sensitive to the odds that Health Reform protected against a subtherapeutic warfarin level, the cost of Health Reform, and the percentage of total health care costs attributable to VTE in Massachusetts.
CONCLUSION: The health reform strategy cost less and was more effective than the no health reform strategy for patients with VTE.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26908086      PMCID: PMC4833580          DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000506

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  21 in total

1.  Income levels of bad-debt and free-care patients in Massachusetts hospitals.

Authors:  J S Weissman; P Dryfoos; K London
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  1999 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

Authors:  E Fenwick; K Claxton; M Sculpher
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 3.  The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism in the community.

Authors:  John A Heit
Journal:  Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 8.311

Review 4.  Much cheaper, almost as good: decrementally cost-effective medical innovation.

Authors:  Aaron L Nelson; Joshua T Cohen; Dan Greenberg; David M Kent
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-03       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 5.  Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  M C Weinstein; J E Siegel; M R Gold; M S Kamlet; L B Russell
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-10-16       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Changes in mortality after Massachusetts health care reform: a quasi-experimental study.

Authors:  Benjamin D Sommers; Sharon K Long; Katherine Baicker
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-05-06       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Cost-effectiveness of self-managed versus physician-managed oral anticoagulation therapy.

Authors:  Dean A Regier; Rubina Sunderji; Larry D Lynd; Kenneth Gin; Carlo A Marra
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2006-06-20       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  Cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin for treatment of pulmonary embolism.

Authors:  Drahomir Aujesky; Kenneth J Smith; Jacques Cornuz; Mark S Roberts
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 9.410

9.  Which approach to anticoagulation management is best? Illustration of an interactive mathematical model to support informed decision making.

Authors:  Gregory P Samsa; David B Matchar; David L Phillips; Jack McGrann
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 10.  Anticoagulation intensity and outcomes among patients prescribed oral anticoagulant therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Natalie Oake; Alison Jennings; Alan J Forster; Dean Fergusson; Steve Doucette; Carl van Walraven
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 8.262

View more
  1 in total

1.  SUPPORT-AF III: supporting use of AC through provider prompting about oral anticoagulation therapy for AF.

Authors:  Hammad Sadiq; Laboni Hoque; Qiming Shi; Gordon Manning; Sybil Crawford; David McManus; Alok Kapoor
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 2.300

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.