Delaney M Curran1, Brian Y Kim1,2, Natasha Withers3, Donald S Shepard4, Christopher J Brady1,2,5. 1. Division of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 2. Division of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 3. Ambulatory Care, Porter Medical Center, University of Vermont Health Network, Middlebury, Vermont, USA. 4. Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Abstract
Introduction: The use of telehealth screening (TS) for diabetic retinopathy (DR) consists of fundus photography in a primary care setting with remote interpretation of images. TS for DR is known to increase screening utilization and reduce vision loss compared with standard in-person conventional diabetic retinal exam (CDRE). Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor intravitreal injections have become standard of care for the treatment of DR, but they are expensive. We investigated whether TS for DR is cost-effective when DR management includes intravitreal injections using national data. Materials and Methods: We compared cost and effectiveness of TS and CDRE using decision-tree analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis with Monte Carlo simulation. We considered the disability weight (DW) of vision impairment and 1-year direct medical costs of managing patients based on Medicare allowable rates and clinical trial data. Primary outcomes include incremental costs and incremental effectiveness. Results: The average annual direct cost of eye care was $196 per person for TS and $275 for CDRE. On average, TS saves $78 (28%) compared with CDRE and was cost saving in 88.9% of simulations. The average DW outcome was equivalent in both groups. Discussion: Although this study was limited by a 1-year time horizon, it provides support that TS for DR can reduce costs of DR management despite expensive treatment with anti-VEGF agents. TS for DR is equally effective as CDRE at preserving vision. Conclusions: Annual TS for DR is cost saving and equally effective compared with CDRE given a 1-year time horizon.
Introduction: The use of telehealth screening (TS) for diabetic retinopathy (DR) consists of fundus photography in a primary care setting with remote interpretation of images. TS for DR is known to increase screening utilization and reduce vision loss compared with standard in-person conventional diabetic retinal exam (CDRE). Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor intravitreal injections have become standard of care for the treatment of DR, but they are expensive. We investigated whether TS for DR is cost-effective when DR management includes intravitreal injections using national data. Materials and Methods: We compared cost and effectiveness of TS and CDRE using decision-tree analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis with Monte Carlo simulation. We considered the disability weight (DW) of vision impairment and 1-year direct medical costs of managing patients based on Medicare allowable rates and clinical trial data. Primary outcomes include incremental costs and incremental effectiveness. Results: The average annual direct cost of eye care was $196 per person for TS and $275 for CDRE. On average, TS saves $78 (28%) compared with CDRE and was cost saving in 88.9% of simulations. The average DW outcome was equivalent in both groups. Discussion: Although this study was limited by a 1-year time horizon, it provides support that TS for DR can reduce costs of DR management despite expensive treatment with anti-VEGF agents. TS for DR is equally effective as CDRE at preserving vision. Conclusions: Annual TS for DR is cost saving and equally effective compared with CDRE given a 1-year time horizon.
Authors: David B Rein; John S Wittenborn; Xinzhi Zhang; Benjamin A Allaire; Michael S Song; Ronald Klein; Jinan B Saaddine Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Anh-Danh T Phan; Jacob J Koczman; Chi-Wah Yung; Allison A Pernic; Eric D Doerr; Mark M Kaehr Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Mark B Horton; Christopher J Brady; Jerry Cavallerano; Michael Abramoff; Gail Barker; Michael F Chiang; Charlene H Crockett; Seema Garg; Peter Karth; Yao Liu; Clark D Newman; Siddarth Rathi; Veeral Sheth; Paolo Silva; Kristen Stebbins; Ingrid Zimmer-Galler Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Carl W Baker; Adam R Glassman; Wesley T Beaulieu; Andrew N Antoszyk; David J Browning; Kakarla V Chalam; Sandeep Grover; Lee M Jampol; Chirag D Jhaveri; Michele Melia; Cynthia R Stockdale; Daniel F Martin; Jennifer K Sun Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ann P Murchison; Lisa Hark; Laura T Pizzi; Yang Dai; Eileen L Mayro; Philip P Storey; Benjamin E Leiby; Julia A Haller Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2017-07-31