OBJECTIVE: Diabetic retinopathy, which leads to macular edema and retinal neovascularization, is the leading cause of blindness among working-age Americans. Previous research has demonstrated significant cost savings associated with detection of eye disease in Americans with type I diabetes. However, detection and treatment of eye disease among those with type II diabetes was previously thought not to be cost-saving. Our purpose was to estimate the current and potential federal savings resulting from the screening and treatment of retinopathy in patients with type II diabetes, based on recently available data concerning efficacy of treating both macular edema and neovascularization along with new data on federal budgetary costs of blindness. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used computer modeling, incorporating data from population-based epidemiological studies and multicenter clinical trials. Monte Carlo simulation was used, combined with sensitivity analysis and present value analysis of cost savings. RESULTS: Screening and treatment for eye disease in patients with type II diabetes generates annual savings of $247.9 million to the federal budget and 53,986 person-years of sight, even at current suboptimal (60%) levels of care. If all patients with type II diabetes receive recommended care, the predicted net savings (discounted at 5%) exceeds $472.1 million and 94,304 person-years of sight. Nearly all savings are associated with detection and treatment of diabetic macular edema. Enrolling each additional person with type II diabetes into currently recommended ophthalmological care results in an average net savings of $975/person, even if all costs of care are borne by the federal government. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis indicates that prevention programs aimed at improving eye care for patients with diabetes not only reduce needless vision loss but also will provide a financial return on the investment of public funds.
OBJECTIVE:Diabetic retinopathy, which leads to macular edema and retinal neovascularization, is the leading cause of blindness among working-age Americans. Previous research has demonstrated significant cost savings associated with detection of eye disease in Americans with type I diabetes. However, detection and treatment of eye disease among those with type II diabetes was previously thought not to be cost-saving. Our purpose was to estimate the current and potential federal savings resulting from the screening and treatment of retinopathy in patients with type II diabetes, based on recently available data concerning efficacy of treating both macular edema and neovascularization along with new data on federal budgetary costs of blindness. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used computer modeling, incorporating data from population-based epidemiological studies and multicenter clinical trials. Monte Carlo simulation was used, combined with sensitivity analysis and present value analysis of cost savings. RESULTS: Screening and treatment for eye disease in patients with type II diabetes generates annual savings of $247.9 million to the federal budget and 53,986 person-years of sight, even at current suboptimal (60%) levels of care. If all patients with type II diabetes receive recommended care, the predicted net savings (discounted at 5%) exceeds $472.1 million and 94,304 person-years of sight. Nearly all savings are associated with detection and treatment of diabetic macular edema. Enrolling each additional person with type II diabetes into currently recommended ophthalmological care results in an average net savings of $975/person, even if all costs of care are borne by the federal government. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis indicates that prevention programs aimed at improving eye care for patients with diabetes not only reduce needless vision loss but also will provide a financial return on the investment of public funds.
Authors: Gina Yu; Michael T Aaberg; Tapan P Patel; Rahul S Iyengar; Corey Powell; Annie Tran; Caitlin Miranda; Emma Young; Katarina Demetriou; Laxmi Devisetty; Yannis M Paulus Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 7.389
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