Personal and societal costs of multiple sclerosis in the UK: A population-based MS Registry study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate through survey and data linkage, healthcare resource use and costs (except drugs), including who bears the cost, of multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom by disease severity and type. METHODS: The United Kingdom Multiple Sclerosis Register deployed a cost of illness survey, completed by people with multiple sclerosis and linked this with data within the United Kingdom Multiple Sclerosis Register and from their hospital records. Resource consumption was categorised as being medical or non-medical and costed by National Health Service and social services estimates for 2018. RESULTS: We calculated £509,003 in non-medical costs over a year and £435,488 in medical costs generated over 3 months. People with multiple sclerosis reported self-funding 75% of non-medical costs with non-medical interventions having long-term potential benefits. Costs increased with disability as measured by patient-reported Expanded Disability Status Score and Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale, with Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale physical being a more powerful predictor of costs than the patient-reported Expanded Disability Status Score. Two distinct groups were identified: medical and non-medical interventions (n = 138); and medical interventions only (n = 399). The medical and non-medical group reported increased disease severity and reduced employment but incurred 80% more medical costs per person than the medical-only group. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of disability in driving costs is illustrated with balance between medical and non-medical costs consistent with the United Kingdom health environment. People with multiple sclerosis and their families fund a considerable proportion of non-medical costs but non-medical interventions with longer term impact could affect future medical costs.

Effects and costs of implementing predictive risk stratification in primary care: a randomised stepped wedge trial.

AIM: We evaluated the introduction of a predictive risk stratification model (PRISM) into primary care. Contemporaneously National Health Service (NHS) Wales introduced Quality and Outcomes Framework payments to general practices to focus care on those at highest risk of emergency admission to hospital. The aim of this study was to evaluate the costs and effects of introducing PRISM into primary care. METHODS: Randomised stepped wedge trial with 32 general practices in one Welsh health board. The intervention comprised: PRISM software; practice-based training; clinical support through two 'general practitioner (GP) champions' and technical support. The primary outcome was emergency hospital admissions. RESULTS: Across 230 099 participants, PRISM implementation increased use of health services: emergency hospital admission rates by 1 % when untransformed (while change in log-transformed rate ΔL=0.011, 95% CI 0.010 to 0.013); emergency department (ED) attendance rates by untransformed 3 % (while ΔL=0.030, 95% CI 0.028 to 0.032); outpatient visit rates by untransformed 5 % (while ΔL=0.055, 95% CI 0.051 to 0.058); the proportion of days with recorded GP activity by untransformed 1 % (while ΔL=0.011, 95% CI 0.007 to 0.014) and time in hospital by untransformed 3 % (while ΔL=0.029, 95% CI 0.026 to 0.031). Thus NHS costs per participant increased by £76 (95% CI £46 to £106). CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of PRISM resulted in a statistically significant increase in emergency hospital admissions and use of other NHS services without evidence of benefits to patients or the NHS.

The epidemiology, healthcare and societal burden and costs of asthma in the UK and its member nations: analyses of standalone and linked national databases.

BACKGROUND: There are a lack of reliable data on the epidemiology and associated burden and costs of asthma. We sought to provide the first UK-wide estimates of the epidemiology, healthcare utilisation and costs of asthma. METHODS: We obtained and analysed asthma-relevant data from 27 datasets: these comprised national health surveys for 2010-11, and routine administrative, health and social care datasets for 2011-12; 2011-12 costs were estimated in pounds sterling using economic modelling. RESULTS: The prevalence of asthma depended on the definition and data source used. The UK lifetime prevalence of patient-reported symptoms suggestive of asthma was 29.5 % (95 % CI, 27.7-31.3; n = 18.5 million (m) people) and 15.6 % (14.3-16.9, n = 9.8 m) for patient-reported clinician-diagnosed asthma. The annual prevalence of patient-reported clinician-diagnosed-and-treated asthma was 9.6 % (8.9-10.3, n = 6.0 m) and of clinician-reported, diagnosed-and-treated asthma 5.7 % (5.7-5.7; n = 3.6 m). Asthma resulted in at least 6.3 m primary care consultations, 93,000 hospital in-patient episodes, 1800 intensive-care unit episodes and 36,800 disability living allowance claims. The costs of asthma were estimated at least £1.1 billion: 74 % of these costs were for provision of primary care services (60 % prescribing, 14 % consultations), 13 % for disability claims, and 12 % for hospital care. There were 1160 asthma deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma is very common and is responsible for considerable morbidity, healthcare utilisation and financial costs to the UK public sector. Greater policy focus on primary care provision is needed to reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations, hospitalisations and deaths, and reduce costs.

Estimating the incidence, prevalence and true cost of asthma in the UK: secondary analysis of national stand-alone and linked databases in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales-a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma is now one of the most common long-term conditions in the UK. It is therefore important to develop a comprehensive appreciation of the healthcare and societal costs in order to inform decisions on care provision and planning. We plan to build on our earlier estimates of national prevalence and costs from asthma by filling the data gaps previously identified in relation to healthcare and broadening the field of enquiry to include societal costs. This work will provide the first UK-wide estimates of the costs of asthma. In the context of asthma for the UK and its member countries (ie, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), we seek to: (1) produce a detailed overview of estimates of incidence, prevalence and healthcare utilisation; (2) estimate health and societal costs; (3) identify any remaining information gaps and explore the feasibility of filling these and (4) provide insights into future research that has the potential to inform changes in policy leading to the provision of more cost-effective care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Secondary analyses of data from national health surveys, primary care, prescribing, emergency care, hospital, mortality and administrative data sources will be undertaken to estimate prevalence, healthcare utilisation and outcomes from asthma. Data linkages and economic modelling will be undertaken in an attempt to populate data gaps and estimate costs. Separate prevalence and cost estimates will be calculated for each of the UK-member countries and these will then be aggregated to generate UK-wide estimates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals have been obtained from the NHS Scotland Information Services Division's Privacy Advisory Committee, the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Collaboration Review System, the NHS South-East Scotland Research Ethics Service and The University of Edinburgh's Centre for Population Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee. We will produce a report for Asthma-UK, submit papers to peer-reviewed journals and construct an interactive map.

Cohort profile: the housing regeneration and health study.

A cohort comprising residents of a housing regeneration and health programme was created from routinely collected data using a system which allows us to anonymously link housing data to individuals and their health. The regeneration programme incorporating four rolling work packages runs from 2009 to 2014. The main intervention cohort we describe here contains the 18 312 residents of 9051 residences at baseline. The cohort will be followed continuously through routine health data (demographics, mortality, hospital admissions and general practitioner records including prescriptions) with periodic updates of housing regeneration intervention data. Here, we describe the baseline data for the primary health outcomes of emergency hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions and injuries for those aged ≥60 years. We will compare the health of residents within the homes before and after the housing regeneration work has taken place, and we will calculate the change in health service costs with use of hospital and General Practitioners (GP) services. We will also use a difference in differences approach to assess changes in comparison with comparator cohorts. These data will be accessible at the end of the study period in 2016. Further information about this study can be obtained from Ronan Lyons; r.a.lyons@swansea.ac.uk.

Predictive risk stratification model: a progressive cluster-randomised trial in chronic conditions management (PRISMATIC) research protocol.

BACKGROUND: An ageing population increases demand on health and social care. New approaches are needed to shift care from hospital to community and general practice. A predictive risk stratification tool (Prism) has been developed for general practice that estimates risk of an emergency hospital admission in the following year. We present a protocol for the evaluation of Prism. METHODS/DESIGN: We will undertake a mixed methods progressive cluster-randomised trial. Practices begin as controls, delivering usual care without Prism. Practices will receive Prism and training randomly, and thereafter be able to use Prism with clinical and technical support. We will compare costs, processes of care, satisfaction and patient outcomes at baseline, 6 and 18 months, using routine data and postal questionnaires. We will assess technical performance by comparing predicted against actual emergency admissions. Focus groups and interviews will be undertaken to understand how Prism is perceived and adopted by practitioners and policy makers. We will model data using generalised linear models and survival analysis techniques to determine whether any differences exist between intervention and control groups. We will take account of covariates and explanatory factors. In the economic evaluation we will carry out a cost-effectiveness analysis to examine incremental cost per emergency admission to hospital avoided and will examine costs versus changes in primary and secondary outcomes in a cost-consequence analysis. We will also examine changes in quality of life of patients across the risk spectrum. We will record and transcribe focus groups and interviews and analyse them thematically. We have received full ethical and R and D approvals for the study and Information Governance Review Panel (IGRP) permission for the use of routine data. We will comply with the CONSORT guidelines and will disseminate the findings at national and international conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. DISCUSSION: The proposed study will provide information on costs and effects of Prism; how it is used in practice, barriers and facilitators to its implementation; and its perceived value in supporting the management of patients with and at risk of developing chronic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled Clinical Trials ISRCTN no. ISRCTN55538212.