The Cost-Effectiveness of Using PARO, a Therapeutic Robotic Seal, to Reduce Agitation and Medication Use in Dementia: Findings from a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the within-trial costs and cost-effectiveness of using PARO, compared with a plush toy and usual care, for reducing agitation and medication use in people with dementia in long-term care. DESIGN: An economic evaluation, nested within a cluster-randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-eight facilities in South-East Queensland, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 415 residents, all aged 60 years or older, with documented diagnoses of dementia. INTERVENTION: Facilities were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: PARO (individual, nonfacilitated 15-minute sessions, 3 afternoons per week for 10 weeks); plush toy (as per PARO but with artificial intelligence disabled); and usual care. MEASUREMENTS: The incremental cost per Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory-Short Form (CMAI-SF) point averted from a provider's perspective. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (BLINDED FOR REVIEW). RESULTS: For the within-trial costs, the PARO group was $50.47 more expensive per resident compared with usual care, whereas the plush toy group was $37.26 more expensive than usual care. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in agitation levels after the 10-week intervention. The point estimates of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $13.01 for PARO and $12.85 for plush toy per CMAI-SF point averted relative to usual care. CONCLUSION: The plush toy used in this study offered marginally greater value for money than PARO in improving agitation. However, these costs are much lower than values estimated for psychosocial group activities and sensory interventions, suggesting that both a plush toy and the PARO are cost-effective psychosocial treatment options for agitation.

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS IN AUSTRALIA.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine submissions made to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and assess whether the predicted financial impact was associated with a recommendation. The second objective was to assess whether the financial and utilization estimates for listing the proposed medicine were reliable. METHODS: Data were extracted from public summary documents of major submissions considered by the PBAC from 2012 to 2014. Information collected included whether submissions were accepted, rejected, or deferred; estimated use; and financial impact. For those submissions that were recommended in 2012 and listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) by January 2014, a comparison was made between predicted and actual use and cost in 2014, based on PBS utilization. RESULTS: In 2012 to 2014, the PBAC considered 142 unique major submissions; of those, 65 were recommended for listing. A higher financial cost to the government was a statistically significant factor in predicting rejection (p = .004 for cost > AUD 30 million Australian dollars [20.7 million Euros] compared with cost-saving). Of the submissions that were recommended in 2012 and listed by 2014, the actual use was higher than predicted for 5/19 medications. The estimated cost was outside the predicted bracket of cost for 10/19 medications, with 8/19 medications having threefold underestimated expenditure, and 2/19 items having lower than predicted expenditure. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that the predicted financial impact of a medication to the PBS budget is associated with a PBAC recommendation and also highlights that predicted use may not reflect actual prescribing practices.

What does it cost Medicare to diagnose and treat men with localized prostate cancer in the first year?

OBJECTIVE: To estimate costs on the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) attributable to the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS: We used data from a cohort study of 1064 men with localized prostate cancer recruited between 2005 and 2007 by 24 urologists across 10 sites in Queensland, Australia (ProsCan). We estimated the MBS and PBS costs attributable to prostate cancer from the date of initial appointment to 12 months after diagnosis in 2013 Australian dollars using a comparison group without prostate cancer. We used generalized linear modeling to identify key determinants of higher treatment-related costs. RESULTS: From the date of initial appointment to 12 months postdiagnosis, the average MBS costs attributable to prostate cancer were $9,357 (SD $191) per patient. These MBS costs were most sensitive to having private health insurance and the type of primary treatment received. The PBS costs were higher in the control group than in the ProsCan group ($5,641 vs $1,924). CONCLUSIONS: The costs of treating and managing prostate cancer are high and these result in a substantial financial burden for the Australian MBS. Costs attributable to prostate cancer appear to vary widely based on initial treatment and these are likely to increase with the introduction of more expensive services and pharmaceuticals. There is a pressing need for better prognostic tools to distinguish between indolent and aggressive prostate tumors to reduce potential over treatment and help ease the burden of prostate cancer.