Cost-effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery: Learning from 15,856 patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery are exposed to a high risk of death. A quality improvement (QI) programme to improve the survival for these patients was evaluated in the Enhanced Peri-Operative Care for High-risk patients (EPOCH) trial. This study aims to assess its cost-effectiveness versus usual care from a UK health service perspective. METHODS: Data collected in a subsample of trial participants were employed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the QI programme and usual care within the 180-day trial period, with results also extrapolated to estimate lifetime costs and QALYs. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The probability of being cost-effective was determined for different cost-effectiveness thresholds (£13,000 to £30,000 per QALY). Analyses were performed for lower-risk and higher-risk subgroups based on the number of surgical indications (single vs multiple). RESULTS: Within the trial period, QI was more costly (£467) but less effective (-0.002 QALYs). Over a lifetime, it was more costly (£1395) and more effective (0.018 QALYs), but did not appear to be cost-effective (ICER: £77,792 per QALY, higher than all cost-effectiveness thresholds; probability of being cost-effective: 28.7%-43.8% across the thresholds). For lower-risk patients, QI was more costly and less effective both within trial period and over a lifetime and it did not appear to be cost-effective. For higher-risk patients, it was more costly and more effective, and did not appear cost-effective within the trial period (ICER: £158,253 per QALY) but may be cost-effective over a lifetime (ICER: £14,293 per QALY). CONCLUSION: The QI programme does not appear cost-effective at standard cost-effectiveness thresholds. For patients with multiple surgical indications, this programme is potentially cost-effective over a lifetime, but this is highly uncertain.

Value-Based Emergency Management.

This article touches on the complex and decentralized network that is the US health care system and how important it is to include emergency management in this network. By aligning the overarching incentives of opposing health care organizations, emergency management can become resilient to up-and-coming changes in reimbursement, staffing, and network ownership. Coalitions must grasp the opportunity created by changes in value-based purchasing and impending Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services emergency management rules to engage payers, physicians, and executives. Hope and faith in doing good is no longer enough for preparedness and health care coalitions; understanding how physicians are employed and health care is delivered and paid for is now necessary. Incentivizing preparedness through value-based compensation systems will become the new standard for emergency management.

Capacity of public health surveillance to comply with revised international health regulations, USA.

Public health surveillance is essential for detecting and responding to infectious diseases and necessary for compliance with the revised International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005. To assess reporting capacities and compliance with IHR of all 50 states and Washington, DC, we sent a questionnaire to respective epidemiologists; 47 of 51 responded. Overall reporting capacity was high. Eighty-one percent of respondents reported being able to transmit notifications about unknown or unexpected events to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) daily. Additionally, 80% of respondents reported use of a risk assessment tool to determine whether CDC should be notified of possible public health emergencies. These findings suggest that most states have systems in place to ensure compliance with IHR. However, full state-level compliance will require additional efforts.