Return on Investment in Endovascular Care: The Case of Endovascular Reperfusion Alberta.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the return on investment (ROI) from the Endovascular Reperfusion Alberta (ERA) project, a provincially funded population-wide strategy to improve access to endovascular therapy (EVT), to inform policy regarding sustainability. METHODS: We calculated net benefit (NB) as benefit minus cost and ROI as benefit divided by cost. Patients treated with EVT and their controls were identified from the ESCAPE trial. Using the provincial administrative databases, their health services utilization (HSU), including inpatient, outpatient, physician, long-term care services, and prescription drugs, were compared. This benefit was then extrapolated to the number of patients receiving EVT increased in 2018 and 2019 by the ERA implementation. We used three time horizons, including short (90 days), medium (1 year), and long-term (5 years). RESULTS: EVT was associated with a reduced gross HSU cost for all the three time horizons. Given the total costs of ERA were $2.04 million in 2018 ($11,860/patient) and $3.73 million in 2019 ($17,070/patient), NB per patient in 2018 (2019) was estimated at -$7,313 (-$12,524), $54,592 ($49,381), and $47,070 ($41,859) for short, medium, and long-term time horizons, respectively. Total NB for the province in 2018 (2019) were -$1.26 (-$2.74), $9.40 ($10.78), and $8.11 ($9.14) million; ROI ratios were 0.4 (0.3), 5.6 (3.9) and 5.0 (3.5). Probabilities of ERA being cost saving were 39% (31%), 97% (96%), and 94% (91%), for short, medium, and long-term time horizons, respectively. CONCLUSION: The ERA program was cost saving in the medium and long-term time horizons. Results emphasized the importance of considering a broad range of HSU and long-term impact to capture the full ROI.

Cost-effectiveness of home blood pressure telemonitoring and case management in the secondary prevention of cerebrovascular disease in Canada.

Home blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring and pharmacist case management reduce BP, but cost-effectiveness assessments are mixed. We examined the incremental cost-effectiveness of this intervention vs usual care in Canadians with cerebrovascular disease. A Markov decision model cost-utility analysis examining community-residing, high-risk patients with a recent nondisabling cerebrovascular event was created. A lifetime time horizon and health care payer perspective were used. Achieved BP, future cardiovascular risks, and attendant consequences on quality-adjusted life years and Canadian dollar costs were modeled. BP telemonitoring was assumed to occur for 3 months, then quarterly. Life tables were used to determine overall mortality, adjusted by cardiovascular disease mortality. Relative efficacies of intervention-associated BP lowering, resource use, and costs were obtained from Canadian published literature. Reduction in systolic BP of 9.7 mmHg was used in the base case; subsequently, robust sensitivity analyses were conducted. The results showed that, over the lifetime horizon, telemonitoring with case management led to net health care savings of $1929 Canadian and increased per-patient QALYs by 0.83. These findings were robust to sensitivity analysis, with the intervention remaining dominant or highly cost-effective. Increasing telemonitoring costs by 50% still resulted in the intervention being dominant; if the costs of telemonitoring plus case management were 2-3 times base case cost, incremental cost-effectiveness was $1200-$4700 per quality-adjusted life year gained. In conclusion, home BP telemonitoring and pharmacist case management poststroke lowered costs and improved QALYs. Strategies and funding for broad implementation of this dominant strategy should be implemented.