Postdelivery Intervention to Prevent Type 2 Diabetes and the Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Criteria for Gestational Diabetes.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of our study was to model the costs and benefits of 2 screening criteria for people with gestational diabetes. Because people with a history of gestational diabetes are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes, we modeled the effects of a postdelivery intervention based on the Diabetes Prevention Program, which is offered to all people with a history of gestational diabetes defined by either set of criteria. INTERVENTION APPROACH: We used a probabilistic decision tree model to compare the cost-effectiveness of the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group's (IADPSG's) screening criteria and the Carpenter-Coustan screening criteria for gestational diabetes through delivery and a follow-up period during which people might develop type 2 diabetes after pregnancy. EVALUATION METHODS: The model included perinatal outcomes for the infant and mother and a 10-year postdelivery period to model maternal progression to type 2 diabetes. The model assumed the health care system perspective. People with gestational diabetes received treatment for gestational diabetes during pregnancy, and we assumed that 10% would participate in a Diabetes Prevention Program-based postdelivery intervention to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of each screening strategy in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in 2022 dollars. RESULTS: At 10% participation in a Diabetes Prevention Program-based postdelivery intervention, the Carpenter-Coustan criteria were cost-effective, compared with no screening ($66,085 per QALY). The IADPSG screening criteria were slightly less cost-effective, compared with no screening ($97,878 per QALY) or Carpenter-Coustan screening criteria ($122,279 per QALY). With participation rates of 23% or higher, the IADPSG screening criteria were highly cost-effective ($48,588 per QALY), compared with Carpenter-Coustan screening criteria. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Diagnosing a larger proportion of pregnant people using the IADPSG screening criteria, compared with using Carpenter-Coustan screening criteria, is not cost-effective at low levels of participation. However, with moderate levels of participation (23%) in a Diabetes Prevention Program-based postdelivery intervention, the expanded IADPSG screening criteria are cost-effective and reach up to 4 times as many people as Carpenter-Coustan screening.

Cost-effectiveness of behavioral and pelvic floor muscle therapy combined with midurethral sling surgery vs surgery alone among women with mixed urinary incontinence: results of the Effects of Surgical Treatment Enhanced With Exercise for Mixed Urinary Incontinence randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is prevalent among women, and it has a substantial economic impact. Mixed urinary incontinence, with both stress and urgency urinary incontinence symptoms, has a greater adverse impact on quality of life and is more complex to treat than either stress or urgency urinary incontinence alone. Studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of treating both the stress and urgency urinary incontinence components simultaneously are lacking. OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness was assessed between perioperative behavioral and pelvic floor muscle therapies combined with midurethral sling surgery and midurethral sling surgery alone for the treatment of women with mixed urinary incontinence. The impact of baseline severe urgency urinary incontinence symptoms on cost-effectiveness was assessed. STUDY DESIGN: This prospective economic evaluation was performed concurrently with the Effects of Surgical Treatment Enhanced with Exercise for Mixed Urinary Incontinence randomized trial that was conducted from October 2013 to April 2016. Participants included 480 women with moderate-to-severe stress and urgency urinary incontinence symptoms and at least 1 stress urinary incontinence episode and 1 urgency urinary incontinence episode on a 3-day bladder diary. The primary within-trial analysis was from the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, with a 1-year time horizon. Costs were in 2019 US dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years and reductions in urinary incontinence episodes per day. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of combined treatment vs midurethral sling surgery alone were calculated, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated. Analysis was performed for the overall study population and subgroup of women with Urogenital Distress Inventory irritative scores of ≥50th percentile. RESULTS: The costs for combined treatment were higher than the cost for midurethral sling surgery alone from both the healthcare sector perspective ($5100 [95% confidence interval, $5000-$5190] vs $4470 [95% confidence interval, $4330-$4620]; P<.01) and the societal perspective ($9260 [95% confidence interval, $8590-$9940] vs $8090 [95% confidence interval, $7630-$8560]; P<.01). There was no difference between combined treatment and midurethral sling surgery alone in quality-adjusted life-years (0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.89] vs 0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.89]; P=.90) or mean reduction in urinary incontinence episodes per day (-4.76 [95% confidence interval, -4.51 to 5.00] vs -4.50 [95% confidence interval, -4.25 to 4.75]; P=.13). When evaluating the overall study population, from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, midurethral sling surgery alone was superior to combined treatment. The probability that combined treatment is cost-effective compared with midurethral sling surgery alone is ≤28% from the healthcare sector and ≤19% from the societal perspectives for a willingness-to-pay value of ≤$150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years. For women with baseline Urogenital Distress Inventory irritative scores of ≥50th percentile, combined treatment was cost-effective compared with midurethral sling surgery alone from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives. The probability that combined treatment is cost-effective compared with midurethral sling surgery alone for this subgroup is ≥90% from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, at a willingness-to-pay value of ≥$150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years. CONCLUSION: Overall, perioperative behavioral and pelvic floor muscle therapies combined with midurethral sling surgery was not cost-effective compared with midurethral sling surgery alone for the treatment of women with mixed urinary incontinence. However, combined treatment was of good value compared with midurethral sling surgery alone for women with baseline severe urgency urinary incontinence symptoms.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacral Neuromodulation versus OnabotulinumtoxinA for Refractory Urgency Urinary Incontinence: Results of the ROSETTA Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Sacral neuromodulation and intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection are therapies for refractory urgency urinary incontinence. Sacral neuromodulation involves surgical implantation of a device that can last 4 to 6 years while onabotulinumtoxinA therapy involves serial office injections. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of 2-stage implantation sacral neuromodulation vs 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of urgency urinary incontinence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective economic evaluation was performed concurrent with the ROSETTA (Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral NEuromodulation vs. BoTulinum Toxin Assessment) randomized trial of 386 women with 6 or more urgency urinary incontinence episodes on a 3-day diary. Analysis is from the health care system perspective with primary within-trial analysis for 2 years and secondary 5-year decision analysis. Costs are in 2018 U.S. dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) and reductions in urgency urinary incontinence episodes per day. We generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Two-year costs were higher for sacral neuromodulation than for onabotulinumtoxinA ($35,680 [95% CI 33,920-37,440] vs $7,460 [95% CI 5,780-9,150], p <0.01), persisting through 5 years ($36,550 [95% CI 34,787-38,309] vs $12,020 [95% CI 10,330-13,700], p <0.01). At 2 years there were no differences in mean reduction in urgency urinary incontinence episodes per day (-3.00 [95% CI -3.38 - -2.62] vs -3.12 [95% CI -3.48 - -2.76], p=0.66) or QALYs (1.39 [95% CI 1.34-1.44] vs 1.41 [95% CI 1.36-1.45], p=0.60). The probability that sacral neuromodulation is cost-effective relative to onabotulinumtoxinA is less than 0.025 for all willingness to pay values below $580,000 per QALY at 2 years and $204,000 per QALY at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Although both treatments were effective, the high cost of sacral neuromodulation is not good value for treating urgency urinary incontinence compared to 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA.

Responsiveness and minimally important difference of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

BACKGROUND: Utility preference scores are standardized, generic, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures that quantify disease severity and burden and summarize morbidity on a scale from 0 (death) to 1 (optimal health). Utility scores are widely used to measure HRQOL and in cost-effectiveness research. OBJECTIVE: To determine the responsiveness, validity properties, and minimal important difference (MID) of utility scores, as measured by the Short Form 6D (SF-6D) and EuroQol (EQ-5D), in women undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study combined data from 4 large, U.S., multicenter surgical trials enrolling 1321 women with pelvic organ prolapse. We collected condition-specific quality of life data using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ). A subset of women completed the SF6D; women in 2 trials also completed the EQ5D. Mean utility scores were compared from baseline to 12 months after surgery. Responsiveness was assessed using effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Validity properties were assessed by (1) comparing changes in utility scores at 12 months between surgical successes and failures as defined in each study, and (2) correlating changes in utility scores with changes in the PFDI and PFIQ. MID was estimated using both anchor-based (SF-36 general health global rating scale "somewhat better" vs "no change") and distribution-based methods. RESULTS: The mean SF-6D score improved 0.050, from 0.705 ± 0.126 at baseline to 0.761 ± 0.131 at 12 months (P < .01). The mean EQ-5D score improved 0.060, from 0.810 ± 0.15 at baseline to 0.868 ± 0.15 at 12 months (P < .01). The ES (0.13-0.61) and SRM (0.13-0.57) were in the small-to-moderate range, demonstrating the responsiveness of the SF-6D and EQ-5D similar to other conditions. SF-6D and EQ-5D scores improved more for prolapse reconstructive surgical successes than for failures. The SF-6D and EQ-5D scores correlated with each other (r = 0.41; n = 645) and with condition-specific instruments. Correlations with the PFDI and PFIQ and their prolapse subscales were in the low to moderate range (r = 0.09-0.38), similar to other studies. Using the anchor-based method, the MID was 0.026 for SF-6D and 0.025 for EQ-5D, within the range of MIDs reported in other populations and for other conditions. These findings were supported by distribution-based estimates. CONCLUSION: The SF-6D and EQ-5D have good validity properties and are responsive, preference-based, utility and general HRQOL measures for women undergoing surgical treatment for prolapse. The MIDs for SF-6D and EQ-5D are similar and within the range found for other medical conditions.

Economic Costs Attributed to Diagnosed Diabetes in Each U.S. State and the District of Columbia: 2021.

OBJECTIVE: To update state-specific estimates of diabetes-attributable costs in the U.S. and assess changes in spending from 2013 to 2021. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used an attributable fraction approach to estimate direct medical costs of diagnosed diabetes using the 2021 State Health Expenditure Accounts, the 2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2018-2019 Minimum Data Set. We estimated diabetes-attributable productivity losses from morbidity and mortality using the 2016-2021 National Health Interview Survey and the 2021 mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Costs were adjusted to 2021 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Total diabetes-attributable cost in 2021 was $640 billion ($335 billion in direct medical costs and $305 billion in indirect costs). The median state-level total diabetes-attributable cost was $8.2 billion (range $842 million to $81 billion). The median state-level per-person cost was $21,082, ranging from $17,452 to $37,090. Total diabetes-attributable cost increased by a median of 33% between 2013 and 2021, ranging from 16 to 68% across states. Medical costs increased by 50% overall (range 33-79%) and by 27% (range 15-41%) for per person with diabetes. Costs paid by Medicaid experienced the highest increase between 2013 and 2021 (median 153%; range 41-483%). CONCLUSIONS: State economic costs of diagnosed diabetes are substantial and increased over the last decade. These costs and their growth vary considerably across states. These findings may help state policy makers in developing evidenced-based public health interventions in their respective states to prevent and control the prevalence of diabetes.

Modeling the impact of COVID-19 pandemic-driven increases in alcohol consumption on health outcomes and hospitalization costs in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Alcohol consumption increased in the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Alcohol use disorder (AUD) and risky drinking are linked to harmful health effects. This paper aimed to project future health and cost impacts of shifts in alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: An individual-level simulation model of the long-term drinking patterns for people with life-time AUD was used to simulate 10 000 individuals and project model outcomes to the estimated 25.9 million current drinkers with life-time AUD in the United States. The model considered three scenarios: (1) no change (counterfactual for comparison); (2) increased drinking levels persist for 1 year ('increase-1') and (3) increased drinking levels persist for 5 years ('increase-5'). SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Current drinkers with life-time AUD. MEASUREMENTS: Life expectancy [life-years (LYs)], quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), alcohol-related hospitalizations and associated hospitalization costs and alcohol-related deaths, during a 5-year period. FINDINGS: Short-term increases in alcohol consumption (increase-1 scenario) resulted in a loss of 79 000 [95% uncertainty interval (UI]) 26 000-201 000] LYs, a loss of 332 000 (104 000-604 000) QALYs and 295 000 (82 000-501 000) more alcohol-related hospitalizations, costing an additional $5.4 billion ($1.5-9.3 billion) over 5 years. Hospitalizations for cirrhosis of the liver accounted for approximately $3.0 billion ($0.9-4.8 billion) in hospitalization costs, more than half the increase across all alcohol-related conditions. Health and cost impacts were more pronounced for older age groups (51+), women and non-Hispanic black individuals. Increasing the duration of pandemic-driven increases in alcohol consumption in the increase-5 scenario resulted in larger impacts. CONCLUSIONS: Simulations show that if the increase in alcohol consumption observed in the United States in the first year of the pandemic continues, alcohol-related mortality, morbidity and associated costs will increase substantially over the next 5 years.

Patient Health Utility Equations for a Type 2 Diabetes Model.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the health utility impact of diabetes-related complications in a large, longitudinal U.S. sample of people with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We combined Health Utilities Index Mark 3 data on patients with type 2 diabetes from the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) and Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) trials and their follow-on studies. Complications were classified as events if they occurred in the year preceding the utility measurement; otherwise, they were classified as a history of the complication. We estimated utility decrements associated with complications using a fixed-effects regression model. RESULTS: Our sample included 15,252 persons with an average follow-up of 8.2 years and a total of 128,873 person-visit observations. The largest, statistically significant (P < 0.05) health utility decrements were for stroke (event, -0.109; history, -0.051), amputation (event, -0.092; history, -0.150), congestive heart failure (event, -0.051; history, -0.041), dialysis (event, -0.039), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (event, -0.043; history, -0.025), angina (history, -0.028), and myocardial infarction (MI) (event, -0.028). There were smaller effects for laser photocoagulation and eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Decrements for dialysis history, angina event, MI history, revascularization event, revascularization history, laser photocoagulation event, and hypoglycemia were not significant (P ≥ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: With use of a large study sample and a longitudinal design, our estimated health utility scores are expected to be largely unbiased. Estimates can be used to describe the health utility impact of diabetes complications, improve cost-effectiveness models, and inform diabetes policies.

Estimating costs of diabetes complications in people <65 years in the U.S. using panel data.

AIMS: To estimate the cost of diabetes complications in the United States (U.S.). METHODS: We constructed longitudinal panel data using one of the largest claims databases in the U.S. for privately insured Type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) diabetes patients with a follow-up time of one to ten years. Complication costs were estimated both in years of the first occurrence and in subsequent years, using individual fixed-effects models. All costs were in 2016 dollars. RESULTS: 47,166 people with T1DM and 608,237 with T2DM were included in our study. Aside from organ transplants, which were rare, the estimated average costs for the top three most costly conditions in the first vs. subsequent years were: end stage renal disease ($73,534 vs. $97,431 for T1DM; $94,231 vs. $98,981 for T2DM), congestive heart failure ($41,681 vs. $14,855 for T1DM; $31,202 vs. $7062 for T2DM), and myocardial infarction ($40,899 vs. $9496 for T1DM; $45,251 vs. $8572 for T2DM). For both diabetes types, retinopathy and neuropathy tend to have the lowest cost estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides the latest and most comprehensive cost estimates for a broad set of diabetes complications needed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of interventions for preventing and managing diabetes.

Incidence, deaths, and lifetime costs of injury among American Indians and Alaska Natives.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, the mortality burden of injury is higher among American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) than any other racial/ethnic group, and injury contributes to considerable medical costs, years of potential life lost (YPLL), and productivity loss among AI/AN.This study assessed the economic burden of injuries for AI/AN who are eligible for services through Indian Health Service, analyzing direct medical costs of injury for Indian Health Service's users and years of potential life lost (YPLL) and the value of productivity losses from injury deaths for AI/AN in the Indian Health Service population. METHODS: Injury-related lifetime medical costs were estimated for Indian Health Service users with medically treated injuries using data from the 2011-2015 National Data Warehouse. Productivity costs and YPLL were estimated using data on injury-related deaths among AI/AN in Indian Health Service's 2008-2010 service population. Costs were reported in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: The total estimated costs of injuries per year, including injuries among Indian Health Service users and productivity losses from injury-related deaths, were estimated at $4.5 billion. Lifetime medical costs to treat annual injuries among Indian Health Service users were estimated at $549 million, with the largest share ($131 million) going toward falls, the most frequent injury cause. Total estimated YPLL from AI/AN injury deaths in Indian Health Service's service population were 106,400. YPLL from injury deaths for men (74,000) were 2.2 times YPLL for women (33,000). Productivity losses from all injury-related deaths were $3.9 billion per year. The highest combined lifetime medical and mortality costs were for motor vehicle/traffic injuries, with an estimated cost of $1.6 billion per year. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that targeted injury prevention efforts by Indian Health Service likely contributed to lower rates of injury among AI/AN, particularly for motor vehicle/traffic injuries. However, because of remaining disparities in injury-related outcomes between AI/AN and all races in the United States, Indian Health Service should continue to monitor changes in injury incidence and costs over time, evaluate the impacts of previous injury prevention investments on current incidence and costs, and identify additional injury prevention investment needs.

Estimating State-Level Health Burden of Diabetes: Diabetes-Attributable Fractions for Diabetes Complications.

INTRODUCTION: Limited information is available on the health burden of diabetes at the state level. This study estimated state-specific attributable fractions and the number of cases attributable to diabetes for diabetes-related complications. METHODS: For each state, diabetes-attributable fractions for nine diabetes complications were estimated: three self-reported complications from the 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, hospitalizations with three complications from 2011 to 2014 State Inpatient Databases, and three complications from 2013 Medicare data. Attributable fractions were calculated using RR and diabetes prevalence and the total number of cases using attributable fractions and total number of complications. Adjusted RR of each complication for people with and without diabetes by age and sex was estimated using a generalized linear model. Analyses were conducted in 2015-2016. RESULTS: Median state-level diabetes-attributable fractions for self-reported complications were 0.14 (range, 0.10-0.19) for mobility limitations; 0.13 (range, 0.04-0.21) for limitations in instrumental activities of daily living; and 0.12 (range, 0.06-0.20) for severe visual impairment or blindness. Median state-level diabetes-attributable fractions for diabetes-associated hospitalizations were 0.19 (range, 0.08-0.24) for congestive heart failure; 0.08 (range, 0.02-0.16) for myocardial infarction; and 0.62 (range, 0.46-0.73) for lower extremity amputations. Median state-level diabetes-attributable fractions for complications among Medicare beneficiaries were 0.17 (range, 0.14-0.23) for coronary heart disease; 0.28 (range, 0.24-0.33) for chronic kidney disease; and 0.22 (range, 0.08-0.32) for peripheral vascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes carries a significant health burden, and results vary across states. Efforts to prevent or delay diabetes or to improve diabetes management could reduce the health burden because of diabetes.

Diabetes-Attributable Nursing Home Costs for Each U.S. State.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the diabetes-attributable nursing home costs for each state. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used a diabetes-attributable fraction (AF) approach to estimate nursing home costs attributable to diabetes (in 2013 dollars) in aggregate and per person with diabetes in each state. We calculated the AFs as the difference in diabetes prevalence between nursing homes and the community. We used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2013-2015 Minimum Data Set to estimate the prevalence of diabetes in nursing homes and to adjust for the intensity of care among people with diabetes in nursing homes. Community prevalence was estimated using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). State nursing home expenditures were from the 2013 State Health Expenditure Accounts. RESULTS: The fraction of total nursing home expenditures attributable to diabetes ranged from 12.3% (Illinois) to 22.5% (Washington, DC; median AF of 15.6%, New Jersey). The median AF was highest in the 19-64 years age-group and lowest in the 85 years or older age-group. Nationally, diabetes-attributable nursing home costs were $18.6 billion. State-level diabetes-attributable costs ranged from $21 million in Alaska to $2.0 billion in California. Diabetes-attributable nursing home costs per person ranged from $374 in New Mexico to $1,610 in Washington, DC (median of $799 in Maine). CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates provide state policymakers with an improved understanding of the economic burden of diabetes in each state's nursing homes. These estimates could serve as critical inputs for planning and evaluating diabetes prevention and management interventions that can keep people healthier and living longer in their communities.

Economic Costs Attributable to Diabetes in Each U.S. State.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate direct medical and indirect costs attributable to diabetes in each U.S. state in total and per person with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used an attributable fraction approach to estimate direct medical costs using data from the 2013 State Health Expenditure Accounts, 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' 2013-2014 Minimum Data Set. We used a human capital approach to estimate indirect costs measured by lost productivity from morbidity (absenteeism, presenteeism, lost household productivity, and inability to work) and premature mortality, using the 2008-2013 National Health Interview Survey, 2013 daily housework value data, 2013 mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research, and mean wages from the 2014 Bureau of Labor Statistics. Costs were adjusted to 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: The estimated median state economic cost was $5.9 billion, ranging from $694 million to $55.5 billion, in total and $18,248, ranging from $15,418 to $30,915, per person with diabetes. The corresponding estimates for direct medical costs were $2.8 billion (range $0.3-22.9) and $8,544 (range $6,591-12,953) and for indirect costs were $3.0 billion (range $0.4-32.6) and $9,672 (range $7,133-17,962). In general, the estimated state median indirect costs resulting from morbidity were larger than costs from mortality both in total and per person with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Economic costs attributable to diabetes were large and varied widely across states. Our comprehensive state-specific estimates provide essential information needed by state policymakers to monitor the economic burden of the disease and to better plan and evaluate interventions for preventing type 2 diabetes and managing diabetes in their states.