Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) for osteoporosis screening in US postmenopausal women: is it cost-effective?

Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) is cost-effective when it was incorporated in the routine screening for osteoporosis in community-dwelling women aged ≥ 65 years, which support guidelines, such as the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) for the diagnostic use of VFA as an important addition to fracture risk assessment. INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of VFA as a screening tool to reduce future fracture risk in US community-dwelling women aged ≥ 65 years. METHODS: An individual-level state-transition cost-effectiveness model from a healthcare perspective was constructed using derived data from published literature. The time horizon was lifetime. Five screening strategies were compared, including no screening at all, central dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) only, VFA only, central DXA followed by VFA if the femoral neck T-score (FN-T) ≤ - 1.5, or if the FN-T ≤ - 1.0. Various initiation ages and rescreening intervals were evaluated. Oral bisphosphonate treatment for 5-year periods was assumed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2017 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained) were used as the outcome measure. RESULTS: The incorporation of VFA slightly increased life expectancy by 0.1 years and reduced the number of subsequent osteoporotic fractures by 3.7% and 7.7% compared with using DXA alone and no screening, respectively, leading to approximately 30 billion dollars saved. Regardless of initiation ages and rescreening intervals, central DXA followed by VFA if the FN-T ≤ - 1.0 was most cost-effective ($40,792 per QALY when the screening is initiated at age 65 years and with rescreening every 5 years). Results were robust to change in VF incidence and medication costs. CONCLUSION: In women aged ≥ 65 years, VFA is cost-effective when it was incorporated in routine screening for osteoporosis. Our findings support the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) guidelines for the diagnostic use of VFA as an important addition to fracture risk assessment.

Support of nursing homes in infection management varies by US State Departments of Health.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are problematic in long-term aged care living facilities. In the United States (US), HAIs occur frequently in nursing homes (NHs). Identifying effective practices for state Departments of Health (DOHs) to help NHs improve infection prevention and control and reduce HAIs is necessary. AIM: As a first step, the objective was to systematically examine and catalogue the variations in state intentions and activities related to HAI prevention in NHs. METHODS: An environmental scan of state DOH websites, HAI plans, and HAI state infographics was conducted. Data were collected on 16 items across three domains: (1) intentions to reduce HAIs in NHs, (2) actions to reduce HAIs in NHs, and (3) website usability. FINDINGS: State infection control support for NHs varied widely. Most states (92%) mentioned NHs in their HAI plans and 76% included NHs in their infographic. Half has an HAI prevention advisory council, while one-third had a state HAI prevention collaborative. Only 57% of HAI plans that mentioned NHs included training materials on HAI reduction. The most common training available was on antibiotic stewardship. CONCLUSION: Many US states have room for improvement in the support they provide NHs regarding infection prevention and control. Specific areas of improvement include: (1) increased provision of training materials on HAI reduction, (2) focusing training materials on common HAIs, and (3) NH engagement in collaboratives aimed at HAI reduction. More research is needed linking DOH activities to resident outcomes.

Policies to sustain the nursing workforce: an international perspective.

AIM: Examine metrics and policies regarding nurse workforce across four countries. BACKGROUND: International comparisons inform health policy makers. METHODS: Data from the OECD were used to compare expenditure, workforce and health in: Australia, Portugal, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). Workforce policy context was explored. RESULTS: Public spending varied from less than 50% of gross domestic product in the US to over 80% in the UK. Australia had the highest life expectancy. Portugal has fewer nurses and more physicians. The Australian national health workforce planning agency has increased the scope for co-ordinated policy intervention. Portugal risks losing nurses through migration. In the UK, the economic crisis resulted in frozen pay, reduced employment, and reduced student nurses. In the US, there has been limited scope to develop a significant national nursing workforce policy approach, with a continuation of State based regulation adding to the complexity of the policy landscape. The US is the most developed in the use of nurses in advanced practice roles. Ageing of the workforce is likely to drive projected shortages in all countries. LIMITATIONS: There are differences as well as variation in the overall impact of the global financial crisis in these countries. CONCLUSION: Future supply of nurses in all four countries is vulnerable. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND HEALTH POLICY: Work force planning is absent or restricted in three of the countries. Scope for improved productivity through use of advanced nurse roles exists in all countries.

Kidneys at higher risk of discard: expanding the role of dual kidney transplantation.

Half of the recovered expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys are discarded in the United States. A new kidney allocation system offers kidneys at higher risk of discard, Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI)>85%, to a wider geographic area to promote broader sharing and expedite utilization. Dual kidney transplantation (DKT) based on the KDPI is a potential option to streamline allocation of kidneys which otherwise would have been discarded. To assess the clinical utility of the KDPI in kidneys at higher risk of discard, we analyzed the OPTN/UNOS Registry that included the deceased donor kidneys recovered between 2002 and 2012. The primary outcomes were allograft survival, patient survival and discard rate based on different KDPI categories (<80%, 80-90% and >90%). Kidneys with KDPI>90% were associated with increased odds of discard (OR=1.99, 95% CI 1.74-2.29) compared to ones with KDPI<80%. DKTs of KDPI>90% were associated with lower overall allograft failure (HR=0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.89) and better patient survival (HR=0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.98) compared to single ECD kidneys with KDPI>90%. Kidneys at higher risk of discard may be offered in the up-front allocation system as a DKT. Further modeling and simulation studies are required to determine a reasonable KDPI cutoff percentile.

Effectiveness of bundled behavioural interventions to control healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review of the literature.

Attempts to address the growing problem of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and their impact on healthcare systems have historically relied on infection control policies that recommend good hygiene through standard and enhanced precautions (e.g. barrier precautions and patient isolation). In order for infection control strategies to be effective, however, healthcare workers' behaviour must be congruent with these policies. The purposes of this systematic review were to evaluate studies testing the effectiveness of interventions aimed at changing healthcare workers' behaviour (in reducing HAIs) and to summarize the findings of the studies with the highest quality scores. A total of 33 published studies met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Four of these earned a study quality score of > or =80%. In all four significant reductions in HAI or colonization rates were reported. Behavioural interventions used in these high quality studies included an educational programme (in four), the formation of a multi-disciplinary quality improvement team (three), compliance monitoring and feedback (two), and a mandate to sign a hand hygiene requirement statement (one). In all 33 studies, bundles of two to five interventions were employed, making it difficult to determine the effectiveness of individual interventions. The usefulness of "care bundling" has recently been recognized and recommended by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Considering the multi-factorial nature of the HAI problem and the logistical and ethical difficulties of applying the randomized clinical trial approach to infection control research, it may be necessary to study interventions as sets of practices.

An off-the-shelf help list: a comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analyses.

PURPOSE: The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommends an organized collection of preference measure values for health states that can be used in costutility analyses (CUAs). The authors sought to construct a catalog of preference scores from published CUAs, organize the catalog by clinical categories, and identify methods of preference score assessment. METHOD: The authors systematically searched Medline and other databases to identify original CUAs published through 1997. Information was abstracted on the health state descriptions, corresponding preference scores, method of preference score elicitation, and the source of the estimate. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-eight CUAs were appraised. The authors found 949 health states and corresponding preference scores. Most frequently, health states pertained to the circulatory system (21.7%), health states were valued by experts (35.8%), and values were derived through community-based preference scores (23.5%). CONCLUSION: A catalog of preference scores for health states can be constructed. The catalog (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/organizations/hcra/cuadatabase/ intro.html) may provide a useful reference tool for producers and consumers of CUAs but also underscores the methodologic variation and inconsistencies present in the field.

A comprehensive league table of cost-utility ratios and a sub-table of "panel-worthy" studies.

OBJECTIVES: The authors compiled a comprehensive league table of cost/QALY ratios, and a standardized table of analyses satisfying selected Reference Case criteria from the USPHS Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. METHODS: They identified 228 cost-utility analyses (CUAs) through literature searches, and abstracted data on methods and cost-utility ratios. The subset of "Panel-worthy" analyses used: a societal or broad health-care perspective, community or patient preference weights, net costs, incremental comparisons, and discounting of costs and QALYs. RESULTS: The 228 CUAs included ratios for 647 interventions, ranging from cost-saving to $52,000,000/QALY (median = $12,000/QALY). The standardized table presents 112 ratios that met the "Panel-worthy" criteria, with articles published in recent years more likely to meet all of the criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive league table (available on the Web) provides a useful reference, but ratios may not be comparable because of methodologic variations. The standardized table focuses on studies meeting basic methodologic criteria, potentially allowing for better comparison with future Reference Case analyses. Future studies should investigate the quality of analyses' underlying assumptions in addition to whether certain key procedural protocols were met.

Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology.

PURPOSE: Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) present the value of an intervention as the ratio of its incremental cost divided by its incremental survival benefit, with survival weighted by utilities to produce quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We critically reviewed the CUA literature and its role in informing clinical oncology practice, research priorities, and policy. METHODS: The English-language literature was searched between 1975 and1997 for CUAs. Two readers abstracted from each article descriptions of the clinical situation and patients, the methods used, study perspective, the measures of effectiveness, costs included, discounting, and whether sensitivity analyses were performed. The readers then made subjective quality assessments. We also extracted utility values from the reviewed papers, along with information on how and from whom utilities were measured. RESULTS: Our search yielded 40 studies, which described 263 health states and presented 89 cost-utility ratios. Both the number and quality of studies increased over time. However, many studies are at variance with current standards. Only 20% of studies took a societal perspective, more than a third failed to discount both the costs and QALYs, and utilities were often simply estimates from the investigators or other physicians. CONCLUSION: The cost-utility literature in oncology is not large but is rapidly expanding. There remains much room for improvement in the methodological rigor with which utilities are measured. Considering quality-of-life effects by incorporating utilities into economic studies is particularly important in oncology, where many therapies obtain modest improvements in response or survival at the expense of nontrivial toxicity.

Economic analysis of two models of low-risk maternity care: a freestanding birth center compared to traditional care.

Costs were compared for two models of maternity care for low-risk pregnant women: a freestanding birth center (FSBC) and a medical model of care (MC). Sixty-nine subjects were enrolled in the FSBC group and 77 in the MC. In the FSBC group, prenatal costs were higher (mean difference $751, p

The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976-1997.

PURPOSE: Cost-utility analysis is a type of cost-effectiveness analysis in which health effects are measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Such analyses have become popular for examining the health and economic consequences of health and medical interventions, and they have been recommended by leaders in the field. These recommendations emphasize the importance of good reporting practices. This study determined 1) the quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses through 1997 and 2) whether reporting practices have improved over time. We examined quality of reporting by journal type and number of cost-utility analyses a journal has published. DATA SOURCES: Computerized databases were searched through 1997 for the Medical Subject Headings or text keywords quality-adjusted, QALY, and cost-utility analysis. Published bibliographies of the field were also searched. STUDY SELECTION: Original cost-utility analyses written in English were included. Cost-effectiveness analyses that measured health effects in units other than QALYs and review, editorial, or methodologic articles were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Each of the 228 articles found was audited independently by two trained readers who used a standard data collection form to determine the quality of reporting in several categories: disclosure of funding, framing, reporting of costs, reporting of preference weights, reporting of results, and discussion. RESULTS: The number of cost-utility analyses in the medical literature increased greatly between 1976 and 1997. Analyses covered a wide range of diseases and interventions. Most studies listed modeling assumptions (82%), described the comparator intervention (83%), reported sensitivity analysis (89%), and noted study limitations (84%). Only 52% clearly stated the study perspective; 34% did not disclose the funding source. Methods of reporting costs and preference weights varied widely. The quality of published analyses improved slightly over time and was higher in general clinical journals and in journals that published more of these analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The study results reveal an active and evolving field but also underscore the need for more consistency and clarity in reporting. Better peer review and independent, third-party audits may help in this regard. Future investigations should examine the quality of clinical and economic assumptions used in cost-utility analyses, in addition to whether analysts followed recommended protocols for performance and reporting.

Cost-utility analyses of clinical preventive services: published ratios, 1976-1997.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analyses of clinical preventive services are a potential means to aid public health resource allocation. Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a specific form of cost-effectiveness analysis where results are expressed in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. To increase the transparency and comparability of CUAs, standardization of methods has been recommended. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were as follows: (1) identify published articles with original CUAs of primary and secondary clinical preventive services, (2) summarize the ratios found in these analyses, (3) identify articles employing comparable methods, and (4) explore analytic methods employed over time. METHODS: As part of a larger study we conducted a comprehensive search of published CUAs in the area of clinical preventive services and systematically collected data on the results of the analyses and analytic methods employed. Cost-effectiveness ratios were standardized and organized into a table. RESULTS: We found 50 CUAs pertaining to clinical preventive services (primary, n=22, 44%; and secondary, n=28, 56%) and 174 cost-effectiveness ratios. These ratios ranged from cost-savings up to $27,000,000/QALY, with a median of $14,000/QALY. Only three (6%) of the CUAs met minimum reference case requirements. There was no apparent improvement of methods over time. CONCLUSIONS: Immunizations and chemoprophylaxis have the most favorable cost-effectiveness ratios, and preventive services are more cost-effective when targeted at high-risk populations. However, there is wide variation in the methods used in these analyses. This study allows us to define where improvements in methodologic rigor need to occur, provides a base-line for future audits, and highlights disease areas in clinical preventive services that have been omitted or underevaluated.

Measuring costs in cost-utility analyses. Variations in the literature.

OBJECTIVES: Although cost-utility analysis (CUA) has been recommended by some experts as the preferred technique for economic evaluation, there is controversy regarding what costs should be included and how they should be measured. The purpose of this study was to: a) identify the cost components that have been included in published CUAs; b) catalogue the sources of valuation used; c) examine the methods employed for estimating costs; and d) explore whether methods have changed over time. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of the published literature and systematically collected data on the cost estimation of CUAs. We audited the cost estimates in 228 CUAs. RESULTS: In most studies (99%), analysts included some direct healthcare costs. However, the inclusion of direct non-healthcare and time costs (17%) was generally lacking, as was productivity costs (8%). Only 6% of studies considered future costs in added life-years. In general, we found little evidence of change in methods over time. The most frequently used source for valuation of healthcare services was published estimates (73%). Few studies obtained utilization data from RCTs (10%) or relied on other primary data (23%). About two-thirds of studies conducted sensitivity analyses on cost estimates. CONCLUSIONS: We found wide variations in the estimation of costs in published CUAs. The study underscores the need for more uniformity and transparency in the field, and continued vigilance over cost estimates in CUAs on the part of analysts, reviewers, and journal editors.

Are pharmaceuticals cost-effective? A review of the evidence.

The argument that prescription drugs are cost-effective has been made both by the pharmaceutical industry to support rising drug prices and expenditures, and by advocates of expanded drug coverage for elderly and low-income persons. A new database of 228 published cost-utility analyses sheds light on the issue. According to published data, some drugs do save money or are cost-effective, but the issue depends critically on the context in which the drug is used and the intervention with which it is compared. Cost-utility analyses funded by the drug industry tend to report more favorable results than do those funded by nonindustry sources. Cost-effectiveness analysis can help policymakers to determine whether drugs and other interventions offer value for money.

Maternity care outcomes: assessing a nursing model of care for low-risk pregnancy.

This study compared two models of maternity care for low-risk pregnant women. It was found that freestanding birth centers offer high-quality, cost-effective maternity care. The results of this study strongly support the need to find ways to educate managed care organizations, employers, and the public about both the quality of these services and economic value. This research method may be useful in assessing other emerging models of care.

Exploring cost and quality: community-based versus traditional hospital delivery systems.

This article presents two approaches for comparison studies of cost and quality outcomes between community-based and traditional hospital systems of care. Two methodologies are used specifically to compare midwifery practice in a free-standing birth center to traditional obstetric practice with hospital deliveries. Findings from both studies reinforce the potential cost savings of community-based care without compromising quality. The methodologies used here can be applied to other settings. These approaches are also relevant for comparison studies of cost and quality outcomes between physicians and other nonphysician providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, who frequently staff emerging models of community-based care. Issues related to obtaining comparable clinical and cost data versus reimbursement for both community-based and hospital care will be highlighted.