Economic evaluation of a population-based osteoporosis intervention for outpatients with non-traumatic non-hip fractures: the "Catch a Break" 1i [type C] FLS.

Fracture liaison services (FLS) are advocated to improve osteoporosis treatment after fragility fracture, but there are few economic analyses of different models. A population-based 1i [=type C] FLS for non-hip fractures was implemented and it costs $44 per patient and it was very cost-effective ($9200 per QALY gained). Small operational changes would convert it from cost-effective to cost-saving. INTRODUCTION: After fragility fracture, <20% of patients receive osteoporosis treatment. FLS are recommended to address this deficit but there are very few economic analyses of different FLS models. Therefore, we conducted an economic analysis of a 1i (=type C) FLS called "Catch a Break (CaB)." METHODS: CaB is a population-based FLS in Alberta, Canada, that case-finds older outpatients with non-traumatic upper extremity, spine, pelvis, or "other" non-hip fractures and provides telephonic outreach and printed educational materials to patients and their physicians. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using Markov decision-analytic models. Costs were expressed in 2014 Canadian dollars and effectiveness based on model simulations of recurrent fractures and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Perspective was healthcare payer; horizon was lifetime; and costs and benefits were discounted 3%. RESULTS: Over 1 year, CaB enrolled 7323 outpatients (mean age 67 years, 75% female, 69% upper extremity) at average cost of $44 per patient. Compared with usual care, CaB increased rates of bisphosphonate treatment by 4.3 to 17.5% (p < 0.001). Over their lifetime, for every 10,000 patients enrolled in CaB, 4 hip fractures (14 fractures total) would be avoided and 12 QALYs gained. Compared with usual care, incremental cost-effectiveness of CaB was estimated at $9200 per QALY. CaB was cost-effective in 85% of 10,000 probabilistic simulations. Sensitivity analyses showed if "other" fractures were excluded and intervention costs reduced 25% that CaB would become cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively inexpensive population-based 1i (=type C) FLS was implemented in Alberta and it was very cost-effective. If CaB excluded "other" fractures and decreased intervention costs by 25%, it would be cost-saving, as would any FLS that was more effective and less expensive.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adding pharmacists to primary care teams to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with Type 2 diabetes: results from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adding pharmacists to primary care teams significantly improved blood pressure control and reduced predicted 10-year cardiovascular risk in patients with Type 2 diabetes. This pre-specified sub-study evaluated the economic implications of this cardiovascular risk reduction strategy. METHODS: One-year outcomes and healthcare utilization data from the trial were used to determine cost-effectiveness from the public payer perspective. Costs were expressed in 2014 Canadian dollars and effectiveness was based on annualized risk of cardiovascular events derived from the UKPDS Risk Engine. RESULTS: The 123 evaluable trial patients included in this analysis had a mean age of 62 ( ± 11) years, 38% were men, and mean diabetes duration was 6 ( ± 7) years. Pharmacists provided 3.0 ( ± 1.9) hours of additional service to each intervention patient, which cost $226 ( ± $1143) per patient. The overall one-year per-patient costs for healthcare utilization were $190 lower in the intervention group compared with usual care [95% confidence interval (CI): -$1040, $668). Intervention patients had a significant 0.3% greater reduction in the annualized risk of a cardiovascular event (95% CI: 0.08%, 0.6%) compared with usual care. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the intervention dominated usual care in 66% of 10,000 bootstrap replications. At a societal willingness-to-pay of $4000 per 1% reduction in annual cardiovascular risk, the probability that the intervention was cost-effective compared with usual care reached 95%. A sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation to replace missing data produced similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Within a randomized trial, adding pharmacists to primary care teams was a cost-effective strategy for reducing cardiovascular risk in patients with Type 2 diabetes. In most circumstances, this intervention may also be cost saving.

How much will we pay to increase steps per day? Examining the cost-effectiveness of a pedometer-based lifestyle program in primary care.

We previously demonstrated the Healthy Eating and Active Living for Diabetes (HEALD) intervention was effective for increasing daily steps. Here, we consider the cost-effectiveness of the HEALD intervention implemented in primary care. HEALD was a pedometer-based program for adults with type-2 diabetes in Alberta, Canada completed between January 2010 and September 2012. The main outcome was the change in pedometer-determined steps/day compared to usual care. We estimated total costs per participant for HEALD, and total costs of health care utilization through linkage with administrative health databases. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated with regression models for differences in costs and effects between study groups. The HEALD intervention cost $340 per participant over the 6-month follow-up. The difference in total costs (intervention plus health care utilization) was $102 greater per HEALD participant compared to usual care. The intervention group increased their physical activity by 918 steps/day [95% CI 116, 1666] compared to usual care. The resulting ICER was $111 per 1000 steps/day, less than an estimated cost-effectiveness threshold. Increasing daily steps through an Exercise Specialist-led group program in primary care may be a cost-effective approach towards improving daily physical activity among adults with type-2 diabetes. Alternative delivery strategies may be considered to improve the affordability of this model for primary care.

Cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve quality of osteoporosis care after wrist fracture.

UNLABELLED: In a randomized trial, a multifaceted intervention tripled rates of osteoporosis treatment in older patients with wrist fracture. An economic analysis of the trial now demonstrates that the intervention tested "dominates" usual care: over a lifetime horizon, it reduces fracture, increases quality-adjusted life years, and saves the healthcare system money. INTRODUCTION: In a randomized trial (N = 272), we reported a multifaceted quality improvement intervention directed at older patients and their physicians could triple rates of osteoporosis treatment within 6 months of a wrist fracture when compared with usual care (22% vs 7%). Alongside the trial, we conducted an economic evaluation. METHODS: Using 1-year outcome data from our trial and micro-costing time-motion studies, we constructed a Markov decision-analytic model to determine cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared with usual care over the patients' remaining lifetime. We took the perspective of third-party healthcare payers. In the base case, costs and benefits were discounted at 3% and expressed in 2006 Canadian dollars. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Median age of patients was 60 years, 77% were women, and 72% had low bone mineral density (BMD). The intervention cost $12 per patient. Compared with usual care, the intervention strategy was dominant: for every 100 patients receiving the intervention, three fractures (one hip fracture) would be prevented, 1.1 quality-adjusted life year gained, and $26,800 saved by the healthcare system over their remaining lifetime. The intervention dominated usual care across numerous one-way sensitivity analyses: with respect to cost, the most influential parameter was drug price; in terms of effectiveness, the most influential parameter was rate of BMD testing. The intervention was cost saving in 80% of probabilistic model simulations. CONCLUSIONS: For outpatients with wrist fractures, our multifaceted osteoporosis intervention was cost-effective. Healthcare systems implementing similar interventions should expect to save money, reduce fractures, and gain quality-adjusted life expectancy.

Nurse case-manager vs multifaceted intervention to improve quality of osteoporosis care after wrist fracture: randomized controlled pilot study.

UNLABELLED: Few outpatients with fractures are treated for osteoporosis in the years following fracture. In a randomized pilot study, we found a nurse case-manager could double rates of osteoporosis testing and treatment compared with a proven efficacious quality improvement strategy directed at patients and physicians (57% vs 28% rates of appropriate care). INTRODUCTION: Few patients with fractures are treated for osteoporosis. An intervention directed at wrist fracture patients (education) and physicians (guidelines, reminders) tripled osteoporosis treatment rates compared to controls (22% vs 7% within 6 months of fracture). More effective strategies are needed. METHODS: We undertook a pilot study that compared a nurse case-manager to the multifaceted intervention using a randomized trial design. The case-manager counseled patients, arranged bone mineral density (BMD) tests, and prescribed treatments. We included controls from our first trial who remained untreated for osteoporosis 1-year post-fracture. Primary outcome was bisphosphonate treatment and secondary outcomes were BMD testing, appropriate care (BMD test-treatment if bone mass low), and costs. RESULTS: Forty six patients untreated 1-year after wrist fracture were randomized to case-manager (n = 21) or multifaceted intervention (n = 25). Median age was 60 years and 68% were female. Six months post-randomization, 9 (43%) case-managed patients were treated with bisphosphonates compared with 3 (12%) multifaceted intervention patients (relative risk [RR] 3.6, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.1-11.5, p = 0.019). Case-managed patients were more likely than multifaceted intervention patients to undergo BMD tests (81% vs 52%, RR 1.6, 95%CI 1.1-2.4, p = 0.042) and receive appropriate care (57% vs 28%, RR 2.0, 95%CI 1.0-4.2, p = 0.048). Case-management cost was $44 (CDN) per patient vs $12 for the multifaceted intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A nurse case-manager substantially increased rates of appropriate testing and treatment for osteoporosis in patients at high-risk of future fracture when compared with a multifaceted quality improvement intervention aimed at patients and physicians. Even with case-management, nearly half of patients did not receive appropriate care. TRIAL REGISTRY: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00152321.

Persistence, reproducibility, and cost-effectiveness of an intervention to improve the quality of osteoporosis care after a fracture of the wrist: results of a controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients with fragility fractures are not commonly tested or treated for osteoporosis. Compared to usual care, a previously reported intervention led to 30% absolute increases in osteoporosis treatment within 6 months of wrist fracture. Our objective was to examine longer-term outcomes, reproducibility, and cost-effectiveness of this intervention. METHODS: We conducted an extended analysis of a non-randomized controlled trial with blinded ascertainment of outcomes that compared a multifaceted intervention to usual care controls. Patients >50 years with a wrist fracture treated in two Emergency Departments in the province of Alberta, Canada were included; those already treated for osteoporosis were excluded. Overall, 102 patients participated in this study (55 intervention and 47 controls; median age: 66 years; 78% were women). The interventions consisted of faxed physician reminders that contained osteoporosis treatment guidelines endorsed by opinion leaders and patient counseling. Controls received usual care; at 6-months post-fracture, when the original trial was completed, all controls were crossed-over to intervention. The main outcomes were rates of osteoporosis testing and treatment within 6 months (original study) and 1 year (delayed intervention) of fracture, and 1-year persistence with treatments started. From the perspective of the healthcare payer, the cost-effectiveness (using a Markov decision-analytic model) of the intervention was compared with usual care over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: Overall, 40% of the intervention patients (vs. 10% of the controls) started treatment within 6 months post-fracture, and 82% (95%CI: 67-96%) had persisted with it at 1-year post-fracture. Delaying the intervention to controls for 6 months still led to equivalent rates of bone mineral density (BMD) testing (64 vs. 60% in the original study; p = 0.72) and osteoporosis treatment (43 vs. 40%; p = 0.77) as previously reported. Compared with usual care, the intervention strategy was dominant - per patient, it led to a $13 Canadian (U.S. $9) cost savings and a gain of 0.012 quality-adjusted life years. Base-case results were most sensitive to assumptions about treatment cost; for example, a 50% increase in the price of osteoporosis medication led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $24,250 Canadian (U.S. $17,218) per quality-adjusted life year gained. CONCLUSIONS: A pragmatic intervention directed at patients and physicians led to substantial improvements in osteoporosis treatment, even when delivered 6-months post-fracture. From the healthcare payer's perspective, the intervention appears to have led to both cost-savings and gains in life expectancy.

Outcomes of enhanced physical and occupational therapy service in a nursing home setting.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if 1.0 Full-time Equivalent (FTE) physical therapy (PT) and 1.0 FTE occupational therapy (OT) per 50 beds resulted in differences in functional status for nursing home residents when compared to 1.0 FTE PT and 1.0 FTE OT per 200 beds. DESIGN: Randomized control program evaluation, cost analysis. SETTING: Nursing home in the province of Alberta, Canada. PATIENTS: 115 residents assigned to 1 PT and 1 OT per 50 beds (enhanced group) versus 1 PT and 1 OT per 200 beds (control group) using stratified random allocation by severity of condition. INTERVENTIONS: Both groups received ongoing treatment, follow-up, and restorative interventions, but enhanced group received more hours of service. OUTCOME MEASURES: Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Functional Assessment Measures (FAM), and Clinical Outcome Variables Scale (COVS) recorded at 6-month intervals over a 2-year period. RESULTS: Mean score differences favored the enhanced group for the tests over the 2 years. Significance was observed on FIM Total at 6 and 12 months, FIM Self Care at 6 months, FIM Communication at 24 months, and FIM Psychosocial at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months; FAM Total at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, FAM Self Care at 6 months, FAM Mobility at 12 months, FAM Communication at 6 and 24 months, FAM Psychosocial at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, and FAM Cognition at 6 and 12 months; and COVS at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. A cost analysis demonstrated that PT/OT offered at the 1:50 ratio would result in a cost savings in terms of nursing staff dollars for 30 long-term-care beds of $16,973 over the 2 years of the study compared to the 1:200 ratio. This equates to an annual cost savings of $283 per bed. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the amount of PT/OT can have a positive effect on the functional status and cost of care of long-term care residents.