Estimates of costs for modelling return on investment from smoking cessation interventions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Modelling return on investment (ROI) from smoking cessation interventions requires estimates of their costs and benefits. This paper describes a standardized method developed to source both economic costs of tobacco smoking and costs of implementing cessation interventions for a Europe-wide ROI model [European study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco model (EQUIPTMOD)]. DESIGN: Focused search of administrative and published data. A standardized checklist was developed in order to ensure consistency in methods of data collection. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult population (15+ years) in Hungary, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and England. For passive smoking-related costs, child population (0-15 years) was also included. MEASUREMENTS: Costs of treating smoking-attributable diseases; productivity losses due to smoking-attributable absenteeism; and costs of implementing smoking cessation interventions. FINDINGS: Annual costs (per case) of treating smoking attributable lung cancer were between €5074 (Hungary) and €52 106 (Germany); coronary heart disease between €1521 (Spain) and €3955 (Netherlands); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease between €1280 (England) and €4199 (Spain); stroke between €1829 (Hungary) and €14 880 (Netherlands). Costs (per recipient) of smoking cessation medications were estimated to be: for standard duration of varenicline between €225 (England) and €465 (Hungary); for bupropion between €25 (Hungary) and €220 (Germany). Costs (per recipient) of providing behavioural support were also wide-ranging: one-to-one behavioural support between €34 (Hungary) and €474 (Netherlands); and group-based behavioural support between €12 (Hungary) and €257 (Germany). The costs (per recipient) of delivering brief physician advice were: €24 (England); €9 (Germany); €4 (Hungary); €33 (Netherlands); and €27 (Spain). CONCLUSIONS: Costs of treating smoking-attributable diseases as well as the costs of implementing smoking cessation interventions vary substantially across Hungary, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and England. Estimates for the costs of these diseases and interventions can contribute to return on investment estimates in support of national or regional policy decisions.

Understanding perceived availability and importance of tobacco control interventions to inform European adoption of a UK economic model: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The evidence on the extent to which stakeholders in different European countries agree with availability and importance of tobacco-control interventions is limited. This study assessed and compared stakeholders' views from five European countries and compared the perceived ranking of interventions with evidence-based ranking using cost-effectiveness data. METHODS: An interview survey (face-to-face, by phone or Skype) was conducted between April and July 2014 with five categories of stakeholders - decision makers, service purchasers, service providers, evidence generators and health promotion advocates - from Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. A list of potential stakeholders drawn from the research team's contacts and snowballing served as the sampling frame. An email invitation was sent to all stakeholders in this list and recruitment was based on positive replies. Respondents were asked to rate availability and importance of 30 tobacco control interventions. Kappa coefficients assessed agreement of stakeholders' views. A mean importance score for each intervention was used to rank the interventions. This ranking was compared with the ranking based on cost-effectiveness data from a published review. RESULTS: Ninety-three stakeholders (55.7% response rate) completed the survey: 18.3% were from Germany, 17.2% from Hungary, 30.1% from the Netherlands, 19.4% from Spain, and 15.1% from the UK. Of those, 31.2% were decision makers, 26.9% evidence generators, 19.4% service providers, 15.1% health-promotion advocates, and 7.5% purchasers of services/pharmaceutical products. Smoking restrictions in public areas were rated as the most important intervention (mean score = 1.89). The agreement on availability of interventions between the stakeholders was very low (kappa = 0.098; 95% CI = [0.085, 0.111] but the agreement on the importance of the interventions was fair (kappa = 0.239; 95% CI = [0.208, 0.253]). A correlation was found between availability and importance rankings for stage-based interventions. The importance ranking was not statistically concordant with the ranking based on published cost-effectiveness data (Kendall rank correlation coefficient = 0.40; p-value = 0.11; 95% CI = [- 0.09, 0.89]). CONCLUSIONS: The intrinsic differences in stakeholder views must be addressed while transferring economic evidence Europe-wide. Strong engagement with stakeholders, focussing on better communication, has a potential to mitigate this challenge.

A utility of model input uncertainty analysis in transferring tobacco control-related economic evidence to countries with scarce resources: results from the EQUIPT study.

AIMS: To inform the transferability of tobacco control-related economic evidence to resource-poor countries. METHODS: We ran a univariate sensitivity analysis on a return on investment (ROI) model, the European study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco model (EQUIPTMOD), to identify key input values to which the ROI estimates were sensitive. The EQUIPTMOD used a Markov-based state transition model to estimate the ROI of several tobacco control interventions in five European countries (England, Germany, Spain, Hungary and the Netherlands). Base case ROI estimates were obtained through average values of model inputs (throughout the five countries), which were then replaced one at a time with country-specific values. Tornado diagrams were used to evaluate the significance of sensitivity, defined as a ≥ 10% difference in ROI estimates from the base case estimates. RESULTS: The ROI estimates were sensitive to 18 (of 46) input values. Examples of model inputs to which ROI estimates were sensitive included: smoking rate, costs of smoking-related diseases (e.g. lung cancer) and general population attributes. CONCLUSION: Countries that have limited research time and other resources can adapt EQUIPTMOD to their own settings by choosing to collect data on a small number of model inputs. EQUIPTMOD can therefore facilitate transfer of tobacco control related economic evidence to new jurisdictions.

Model-based economic evaluations in smoking cessation and their transferability to new contexts: a systematic review.

AIMS: To identify different types of models used in economic evaluations of smoking cessation, analyse the quality of the included models examining their attributes and ascertain their transferability to a new context. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on the economic evaluation of smoking cessation interventions published between 1996 and April 2015, identified via Medline, EMBASE, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The checklist-based quality of the included studies and transferability scores was based on the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURONHEED) criteria. Studies that were not in smoking cessation, not original research, not a model-based economic evaluation, that did not consider adult population and not from a high-income country were excluded. FINDINGS: Among the 64 economic evaluations included in the review, the state-transition Markov model was the most frequently used method (n = 30/64), with quality adjusted life years (QALY) being the most frequently used outcome measure in a life-time horizon. A small number of the included studies (13 of 64) were eligible for EURONHEED transferability checklist. The overall transferability scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.97, with an average score of 0.75. The average score per section was 0.69 (range = 0.35-0.92). The relative transferability of the studies could not be established due to a limitation present in the EURONHEED method. CONCLUSION: All existing economic evaluations in smoking cessation lack in one or more key study attributes necessary to be fully transferable to a new context.

Cost-utility analysis of physician-pharmacist collaborative intervention for treating hypertension compared with usual care.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate long-term costs and outcomes attributable to a physician-pharmacist collaborative intervention compared with physician management alone for treating essential hypertension. METHODS: A Markov model cohort simulation with a 6-month cycle length to predict acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and heart failure throughout lifetime was performed. A cohort of 399 patients was obtained from two prospective, cluster randomized controlled clinical trials implementing physician-pharmacist collaborative interventions in community-based medical offices in the Midwest, USA. Framingham risk equations and other algorithms were used to predict the vascular diseases. SBP reduction due to the interventions deteriorated until 5 years. Direct medical costs using a payer perspective were adjusted to 2015 dollar value, and the main outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); both were discounted at 3%. The intervention costs were estimated from the trials, whereas the remaining parameters were from published studies. A series of sensitivity analyses including changing patient risks of vascular diseases, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were performed. RESULTS: The lifetime incremental costs were $26 807.83 per QALY (QALYs gained = 0.14). The intervention provided the greatest benefit for the high-risk patients, moderate benefit for the trial patients, and the lowest benefit for the low-risk patients. If a payer is willing to pay $50 000 per QALY gained, in 48.6% of the time the intervention would be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Team-based care such as a physician-pharmacist collaboration appears to be a cost-effective strategy for treating hypertension. The intervention is most cost-effective for high-risk patients.

Statin use after acute myocardial infarction by patient complexity: are the rates right?

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest statin use after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) should be close to universal in patients without safety concerns yet rates are much lower than recommended, decline with patient complexity, and display substantial geographic variation. Trial exclusions have resulted in little evidence to guide statin prescribing for complex patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits and risks associated with higher rates of statin use after AMI by baseline patient complexity. RESEARCH DESIGN: Sample includes Medicare fee-for-service patients with AMIs in 2008-2009. Instrumental variable estimators using variation in local area prescribing patterns by statin intensity as instruments were used to assess the association of higher statin prescribing rates by statin intensity on 1-year survival, adverse events, and cost by patient complexity. RESULTS: Providers seem to have individualized statin use across patients based on potential risks. Higher statin rates for noncomplex AMI patients were associated with increased survival rates with little added adverse event risk. Higher statin rates for complex AMI patients were associated with tradeoffs between higher survival rates and higher rates of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Higher rates of statin use for noncomplex AMI patients are associated with outcome rate changes similar to existing evidence. For the complex patients in our study, who were least represented in existing trials, higher statin-use rates were associated with survival gains and higher adverse event risks not previously documented. Policy interventions promoting higher statin-use rates for complex patients may need to be reevaluated taking careful consideration of these tradeoffs.

Instrumental variable methods to assess quality of care the marginal effects of process-of-care on blood pressure change and treatment costs.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is poorly controlled. Team-based care and changes in the process of care have been proposed to address these quality problems. However, assessing care processes is difficult because they are often confounded even in randomized behavioral studies by unmeasured confounders based on discretion of health care providers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of process measures including number of counseling sessions about lifestyle modification and number of antihypertensive medications on blood pressure change and payer-perspective treatment costs. METHODS: Data were obtained from two prospective, cluster randomized controlled clinical trials (Trial A and B) implementing physician-pharmacist collaborative interventions compared with usual care over six months in community-based medical offices in the Midwest. Multivariate linear regression models with both instrumental variable methods and as-treated methods were utilized. Instruments were indicators for trial and study arms. Models of blood pressure change and costs included both process measures, demographic variables, and clinical variables. RESULTS: The analysis included 496 subjects. As-treated methods showed no significant associations between process and outcomes. The instruments used in the study were insufficient to simultaneously identify distinct process effects. However, the post-hoc instrumental variable models including one process measure at a time while controlling for the other process demonstrated significant associations between the processes and outcomes with estimates considerably larger than as-treated estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Instrumental variable methods with combined randomized behavioral studies may be useful to evaluate the effects of different care processes. However, substantial distinct process variation across studies is needed to fully capitalize on this approach. Instrumental variable methods focusing on individual processes provided larger and stronger outcome relationships than those found using as-treated methods which are subject to confounding.

Geographic variation in statin use for complex acute myocardial infarction patients: evidence of effective care?

BACKGROUND: Despite strong evidence to designate statin use for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) as "effective care," observational studies show that many patients with CVD do not receive statins. This suggests that statin prescribing decisions for complex CVD patients are preference sensitive. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate local area variation in statin prescribing for subsets of complex patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to assess whether current statin prescribing patterns fit profiles of either "effective care" or "preference-sensitive care." RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 124,618 Medicare patients with fee-for-service parts A, B, and D benefits who were hospitalized with AMI in 2008 or 2009 with no evidence of AMI in the past 12 months. MEASURES: Patient complexity was defined by the presence of diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease in the year before AMI admission. Local area practice styles for "no statin," "lower-intensity statins," and "high-intensity statins" were measured using the driving area for clinical care method. Statin prescribing rates for complex patient subsets were contrasted across patients grouped by local areas practice styles. RESULTS: Lower statin treatment rates were observed for patients with complex conditions, especially among those with heart failure. However, substantial local area variation in statin prescribing is observed across all complex patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite guidelines promoting the use of statins for secondary prevention for CVD patients, substantial local area variation suggests that patient and provider beliefs and preferences weigh heavily in statin prescribing decisions.

Incremental costs associated with physician and pharmacist collaboration to improve blood pressure control.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare costs associated with a physician-pharmacist collaborative intervention with costs of usual care. DESIGN: Cost analysis using health care utilization and outcome data from two prospective, cluster-randomized, controlled clinical trials. SETTING: Eleven community-based medical offices. PATIENTS: A total of 496 patients with hypertension; 244 were in the usual care (control) group and 252 were in the intervention group. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: To compare the costs, we combined cost data from the two trials. Total costs included costs of provider time, laboratory tests, and antihypertensive drugs. Provider time was calculated based on an online survey of intervention pharmacists and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Cost parameters were taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for average wage rates, the Medicare laboratory fee schedule, and a publicly available Web site for drug prices. Total costs were adjusted for patient characteristics. Adjusted total costs were $774.90 in the intervention group and $445.75 in the control group (difference $329.16, p<0.001). In a sensitivity analysis, the difference in adjusted total costs between the two groups ranged from $224.27-515.56. The intervention cost required to have one additional patient achieve blood pressure control within 6 months was $1338.05, determined by the difference in costs divided by the difference in hypertension control rates between the groups ($329.16/24.6%). The cost over 6 months to lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure 1 mm Hg was $36.25 and $94.32, respectively. CONCLUSION: The physician-pharmacist collaborative intervention increased not only blood pressure control but also the cost of care. Additional research, such as a cost-benefit or a cost-minimization analysis, is needed to assess whether financial savings related to reduced morbidity and mortality achieved from better blood pressure control outweigh the cost of the intervention.