Investigating the Cost-Effectiveness of Telemonitoring Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Telemonitoring patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) can improve their care management. However, the results of cost-effectiveness studies are heterogeneous. Therefore, it is still a matter of debate whether telemonitoring is worth the investment. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of telemonitoring patients with CIEDs, focusing on its key drivers, and the impact of the varying perspectives. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and EconLit. The search was completed on July 7, 2022. Studies were included if they fulfilled the following criteria: patients had a CIED, comparison with standard care, and inclusion of health economic evaluations (eg, cost-effectiveness analyses and cost-utility analyses). Only complete and peer-reviewed studies were included, and no year limits were applied. The exclusion criteria included studies with partial economic evaluations, systematic reviews or reports, and studies without standard care as a control group. Besides general study characteristics, the following outcome measures were extracted: impact on total cost or income, cost or income drivers, cost or income drivers per patient, cost or income drivers as a percentage of the total cost impact, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, or cost-utility ratios. Quality was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist. RESULTS: Overall, 15 cost-effectiveness analyses were included. All studies were performed in Western countries, mainly Europe, and had primarily a male participant population. Of the 15 studies, 3 (20%) calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, 1 (7%) the cost-utility ratio, and 11 (73%) the health and cost impact of telemonitoring. In total, 73% (11/15) of the studies indicated that telemonitoring of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy ICDs was cost-effective and cost-saving, both from a health care and patient perspective. Cost-effectiveness results for telemonitoring of patients with pacemakers were inconclusive. The key drivers for cost reduction from a health care perspective were hospitalizations and scheduled in-office visits. Hospitalization costs were reduced by up to US $912 per patient per year. Scheduled in-office visits included up to 61% of the total cost reduction. Key drivers for cost reduction from a patient perspective were loss of income, cost for scheduled in-office visits and transport. Finally, of the 15 studies, 8 (52%) reported improved quality of life, with statistically significance in only 1 (13%) study (P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: From a health care and patient perspective, telemonitoring of patients with an ICD or a cardiac resynchronization therapy ICD is a cost-effective and cost-saving alternative to standard care. Inconclusive results were found for patients with pacemakers. However, telemonitoring can lead to a decrease in providers' income, mainly due to a lack of reimbursement. Introducing appropriate reimbursement could make telemonitoring sustainable for providers while still being cost-effective from a health care payer perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022322334; https://tinyurl.com/puunapdr.

Physicians' views on optimal use and payment system for telemedicine: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine is already in use in daily practice, but appropriate reimbursement and physician payment is falling behind in many countries. One reason is the limited availability of research on the matter. This research therefore examined physicians' views on the optimal use and payment modalities for telemedicine. METHODS: Sixty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with physicians from 19 medical disciplines. Interviews were encoded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Telephone and video televisits tend not to be used as a first patient contact, except for triage of patients in urgency situations. Several minimum required modalities for the payment system of televisits and telemonitoring were identified. For televisits these were: (i) remuneration of both telephone- and videovisits to increase healthcare equity, (ii) little or no differentiation between videovisit and in-person visit fee to make videovisits financially attractive and sustainable for physicians, (iii) differentiation of televisit fee per medical discipline, and (iv) quality requirements such as mandatory reporting in the patient's medical file. The identified minimum required modalities for telemonitoring were: (i) an alternative payment scheme than fee-for-service, (ii) remunerating not only physicians but also other involved health professionals, (iii) designating and remunerating a coordinator, and (iv) distinguishing sporadic vs. continuously follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This research investigated the telemedicine usage behavior of physicians. Moreover, several minimum required modalities were identified for a physician-supported payment system of telemedicine, as these innovations necessitate challenging and innovation of the healthcare payment systems as well.

How to Pay for Telemedicine: A Comparison of Ten Health Systems.

Telemedicine has the opportunity to improve clinical effectiveness, health care access, cost-savings, and patient care. However, payment systems may form important obstacles to optimally use telemedicine and enable its opportunities. Little is known about payment systems for telemedicine. Therefore, this research aims to increase knowledge on paying for telemedicine by comparing payment systems for telemedicine and identifying similarities and differences. Based on the countries' official physician fee schedules, listing all reimbursed medical services performed by physicians, a comparative analysis of telemedicine payment systems in ten countries was conducted. Findings show that many countries lacked tele-expertise and telemonitoring payment, with the exception for some specific payments such as for telemonitoring in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Moreover, a wide variety of benefit specifications were implemented in all countries to specify which type of clinician contact should be used (remote versus physical) in which circumstances. Payment parity between video and in-person visits was established only in a few countries. Furthermore, fee-for-service was the dominant payment system, although two countries used a capitation-based or hybrid system. The results imply several potential payment challenges when implementing telemedicine: complex benefit specifications, payment parity discussions, and risk of overconsumption due to the dominant fee-for-service system. These challenges appear to be less present in capitation-based or hybrid systems. However, the latter needs to be further explored to harness the full potential of telemedicine.

The relationship of nursing home price and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about the relationship between the residents' Quality of Life (QOL) and the nursing home price is currently lacking. Therefore, this study investigates the relationship between 11 dimensions of QOL and nursing homes price in Flemish nursing homes. METHODS: The data used in this cross-sectional study were collected by the Flemish government from years 2014 to 2017 and originates from 659 Flemish nursing homes. From 2014 to 2016, data on the QOL of 21,756 residents was assessed with the InterRAI instrument. This instrument contains 11 QOL dimensions. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the research question. RESULTS: The multiple linear regressions indicated that a 10 euro increase in the daily nursing home price is associated with a significant decrease (P <  0.001) of 0.1 in 5 dimensions of QOL (access to services, comfort and environment, food and meals, respect, and safety and security). Hence, our results indicate that the association between price and QOL is very small. When conducting a subgroup analysis based on ownership type, the earlier found results remained only statistically significant for private nursing homes. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that nursing home price is of limited importance with respect to resident QOL. Contrary to popular belief, our study demonstrates a limited negative effect of price on QOL. Further research that includes other indicators of QOL is needed to allow policymakers and nursing home managers to improve nursing home residents' QOL.