Financial incentives to Medicaid smokers for engaging tobacco quit line treatment: maximising return on investment.

BACKGROUND: Low-income smokers experience greater difficulty in quitting smoking than do other smokers. Providing financial incentives for treatment engagement increases smoking cessation success. This study models the cost-effectiveness of varying levels of financial incentives to maximise return on investment (ROI) for engaging low-income Medicaid recipients who smoke to take calls from a tobacco quit line. METHODS: Participants (N=1900) were recruited from May 2013 to June 2015 through quit line-based (n=980), clinic-based (n=444) or community-based referrals (n=476) into the Wisconsin Medicaid Quit Line Incentive project. Incentive (n=948) and control group participants (n=952) received $30 versus $0 per call, respectively, for taking up to five Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line (WTQL) calls. Cost-effectiveness analyses estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for alternative financial incentives for engagement with WTQL calls. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was employed to determine an optimal strategy for financial incentives to minimise the cost per individual who quit smoking. RESULTS: Using fixed payments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2316 per smoker who quit in the randomised trial decreased to $2150 per smoker who quit when the incentives were modelled at $20 per each of five WTQL calls taken. Using variable payments, the minimal cost per additional smoker who quit was $2125 when incentives for the first four WTQL calls were set at $20, and the financial payment for the fifth WTQL call was set at $70. CONCLUSIONS: Modelling suggests that financial incentives in the amount of $20 per call for taking the first four quit line calls and $70 for taking a fifth quit line call maximise ROI to engage low-income smokers with evidence-based smoking cessation treatment.

Paying Low-Income Smokers to Quit? The Cost-Effectiveness of Incentivizing Tobacco Quit Line Engagement for Medicaid Recipients Who Smoke.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of an incentive-based stop-smoking intervention that paid Medicaid recipients who smoke to take calls from a tobacco quit line. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial. The analysis was conducted from a health care systems perspective on the basis of costs and effectiveness over a 6-month follow-up. Participants (n = 1900) were recruited from May 2013 to June 2015 through quit line (n = 980), clinic-based (n = 444), or community-based (n = 476) referrals. Incentive group participants (n = 948) received $30 a call for taking up to five tobacco quit line calls and $40 for biochemically verified tobacco abstinence at 6 months. Control group participants (n = 952) did not receive financial incentives for taking quit line calls. Intervention resource costs included incentive payments to participants, counselor and administrative staff time, and smoking cessation medications. Smoking status at baseline and 6 months was determined for all study participants via carbon monoxide (CO) breath tests (abstinence: CO < 7 ppm). Cost-effectiveness analysis calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Incentive treatment produced higher 6-month CO-confirmed 7-day point-prevalence abstinence than did the control treatment (21.6 vs. 13.8%; P < 0.001). The ICER of the financial incentives intervention was $2316 (95% confidence interval $1582-$4270) per additional person who quit. The study ICER compares favorably with other smoking treatments, such as varenicline combined with proactive telephone counseling, whose ICER has been estimated at $2600 per additional smoker who quits. CONCLUSIONS: Use of financial incentives to engage with tobacco quit line treatment is a cost-effective option to enhance smoking cessation rates for low-income smokers.

Effects of Nicotine Patch vs Varenicline vs Combination Nicotine Replacement Therapy on Smoking Cessation at 26 Weeks: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Smoking cessation medications are routinely used in health care; it is vital to identify medications that most effectively treat this leading cause of preventable mortality. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacies of varenicline, combination nicotine replacement therapy (C-NRT), and the nicotine patch for 26-week quit rates. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Three-group randomized intention-to-treat clinical trial occurring from May 2012 to November 2015 among smokers recruited in the Madison, Wisconsin, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, communities; 65.5% of smokers offered the study (2687/4102) refused participation prior to randomization. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to one of three 12-week open-label smoking cessation pharmacotherapy groups: (1) nicotine patch only (n = 241); (2) varenicline only (including 1 prequit week; n = 424); and (3) C-NRT (nicotine patch + nicotine lozenge; n = 421). Six counseling sessions were offered. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was carbon monoxide-confirmed self-reported 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes were carbon monoxide-confirmed self-reported initial abstinence, prolonged abstinence at 26 weeks, and point-prevalence abstinence at weeks 4, 12, and 52. RESULTS: Among 1086 smokers randomized (52% women; 67% white; mean age, 48 years; mean of 17 cigarettes smoked per day), 917 (84%) provided 12-month follow-up data. Treatments did not differ on any abstinence outcome measure at 26 or 52 weeks, including point-prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks (nicotine patch, 22.8% [55/241]; varenicline, 23.6% [100/424]; and C-NRT, 26.8% [113/421]) or at 52 weeks (nicotine patch, 20.8% [50/241]; varenicline, 19.1% [81/424]; and C-NRT, 20.2% [85/421]). At 26 weeks, the risk differences for abstinence were, for patch vs varenicline, -0.76% (95% CI, -7.4% to 5.9%); for patch vs C-NRT, -4.0% (95% CI, -10.8% to 2.8%); and for varenicline vs C-NRT, -3.3% (95% CI, -9.1% to 2.6%). All medications were well tolerated, but varenicline produced more frequent adverse events than did the nicotine patch for vivid dreams, insomnia, nausea, constipation, sleepiness, and indigestion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults motivated to quit smoking, 12 weeks of open-label treatment with nicotine patch, varenicline, or C-NRT produced no significant differences in biochemically confirmed rates of smoking abstinence at 26 weeks. The results raise questions about the relative effectiveness of intense smoking pharmacotherapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01553084.

Quitline cessation counseling for young adult smokers: a randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: One in 5 young adults in the United States currently smoke, and young adults are less likely than other smokers to make aided quit attempts. Telephone quitlines may be a useful tool for treating this population. This study tested a quitline-based smoking cessation intervention versus mailed self-help materials in smokers 18-24 years old. METHODS: This was a 2-group randomized clinical trial. The quitline-based counseling intervention (CI) included up to 4 proactive telephone counseling sessions; participants in the self-help (SH) group received only mailed cessation materials. Participants included 410 young adults who had smoked at least 1 cigarette in the past 30 days and who called the Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line (WTQL) for help with quitting. Primary study outcomes included whether or not a quit date was set, whether or not a serious quit attempt was undertaken, and self-reported 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 1-, 3-, and 6-month postenrollment. RESULTS: The CI and SH groups did not differ in the intent-to-treat abstinence analyses at any of the follow-ups. However, the CI group was significantly more likely to set a quit date at 1-month postenrollment. Follow-up response rates were low (67.8% at 1 month; 53.4% at 3 months; and 48.3% at 6 months) reflecting lower motivation to participate in this kind of research. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to self-help, quitline counseling motivated young adults to set a quit date but abstinence rates were not improved. Research is needed on how to motivate young adult smokers to seek cessation treatment including quitline services.

Enhancing tobacco quitline effectiveness: identifying a superior pharmacotherapy adjuvant.

INTRODUCTION: Telephone tobacco quitlines are effective and are widely used, with more than 500,000 U.S. callers in 2010. This study investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 3 different quitline enhancements: combination nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), longer duration of NRT, and counseling to increase NRT adherence. METHODS: In this study, 987 quitline callers were randomized to a combination of quitline treatments in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design: NRT duration (2 vs. 6 weeks), NRT type (nicotine patch only vs. patch plus nicotine gum), and standard 4-call counseling (SC) versus SC plus medication adherence counseling (MAC). The primary outcome was 7-day point-prevalence abstinence (PPA) at 6 months postquit in intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. RESULTS: Combination NRT for 6 weeks yielded the highest 6-month PPA rate (51.6%) compared with 2 weeks of nicotine patch (38.4%), odds ratios [OR] = 1.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]:1.20-2.45). A similar result was found for 2 weeks of combination NRT (48.2%), OR = 1.49 (95% CI: 1.04-2.14) but not for 6 weeks of nicotine patch alone (46.2%), OR = 1.38 (95% CI: 0.96-1.97). The MAC intervention effect was nonsignificant. Cost analyses showed that the 2-week combination NRT group had the lowest cost per quit ($442 vs. $464 for 2-week patch only, $505 for 6-week patch only, and $675 for 6-week combination NRT). CONCLUSIONS: Combination NRT for 2 or 6 weeks increased 6-month abstinence rates by 10% and 13%, respectively, over rates produced by 2 weeks of nicotine patch when offered with quitline counseling. A 10% improvement would potentially yield an additional 50,000 quitters annually, assuming 500,000 callers to U.S. quitlines per year.

A randomized controlled trial of financial incentives to low income pregnant women to engage in smoking cessation treatment: Effects on post-birth abstinence.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effectiveness of monetary incentives for increasing engagement in smoking cessation treatment and improving 6-month abstinence in low-income pregnant smokers. METHOD: Two-group randomized clinical trial recruiting low-income (Medicaid-registered) pregnant smokers receiving assistance through a perinatal support program. Participants were randomized to either an incentive (n = 505) or control condition (n = 509). All participants were offered identical smoking cessation counseling at contacts. Incentive condition participants received incentives for attending pre- and postbirth treatment contacts: $25 for each of 6 prebirth provider visits, $25-40 for each of 4 postbirth home visits at Weeks 1, 2, 4, and 6 (total = $130), $20 for each of 5 postbirth counseling calls and $40 for biochemically verified abstinence at the Week 1 and 6-month visits. Control condition participants received only $40 for attendance at the Week 1 and 6-month postbirth visits ($40 each). MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary outcome was biochemically confirmed 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 6-month postbirth follow-up. Secondary outcomes included number of home visits and phone calls taken over the first 6 months postbirth; biochemically confirmed abstinence at postbirth Week 1 visit; and self-reported smoking status at 2- and 4-month visits. RESULTS: Incentive condition participants had a higher biochemically confirmed abstinence rate at 6-month postbirth than controls (14.7% vs. 9.2%, respectively: p < .01). This effect was mediated by incentive condition participants' greater acceptance of postbirth home visits and counseling calls. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate incentive payments for smoking treatment engagement (a mean of ≈$214 paid) increased low-income pregnant smokers' engagement and success in smoking cessation treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record

A Randomized Trial of Incentives for Smoking Treatment in Medicaid Members.

INTRODUCTION: Low-income populations are especially likely to smoke and have difficulty quitting. This study evaluated a monetary incentive intended to increase smoking treatment engagement and abstinence among Medicaid recipients who smoke. STUDY DESIGN: Two-group randomized clinical trial of Incentive (n=948) and Control interventions (n=952) for smoking. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Medicaid recipients recruited from primary care patients (n=920) and callers to the Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line (n=980). INTERVENTION: Participants were offered five quitline cessation calls and were encouraged to obtain cessation medication (covered by Medicaid). All participants received payment for completing a baseline assessment and a 6-month smoking test. Only Incentive condition participants received compensation for taking counseling calls ($30 per call) and for biochemically verified abstinence at the 6-month visit ($40). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Seven-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence 6-months post study entry and cost/quit. RESULTS: Incentive condition participants had significantly higher biochemically determined 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence rates 6 months after study induction than did Controls (21.6% vs 13.8%, respectively, p<0.0001). A positive treatment effect of incentives was present across other abstinence indices, but the size of effects and levels of abstinence varied considerably across indices. Incentive condition participants were also significantly more likely than non-incentivized Control participants to accept Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line treatment calls and their acceptance of calls mediated their attainment of higher abstinence rates at 6-month follow-up. The cost/quit/participant averaged $4,268.26 for the Control participants and $3,601.37 for the Incentive participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that fairly moderate levels of incentive payments for treatment engagement and abstinence (a total possible payment of $190) increased very low-income smokers' engagement and success in smoking cessation treatment. CLINICAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02713594.

Recruiting and engaging smokers in treatment in a primary care setting: developing a chronic care model implemented through a modified electronic health record.

Almost 35 million U.S. smokers visit primary care clinics annually, creating a need and opportunity to identify such smokers and engage them in evidence-based smoking treatment. The purpose of this study is to examine the feasibility and effectiveness of a chronic care model of treating tobacco dependence when it is integrated into primary care systems using electronic health records (EHRs). The EHR prompted primary care clinic staff to invite patients who smoked to participate in a tobacco treatment program. Patients who accepted and were eligible were offered smoking reduction or cessation treatment. More than 65 % of smokers were invited to participate, and 12.4 % of all smokers enrolled in treatment-30 % in smoking reduction and 70 % in cessation treatment. The chronic care model developed for treating tobacco dependence, integrated into the primary care system through the EHR, has the potential to engage up to 4.3 million smokers in treatment a year.

Fax referrals, academic detailing, and tobacco quitline use: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Fax referral programs quickly and economically can link smokers' visiting primary care clinics to state-based telephone quitlines. Yet, it is unclear how to optimize use of this strategy. PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential of enhanced academic detailing in clinics (i.e., on-site training, technical assistance, and performance feedback) to boost utilization of a fax referral program called Fax to Quit. DESIGN: Participants were randomized to one of two intervention conditions. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Participants were drawn from 49 primary care clinics in southeastern Wisconsin. The sample size was based on a power analysis in which the control intervention condition was estimated to generate 0.5 referrals/clinic/month and the experimental condition 2.0 referrals/clinic/month. INTERVENTIONS: One of two fax referral program interventions was administered: the control condition Fax to Quit-Only (F2Q-Only) or the experimental condition Fax to Quit plus Enhanced Academic Detailing (F2Q+EAD). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinic- and clinician-specific referral and quality referral rates (those resulting in quitline enrollment) were measured for 13 months post-intervention, starting in March 2009. RESULTS: Mean number of post-intervention referrals/clinician to the Wisconsin Tobacco Quitline was 5.6 times greater for F2Q+EAD (8.5, SD=7.0) compared to F2Q-Only (1.6, SD=3.6, p<0.001). The F2Q+EAD (4.8, SD=4.1) condition produced a greater mean number of quality referrals/clinician than did the F2Q-Only (0.86, SD=1.8, p<0.001) condition. Data were analyzed in 2010. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced academic detailing, which included on-site training, technical assistance, and performance feedback, increased the number of referrals more than fivefold over a fax referral program implemented without such enhanced academic detailing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00989755.

Healthcare costs around the time of smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act mandates that new insurance plans cover smoking-cessation therapy without cost-sharing. Previous cost difference estimates, which show a spike around the time of cessation, suggest premiums might rise as a result of covering these services. PURPOSE: The goal of the study was to test (1) whether individuals in an RCT of pharmacotherapy and counseling for smoking cessation differed in their healthcare costs around the cessation period, and (2) whether the healthcare costs of those in the trial who successfully quit were different from a matched sample of smokers in the community. METHODS: Generalized linear regression models were used to analyze healthcare cost data on individuals enrolled in a comparative effectiveness trial of cessation therapies between October 2005 and May 2007 (1346 total participants; 1338 with requisite data for further analysis). Cost differences for the period preceding and subsequent to the cessation attempt were assessed by trial participants' 12-month sustained quit status. Healthcare cost differences between sustained quitters and a sample of community-dwelling smokers, matched to these quitters on the basis of health services use around the time trial participant enrolled and by demographics, were also examined. Data were analyzed in 2011. RESULTS: All three groups had a spike in cost associated with the index clinic visit. Regression results revealed little difference in healthcare costs by quit status for trial participants until the sixth quarter post-quit. By that quarter, continuous sustained quitters cost $541 (p<0.001) less than continuing smokers. Continuous sustained quitters cost less than their matched community- dwelling smokers in almost every quarter observed. The cost difference ranged from $270 (p=0.01) during the quarter of quit, to $490 (p<0.01) in the 6th quarter after quitting. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of smoking-cessation therapy does not appear to raise short-term healthcare costs. By the sixth quarter post-quit, sustained quitters were less costly than trial participants who continued smoking.

Comparative effectiveness of 5 smoking cessation pharmacotherapies in primary care clinics.

BACKGROUND: Randomized efficacy clinical trials conducted in research settings may not accurately reflect the benefits of tobacco dependence treatments when used in real-world clinical settings. Effectiveness trials (eg, in primary care settings) are needed to estimate the benefits of cessation treatments in real-world use. METHODS: A total of 1346 primary care patients attending routine appointments were recruited by medical assistants in 12 primary care clinics. Patients were randomly assigned to 5 active pharmacotherapies: 3 monotherapies (nicotine patch, nicotine lozenge, and bupropion hydrochloride sustained release [SR]) and 2 combination therapies (patch + lozenge and bupropion SR + lozenge). Patients were referred to a telephone quit line for cessation counseling. Primary outcomes included 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 1 week, 8 weeks, and 6 months after quitting and number of days to relapse. RESULTS: Among 7128 eligible smokers (> or =10 cigarettes per day) attending routine primary care appointments, 1346 (18.9%) were enrolled in the study. Six-month abstinence rates for the 5 active pharmacotherapies were the following: bupropion SR, 16.8%; lozenge, 19.9%; patch, 17.7%; patch + lozenge, 26.9%; and bupropion SR + lozenge, 29.9%. Bupropion SR + lozenge was superior to all of the monotherapies (odds ratio, 0.46-0.56); patch + lozenge was superior to patch and bupropion monotherapies (odds ratio, 0.56 and 0.54, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: One in 5 smokers attending a routine primary care appointment was willing to make a serious quit attempt that included evidence-based counseling and medication. In this comparative effectiveness study of 5 tobacco dependence treatments, combination pharmacotherapy significantly increased abstinence compared with monotherapies. Provision of free cessation medications plus quit line counseling arranged in the primary care setting holds promise for assisting large numbers of smokers to quit. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00296647.