Dataset Information

Bariatric Surgery can Lead to Net Cost Savings to Health Care Systems: Results from a Comprehensive European Decision Analytic Model.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the cost-utility of bariatric surgery in a lifetime horizon from a Swedish health care payer perspective.

Methods

A decision analytic model using the Markov process was developed covering cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and surgical complications. Clinical effectiveness and safety were based on the literature and data from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry. Gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and gastric banding were included in the analysis. Cost data were obtained from Swedish sources.

Results

Bariatric surgery was cost saving in comparison with conservative management. It also led to a substantial reduction in lifetime risk of events: from a 16 % reduction in the risk of transient ischaemic attacks to a 62 % reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes. Over a lifetime, surgery led to savings of euro 8408 and generated an additional 0.8 years of life and 4.1 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient, which translates into gains of 32,390 quality-adjusted person-years and savings of euro 66 million for the cohort, operated in 2012. Analysis of the consequences of a 3-year delay in surgery provision showed that the overall lifetime cost of treatment may be increased in patients with diabetes or a body mass index >40 kg/m(2). Delays in surgery may also lead to a loss of clinical benefits: up to 0.6 life years and 1.2 QALYs per patient over a lifetime.

Conclusion

Bariatric surgery, over a lifetime horizon, may lead to significant cost savings to health care systems in addition to the known clinical benefits.

SUBMITTER: Borisenko O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4522026 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo update a previous systematic review to determine if patient decision aid (PDA) interventions generate savings in healthcare settings, and if so, from which perspective (ie, patient, organisation providing care, society).DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, Campbell Collaboration Library, EconLit, Business Source Complete, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: NHS Economic Evaluations Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) from 15 March 2013 to 25 January 2019. The references of studies that met the eligibility criteria and any publications related to conference abstracts or registered clinical trials were reviewed to increase the sensitivity of the search.Eligibility criteriaFull and partial economic evaluations with an experimental, quasi-experimental or randomised controlled design were included. The intervention had to satisfy the pre-determined minimum conditions necessary to be defined as a PDA, and (for full evaluations) provide details on the comparator used.Data extraction and synthesisAll study outcomes and economic data were extracted. The reporting and quality of the economic analyses were independently assessed by two health economists.ResultsOf 5066 studies, 22 studies were included, including the 8 studies from the previous review. Twelve studies reported cost-savings (range=US$10 to US$81 156; US dollars in 2020), primarily from the organisational or health system perspective, and 10 studies did not. However, due to the quality of the economic analyses, and the related issues with the interpretative validity of results it would be inappropriate to say that PDAs will generate savings, from any perspective.ConclusionsIt is unclear whether PDAs will generate savings. Greater consensus on what constitutes a PDA and the need to compare them against usual care over a sufficient time horizon to allow valid assessment of costs and outcomes is required.Prospero registration numberCRD42019118457.

Project description:Dalbavancin is a second-generation lipoglycopeptide antibiotic with activity against Gram-positive organisms. Dalbavancin is Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for acute bacterial skin and soft tissue infections (ABSSTIs). There is a lack of substantial data on dalbavancin in more invasive infections, particularly in high-risk populations (patients with intravenous drug use and unstable living conditions). In this retrospective observational study, we reviewed all patients that received at least one dose of dalbavancin in an inpatient or outpatient setting at Parkland Hospital from February of 2019 to August of 2021. The demographics, type of infection, and rationale for dalbavancin were collected at the baseline. Clinical failure was measured by an avoidance of emergency department (ED) visits or hospital readmission at 30, 60, and 90 days. A separate analysis was conducted to estimate hospital, rehabilitation, or nursing facility days saved based on the projected length of treatment. 40 patients were included, and the majority were uninsured (85%), experiencing homelessness (60%), or had intravenous drug use (IDU) (57.5%). Indications for use included ABSSTIs (45%), bloodstream infection (67.5%), osteomyelitis (40%), infective endocarditis (10%), and septic arthritis (10%). Clinical failure was observed in 5 of the 40 patients (12.5%). Nonadherence to medical recommendations, a lack of source control, and ongoing IDU increased the risk of failure. Dalbavancin saved a total of 566 days of inpatient, rehabilitation, and nursing facility stays. Dalbavancin is a reasonable alternative to the standard of care in an at-risk population, offering decreased lengths of stays and cost savings. The uses of second-generation lipoglycopeptides are desirable alternatives to traditional outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapies for patients who otherwise would not qualify or for patients who desire less hospital contact in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPORTANCE This study contributes additional experience to the literature of dalbavancin use in off-label indications, particularly for patients who do not qualify for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. The majority of the patient population were people who inject drugs and the uninsured. There is difficulty in tracking outcomes in this patient population, given their outpatient follow-up rates; however, we were able to track emergency room visits and readmissions throughout the majority of the local metroplex. The clinical use of dalbavancin at our institution also increased in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic in an effort to preserve hospital resources and limit health care exposure. In addition, we are able to provide institution-specific cost-saving data with the use of dalbavancin.

Project description:BackgroundForty-five percent of births in the United States are unintended, and the costs of unintended pregnancy and birth are substantial. Clinical and policy interventions that increase access to the most effective reversible contraceptive methods (intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants) have potential to generate significant cost savings. Evidence of cost savings for these interventions is needed.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-savings analysis of the Contraceptive CHOICE Project, which provided counseling and no-cost contraception, to demonstrate the value of investment in enhanced contraceptive care to the Missouri Medicaid program.Study designThe Contraceptive CHOICE Project was a prospective cohort study of 9256 reproductive-age women who were enrolled between 2007 and 2011. Study follow-up was completed October 2013. This analysis includes 5061 Contraceptive CHOICE Project participants who were current Missouri Medicaid beneficiaries or were uninsured and reported household incomes <201% of the federal poverty line. We created a simulated comparison group of women who were receiving care through the Missouri Title X program and modeled the contraception and pregnancy outcomes that would have occurred in the absence of the Contraceptive CHOICE Project. Data about contraceptive use for the comparison group (N=5061) were obtained from the Missouri Title X program and adjusted based on age, race, ethnicity, and income. To make an accurate comparison that would account for the difference in the 2 populations, we used our simulation model to estimate total Contraceptive CHOICE Project costs and total comparison group costs. We reported all costs in 2013 dollars to account for inflation.ResultsAmong the Contraceptive CHOICE Project participants who were included, the uptake of intrauterine devices and implants was 76.1% compared with 4.8% among the comparison group. The estimated contraceptive cost for the simulated Contraceptive CHOICE Project group was $4.0 million vs $2.3 million for the comparison group. The estimated numbers of unintended pregnancies and births averted among the simulated Contraceptive CHOICE Project group compared with the comparison group were 927 and 483, respectively, which represented a savings in pregnancy and maternity care of $6.7 million. We estimated that the total cost savings for the state of Missouri attributable to the Contraceptive CHOICE Project was $5.0 million (40.7%) over the project duration.ConclusionA program providing counseling and no-cost contraception yields substantial cost savings because of the increased uptake of highly effective contraception and consequent averted unintended pregnancy and birth.