A cost-effectiveness analysis of the first federally funded antismoking campaign.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Xu X
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4603744 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A cost-effectiveness analysis of the first federally funded antismoking campaign.
Xu Xin X Alexander Robert L RL Simpson Sean A SA Goates Scott S Nonnemaker James M JM Davis Kevin C KC McAfee Tim T
American journal of preventive medicine 20141210 3
<h4>Background</h4>In 2012, CDC launched the first federally funded national mass media antismoking campaign. The Tips From Former Smokers (Tips) campaign resulted in a 12% relative increase in population-level quit attempts.<h4>Purpose</h4>Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in 2013 to evaluate Tips from a funding agency's perspective.<h4>Methods</h4>Estimates of sustained cessations; premature deaths averted; undiscounted life years (LYs) saved; and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) ga ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:In a climate of increased expectation for the translation of research, academic clinical research units are looking at new ways to streamline their operation and maintain effective translational support services. Clinical research, although undeniably expensive, is an essential step in the translation of any medical breakthrough, and as a result, many academic clinical research units are actively looking to expand their clinical services despite financial pressures. We examine some of the hybrid academic-business models in 19 clinical research centers within the Clinical and Translational Science Award consortium that are emerging to address the issue of cost recovery of clinical research that is supported by the United States federal government. We identify initiatives that have succeeded or failed, essential supporting and regulatory components, and lessons learned from experience to design an optimal cost recovery model and a timeline for its implementation.
| S-EPMC3523334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:In 2012, theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention initiated a national anti-smoking campaign, Tips from Former Smokers (Tips). As a result of the campaign, quit attempts among smokers increased in the general population by 3.7 percentage points. In the current study, we assessed the effects of Tips on smoking cessation in pregnant women. METHODS:We used 2009-2013 certificates of live births in three US states: Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio. Smoking cessation by the third trimester of pregnancy was examined among women who smoked in the 3 months prepregnancy. Campaign exposure was defined as overlap between the airing of Tips 2012 (March 19-June 10) and the prepregnancy and pregnancy periods. Women who delivered before Tips 2012 were not exposed. Adjusted logistic regression was used to determine whether exposure to Tips was independently associated with smoking cessation. RESULTS:Cessation rates were stable during 2009-2011 but increased at the time Tips 2012 aired and remained elevated. Overall, 32.9% of unexposed and 34.7% of exposed smokers quit by the third trimester (p<0.001). Exposure to Tips 2012 was associated with increased cessation (adjusted OR: 1.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.10). CONCLUSIONS:Exposure to a national anti-smoking campaign for a general audience was associated with smoking cessation in pregnant women.
| S-EPMC5778314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare total annual costs for Medicare beneficiaries receiving primary care in federally funded health centers (HCs) to Medicare beneficiaries in physician offices and outpatient clinics.Part A and B fee-for-service Medicare claims from 14 geographically diverse states. The sample was restricted to beneficiaries residing within primary care service areas (PCSAs) with at least one HC.We modeled separately total annual costs, annual primary care costs, and annual nonprimary care costs as a function of patient characteristics and PCSA fixed effects.Data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.Total median annual costs (at $2,370) for HC Medicare patients were lower by 10 percent compared to patients in physician offices ($2,667) and by 30 percent compared to patients in outpatient clinics ($3,580). This was due to lower nonprimary care costs in HCs, despite higher primary care costs.HCs may offer lower total cost practice style to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers Medicare. Future research should examine whether these lower costs reflect better management by HC practitioners or more limited access to specialty care by HC patients.
| S-EPMC4799905 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe implementation of population-wide breast cancer screening programs has important budget implications. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of various breast cancer screening scenarios in Canada from a publicly funded health care system perspective using an established breast cancer simulation model.MethodsBreast cancer incidence, outcomes and total health care system costs (screening, investigation, diagnosis and treatment) for the Canadian health care environment were modelled. The model predicted costs (in 2012 dollars), life-years gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained for 11 active screening scenarios that varied by age range for starting and stopping screening (40-74 yr) and frequency of screening (annual, biennial or triennial) relative to no screening. All outcomes were discounted. Marginal and incremental cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted. One-way sensitivity analyses of key parameters assessed robustness.ResultsThe lifetime overall costs (undiscounted) to the health care system for annual screening per 1000 women ranged from $7.4 million (for women aged 50-69 yr) to $10.7 million (40-74 yr). For biennial and triennial screening per 1000 women (aged 50-74 yr), costs were less, at about $6.1 million and $5.3 million, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio varied from $36 981/QALY for triennial screening in women aged 50-69 versus no screening to $38 142/QALY for biennial screening in those aged 50-69 and $83 845/QALY for annual screening in those aged 40-74.InterpretationOur economic analysis showed that both benefits of mortality reduction and costs rose together linearly with the number of lifetime screens per women. The decision on how to screen is related mainly to willingness to pay and additional considerations such as the number of women recalled after a positive screening result.
| S-EPMC5878949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of improving diabetes care with the Health Disparities Collaborative (HDC), a national collaborative quality improvement (QI) program conducted in community health centers (HCs).Data sources/study settingData regarding the impact of the Diabetes HDC program came from a serial cross-sectional follow-up study (1998, 2000, 2002) of the program in 17 Midwestern HCs. Data inputs for the simulation model of diabetes came from the latest clinical trials and epidemiological studies.Study designWe conducted a societal cost-effectiveness analysis, incorporating data from QI program evaluation into a Monte Carlo simulation model of diabetes.Data collection/extraction methodsData on diabetes care processes and risk factor levels were extracted from medical charts of randomly selected patients.Principal findingsFrom 1998 to 2002, multiple processes of care (e.g., glycosylated hemoglobin testing [HbA1C] [71-->92 percent] and ACE inhibitor prescribing [33-->55 percent]) and risk factor levels (e.g., 1998 mean HbA1C 8.53 percent, mean difference 0.45 percent [95 percent confidence intervals -0.72, -0.17]) improved significantly. With these improvements, the HDC was estimated to reduce the lifetime incidence of blindness (17-->15 percent), end-stage renal disease (18-->15 percent), and coronary artery disease (28-->24 percent). The average improvement in quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was 0.35 and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $33,386/QALY.ConclusionsDuring the first 4 years of the HDC, multiple improvements in diabetes care were observed. If these improvements are maintained or enhanced over the lifetime of patients, the HDC program will be cost-effective for society based on traditionally accepted thresholds.
| S-EPMC2151395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe increasing burden of kidney failure (KF) in India necessitates provision of cost-effective kidney replacement therapy (KRT). We assessed the comparative cost-effectiveness of initiating KRT with peritoneal dialysis (PD) or haemodialysis (HD) in the Indian context.MethodsThe cost and clinical effectiveness of starting KRT with either PD or HD were measured in terms of life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using a mathematical Markov model. Complications such as peritonitis, vascular access-related complications and blood-borne infections were considered. Health system costs, out-of-pocket expenditures borne by patients and indirect costs were included. Two scenarios were considered: Scenario 1 (real-world scenario)-as per the current cost and utilization patterns; Scenario 2 (public programme scenario)-use in the public sector as per Pradhan Mantri National Dialysis Programme (PMNDP) guidelines. The lifetime costs and health outcomes among KF patients were assessed.ResultsThe mean QALYs lived per KF person with PD and HD were estimated to be 3.3 and 1.6, respectively. From a societal perspective, a PD-first policy is cost-saving as compared with an HD-first policy in both Scenarios 1 and 2. If only the costs directly attributable to patient care (direct costs) are considered, the PD-first treatment policy is estimated to be cost-effective only if the price of PD consumables can be brought down to INR70/U.ConclusionsPD as initial treatment is a cost-saving option for management of KF in India as compared with HD first. The government should negotiate the price of PD consumables under the PMNDP.
| S-EPMC8757426 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveFamily psychoeducation is considered part of optimal treatment for first-episode psychosis, but concerns about the cost of this intervention have limited its availability. Although evidence suggests that family psychoeducation is cost-effective, many cost-effectiveness analyses have suffered from limitations that reduce their utility in guiding decisions to incorporate this intervention within existing clinical services. These include not presenting results in present-day dollars and not examining whether the intervention would remain cost-effective in situations where the clinical benefits achieved were smaller than those reported in past studies. Thus the goal of this study was to investigate the cost of providing a specific psychoeducation program-multifamily group psychoeducation-to individuals with first-episode psychosis and their families.MethodsStatistical simulation was used to estimate the cost and burden of illness associated with usual treatment versus usual treatment plus multifamily group psychoeducation. In addition, the simulation model was rerun to test whether multifamily psychoeducation would remain cost-effective in situations where the clinical benefits achieved were smaller than those reported in past studies.ResultsWhen provided for two years, multifamily group psychoeducation ranged from a cost-effective to a cost-saving intervention, depending on the clinical benefits achieved by staff delivering the intervention. When provided for longer durations (five, ten, or 20 years), multifamily psychoeducation was a cost-saving intervention even in scenarios where the clinical benefits of the intervention were reduced by 90%.ConclusionsThe results suggest that multifamily group psychoeducation may not only be a cost-effective intervention for first-episode psychosis but may often be a cost-saving intervention.
| S-EPMC5594750 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDuring the 2018-2019 influenza season, vaccination coverage among U.S. children was 62.6%. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of influenza vaccinations among pediatric patients seen in U.S. health centers, and to explore potential disparities in vaccination coverage among subpopulations. Funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, these health centers provide primary and preventive care to underserved and vulnerable individuals and families in order to reduce health disparities based on economic, geographic, or cultural barriers.MethodsCross-sectional data, analyzed in 2019, came from the most recent waves of the Health Center Patient Survey (2009, 2014). The sample consisted of children ages 2-17 years receiving care from HRSA-funded health centers. The outcome of interest was self- or parent-reported receipt of influenza vaccine in the past year. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted prevalence rate ratios for the association between demographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, poverty level, urban/rural residence, geographic region), health-related variables (receipt of well-child check-up, asthma diagnosis), and influenza vaccination.ResultsInfluenza vaccination coverage among pediatric health center patients increased from 46.6% in 2009 to 67.8% in 2014. In the adjusted model for 2014, there were few statistically significant differences in vaccination coverage among subpopulation groups, however American Indian/Alaska Native children had 31% increased vaccination coverage compared with non-Hispanic White children (aPRR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.02-1.60) and children living in the South had 26% decreased vaccination coverage compared with those living in the Northeast (aPRR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.54-0.93).ConclusionsInfluenza vaccination coverage among pediatric health center patients in 2014 exceeded the national average (as of 2018-2019), and few differences were found among at-risk subpopulations. HRSA-funded health centers are well-positioned to further increase the vaccination rate among children living in underserved communities.
| S-EPMC7378489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the Health Resources and Services Administration's Quality Improvement Award (QIA) program, award patterns, and early lessons learned.Study setting1413 health centers were eligible for QIA from 2014 to 2018.Study designWe assessed cumulative QIA funding earned and modified funding excluding payments for per-patient bonuses, electronic health record (EHR) use, patient-centered medical home (PCMH) accreditation, and health information technology. We compared health centers on rural/urban location, PCMH accreditation, EHR reporting, and size.Data collectionOrganizational and quality measures are reported in the Uniform Data System, QIA program data.Principal findingsAverage cumulative funding was higher for health centers that were not rural (USD 380,387 [± USD 233,467] vs. USD 303,526 [± USD 164,272]), had PCMH accreditation (USD 401,675 [± USD 218,246] vs. USD 250,784 [± USD 144,404]), used their EHR for quality reporting (USD 374,214 (± USD 222,866) vs. USD 331,150 (± USD 198,689)), and were large (USD 435,473 (± USD 238,193) vs. USD 270,681 (± USD 114,484) an USD 231,917 (± USD 97,847) for small and medium centers, respectively). There were similar patterns, with smaller differences, for average modified payments.ConclusionsQIA is an important feasible initiative to introduce value-based payment principles to health centers. Early lessons for program design include announcing award criteria in advance and focusing on a smaller number of priority targets.
| S-EPMC9441276 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe opioid epidemic has been associated with an increase in hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) have a high burden of hepatitis C disease and could serve as venues to enhance testing and treatment.MethodsWe estimated clinical outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C testing and treatment at US FQHCs using individual-based simulation modeling. We used individual-level data from 57 FQHCs to model 9 strategies, including permutations of HCV antibody testing modality, person initiating testing, and testing approach. Outcomes included life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), hepatitis C cases identified, treated and cured; and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.ResultsCompared with current practice (risk-based with laboratory-based testing), routine rapid point-of-care testing initiated and performed by a counselor identified 68% more cases after (nonreflex) RNA testing in the first month of the intervention and led to a 17% reduction in cirrhosis cases and a 22% reduction in liver deaths among those with cirrhosis over a lifetime. Routine rapid testing initiated by a counselor or a clinician provided better outcomes at either lower total cost or at lower cost per QALY gained, when compared with all other strategies. Findings were most influenced by the proportion of patients informed of their anti-HCV test results.ConclusionsRoutine anti-HCV testing followed by prompt RNA testing for positives is recommended at FQHCs to identify infections. If using dedicated staff or point-of-care testing is not feasible, then measures to improve immediate patient knowledge of antibody status should be considered.
| S-EPMC8041089 | biostudies-literature