Dataset Information

Cost of gastroenteritis in Australia: A healthcare perspective.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Acute gastroenteritis illness is a common illness that causes considerable morbidity, but current estimates of the cost to the Australian healthcare system are unknown.

Objective

To estimate the current healthcare utilisation and direct public healthcare system costs attributable to acute gastroenteritis illness in Australia.

Methods

This is an incidence-based cost-of-illness study focused on quantifying direct health care costs using a bottom-up approach. Data on general practitioner consultations, prescribed medications, diagnostic tests, specialist consultations, emergency department visits and hospital admissions were collected from national reports.

Results

Using 2016 prices, the estimated annual direct per capita cost of acute gastroenteritis illness was AUD$14.87 (USD$10.71), equating to AUD$20.27 (USD$14.59) per case. The estimated overall economic burden in Australia was AUD$359 million (USD$258 million; AUD$1.5 million per 100,000 people). The major contributors to this cost were hospital admissions (57.1%), emergency department visits (17.7%), and general practitioner consultations (14.0%). Children under five years of age have the highest per capita rates of acute gastroenteritis illness; however, service utilisation rates vary by age group and both young children and older adults accounted for a substantial proportion of the overall economic burden attributable to acute gastroenteritis illness.

Conclusions

Although chronic diseases comprise a large cost burden on the healthcare system, acute illnesses, including acute gastroenteritis illness, also impose substantial direct healthcare system costs. Providing data on current cost estimates is useful for prioritizing public health interventions, with our findings suggesting that it would be ideal if targeted interventions to reduce hospitalisation rates among young children and older adults were available.

SUBMITTER: Barker SF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5896984 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted cancer care worldwide. Disruptions have been seen across all facets of care. While the long-term impact of COVID-19 remains unclear, the immediate impacts on patients, their carers and the healthcare workforce are increasingly evident. This study describes disruptions and reorganisation of cancer services in Australia since the onset of COVID-19, from the perspectives of people affected by cancer and healthcare workers. Two separate online cross-sectional surveys were completed by: a) cancer patients, survivors, carers, family members or friends (n = 852) and b) healthcare workers (n = 150). Descriptive analyses of quantitative survey data were conducted, followed by inductive thematic content analyses of qualitative survey responses relating to cancer care disruption and perceptions of telehealth. Overall, 42% of cancer patients and survivors reported experiencing some level of care disruption. A further 43% of healthcare workers reported atypical delays in delivering cancer care, and 50% agreed that patient access to research and clinical trials had been reduced. Almost three quarters (73%) of patients and carers reported using telehealth following the onset of COVID-19, with high overall satisfaction. However, gaps were identified in provision of psychological support and 20% of participants reported that they were unlikely to use telehealth again. The reorganisation of cancer care increased the psychological and practical burden on carers, with hospital visitation restrictions and appointment changes reducing their ability to provide essential support. COVID-19 has exacerbated a stressful and uncertain time for people affected by cancer and healthcare workers. Service reconfiguration and the adoption of telehealth have been essential adaptations for the pandemic response, offering long-term value. However, our findings highlight the need to better integrate psychosocial support and the important role of carers into evolving pandemic response measures. Learnings from this study could inform service improvements that would benefit patients and carers longer-term.

Project description:PurposeInfluenza infection induces cardiovascular events in heart failure (HF) patients, with potential risk reduction through vaccination. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination for HF patients in China.MethodsWe developed a Markov model with a 3-month cycle to simulate the cost-effectiveness of administering the influenza vaccine to patients with HF over a 3-year period. Patients in the model received either the influenza vaccine or a placebo, in addition to standard HF treatment. Cost data, sourced from the China Healthcare Statistic Yearbook and other public records, and effectiveness data from the IVVE (Influenza Vaccine to Prevent Adverse Vascular Events in HF) trial, were incorporated. Specifically, the cost of the influenza vaccine was 75 Chinese Yuan (CNY) (11 USD), the cost of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) was 9,326 CNY (1,386 USD), and the cost of treatment for pneumonia was 5,984 CNY (889 USD). The study's primary outcome, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quantifies the incremental cost (CNY and USD) per incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Additional outcomes included total cost, total effectiveness, incremental cost, and incremental effectiveness. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to assess certainty and uncertainty, respectively. Scenario analysis, considering various situations, was performed to evaluate the robustness of the results.ResultsIn the base case analysis, influenza vaccine, compared to placebo, among Chinese HF patients, resulted in a cost increase from 21,004 CNY (3,121 USD) to 21,062 CNY (3,130 USD) and in QALYs from 1.89 to 1.92 (2.55 life years vs. 2.57 life years) per patient. The resulting ICER was 2,331 CNY (346 USD) per QALY [2,080 CNY (309 USD) per life year], falling below the willingness-to-pay threshold based on per capita GDP. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that disparities in HHF and cardiovascular death rates between groups had the most significant impact on the ICER, while the cost of vaccines had a marginal impact. PSA and scenario analysis collectively affirmed the robustness of our findings.ConclusionThis study suggests that adding the influenza vaccine to standard treatment regimens for Chinese patients with HF may represent a highly cost-effective option. Further real-world data studies are essential to validate these findings.

Project description:IntroductionRanibizumab and aflibercept are anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents licensed for the treatment of visual impairment due to macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). The aim of this study was to estimate, from a UK healthcare payer's perspective, the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab versus aflibercept in this indication.MethodsA Markov model was used to simulate the outcomes and costs of treating BRVO. Patient baseline characteristics and efficacy data for ranibizumab were obtained from the BRAVO trial. The relative efficacy of aflibercept was derived from a published network meta-analysis. Injection frequencies were derived from ranibizumab and aflibercept studies included in the network meta-analysis. Health states were defined by increments of 10 letters in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Patients could gain or lose a maximum of two health states between cycles. The first cycle was 6 months, followed by monthly cycles. Different utility values were assigned to the better-seeing and worse-seeing eyes based on BCVA. A 2-year treatment time frame and a lifetime time horizon were used. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Sensitivity analyses were used to test the robustness of the model.ResultsThe lifetime cost per patient treated was £15,273 with ranibizumab and £17,347 with aflibercept. Ranibizumab was dominant over aflibercept, producing incremental health gains of 0.0120 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost savings of £2074. Net monetary benefit for ranibizumab at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY was £2314. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to variations in model parameters.ConclusionsRanibizumab provides greater health gains at a lower overall cost than aflibercept in the treatment of visual impairment due to macular edema secondary to BRVO. Ranibizumab is therefore cost-effective from a UK healthcare payer's perspective.FundingNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.