Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Financial Incentives for Patients and Physicians to Manage Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Financial incentives shared between physicians and patients were shown to significantly reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in a randomized clinical trial, but it is not known whether these health benefits are worth the added incentive and utilization costs required to achieve them.

Objective

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of financial incentives on LDL-C level control.

Design, setting, and participants

In this economic evaluation, a previously validated microsimulation computer model was parameterized using individual-level data from the randomized clinical trial on financial incentives, National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys for model population inputs, and other published sources. The study was conducted from April 15, 2016, to March 29, 2018.

Interventions

The following interventions were used: (1) usual care, (2) trial control strategy (increased cholesterol level monitoring and use of electronic pill bottles), (3) financial incentives for physicians, (4) financial incentives for patients, and (5) incentives shared between physicians and patients.

Main outcomes and measures

Discounted costs (2017 US dollars), lifetime cardiovascular disease risk, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results

The model population (n?=?1?000?000 [30.7% women]) had similar mean (SD) age (61.5 [11.9] years) and LDL-C level (153.9 mg/dL) as the observed trial population (n?=?1503 [42.7% women]; age, 62.0 [8.7] years; and LDL-C level, 160.6 mg/dL). Using base-case assumptions (including a 10-year waning period of LDL-C level reductions), the usual-care strategy was dominated (higher costs and lower QALYs) by all other strategies. Strategies for physician- or patient-only incentives were dominated by the shared-incentives strategy, which had an ICER of $60?000/QALY compared with the trial control strategy. In a sensitivity analysis regarding the duration of LDL-C level reductions, the shared-incentives strategy remained cost-effective (ICERs <$100?000/QALY and <$150?000/QALY) for scenarios with LDL-C level reductions lasting, with linear waning, at least 7 and 5 years, respectively. In the 1-way sensitivity analysis for the time horizon of the analysis, the ICER of the shared-incentives strategy exceeded $100?000/QALY at 11 years and $150?000/QALY at 8 years. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the shared-incentives intervention was cost-effective in 69% to 77% of iterations using cost-effectiveness thresholds of $100?000 to $150?000/QALY. Cost-effectiveness results were also sensitive to the duration of intervention costs.

Conclusions and relevance

This study suggests that the financial incentives shared between patients and physicians for LDL-C level control meet conventional standards of cost-effectiveness, but these results appeared to be sensitive to assumptions about the durations of LDL-C level reductions and years of intervention costs included, as well as to the choice of time horizon.

SUBMITTER: Pandya A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6324619 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of Financial Incentives for Patients and Physicians to Manage Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels.

Pandya Ankur A Asch David A DA Volpp Kevin G KG Sy Stephen S Troxel Andrea B AB Zhu Jingsan J Weinstein Milton C MC Rosenthal Meredith B MB Gaziano Thomas A TA

JAMA network open 20180907 5

<h4>Importance</h4>Financial incentives shared between physicians and patients were shown to significantly reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in a randomized clinical trial, but it is not known whether these health benefits are worth the added incentive and utilization costs required to achieve them.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of financial incentives on LDL-C level control.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>In this economic evaluat ...[more]

PMID: 30646152

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines prioritize primary prevention statin therapy based on 10-year absolute risk (AR10) of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, given the same AR10, patients with higher levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) experience greater absolute risk reduction from statin therapy. Objectives:To estimate the cost-effectiveness of expanding preventive statin treatment eligibility from standard care to patients at borderline risk (AR10, 5.0%-7.4%) for ASCVD and with high levels of LDL-C and to estimate cost-effectiveness of statin treatment across ranges of age, sex, AR10, and LDL-C levels. Design, Setting, and Participants:This study evaluated 100 simulated cohorts, each including 1 million ASCVD-free survey respondents (50% men and 50% women) aged 40 years at baseline. Cohorts were created by probabilistic sampling of the 1999-2014 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from the perspective of the US health care sector. The CVD Policy Model microsimulation version projected lifetime health and cost outcomes. Probability of first-ever coronary heart disease or stroke event was estimated by analysis of 6 pooled US cohort studies and recalibrated to match contemporary event rates. Other model variables were derived from national surveys, meta-analyses, and published literature. Data were analyzed from May 15, 2018, through June 10, 2019. Exposures:Four statin treatment strategies were compared: (1) treat all patients with AR10 of at least 7.5%, diabetes, or LDL-C of at least 190 mg/dL (standard care); (2) add treatment for borderline risk and LDL-C levels of 160 to 189 mg/dL; (3) add treatment for borderline risk and LDL-C levels of 130 to 159 mg/dL; and (4) add treatment for remainder of patients with AR10 of at least 5.0%. Statin treatment was also compared with no statin treatment in age, sex, AR10, and LDL-C strata. Main Outcomes and Measures:Lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs (2019 US dollars) were projected and discounted 3.0% annually. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results:In these 100 simulated cohorts, each with 1 million patients aged 40 years at baseline (50% women and 50% men), adding preventive statins to individuals with borderline AR10 and LDL-C levels of 160 to 189 mg/dL would be cost-saving; further treating borderline AR10 and LDL-C levels of 130 to 159 mg/dL would also be cost-saving; and treating all individuals with AR10 of at least 5.0% would be highly cost-effective ($33?558/QALY) and would prevent the most ASCVD events. Within age, AR10, and sex categories, individuals with higher baseline LDL-C levels gained more QALYs from statin therapy. Cost-effectiveness increased with LDL-C level and AR10. Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, lifetime statin treatment of patients in a hypothetical cohort with borderline ASCVD risk and LDL-C levels of 160 to 189 mg/dL was found to be cost-saving. Results suggest that treating all patients at borderline risk regardless of LDL-C level would likely be highly cost-effective.

Project description:ImportanceFinancial incentives to physicians or patients are increasingly used, but their effectiveness is not well established.ObjectiveTo determine whether physician financial incentives, patient incentives, or shared physician and patient incentives are more effective than control in reducing levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) among patients with high cardiovascular risk.Design, setting, and participantsFour-group, multicenter, cluster randomized clinical trial with a 12-month intervention conducted from 2011 to 2014 in 3 primary care practices in the northeastern United States. Three hundred forty eligible primary care physicians (PCPs) were enrolled from a pool of 421. Of 25,627 potentially eligible patients of those PCPs, 1503 enrolled. Patients aged 18 to 80 years were eligible if they had a 10-year Framingham Risk Score (FRS) of 20% or greater, had coronary artery disease equivalents with LDL-C levels of 120 mg/dL or greater, or had an FRS of 10% to 20% with LDL-C levels of 140 mg/dL or greater. Investigators were blinded to study group, but participants were not.InterventionsPrimary care physicians were randomly assigned to control, physician incentives, patient incentives, or shared physician-patient incentives. Physicians in the physician incentives group were eligible to receive up to $1024 per enrolled patient meeting LDL-C goals. Patients in the patient incentives group were eligible for the same amount, distributed through daily lotteries tied to medication adherence. Physicians and patients in the shared incentives group shared these incentives. Physicians and patients in the control group received no incentives tied to outcomes, but all patient participants received up to $355 each for trial participation.Main outcomes and measuresChange in LDL-C level at 12 months.ResultsPatients in the shared physician-patient incentives group achieved a mean reduction in LDL-C of 33.6 mg/dL (95% CI, 30.1-37.1; baseline, 160.1 mg/dL; 12 months, 126.4 mg/dL); those in physician incentives achieved a mean reduction of 27.9 mg/dL (95% CI, 24.9-31.0; baseline, 159.9 mg/dL; 12 months, 132.0 mg/dL); those in patient incentives achieved a mean reduction of 25.1 mg/dL (95% CI, 21.6-28.5; baseline, 160.6 mg/dL; 12 months, 135.5 mg/dL); and those in the control group achieved a mean reduction of 25.1 mg/dL (95% CI, 21.7-28.5; baseline, 161.5 mg/dL; 12 months, 136.4 mg/dL; P < .001 for comparison of all 4 groups). Only patients in the shared physician-patient incentives group achieved reductions in LDL-C levels statistically different from those in the control group (8.5 mg/dL; 95% CI, 3.8-13.3; P = .002).Conclusions and relevanceIn primary care practices, shared financial incentives for physicians and patients, but not incentives to physicians or patients alone, resulted in a statistically significant difference in reduction of LDL-C levels at 12 months. This reduction was modest, however, and further information is needed to understand whether this approach represents good value.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01346189.

Project description:AIMS:To perform an economic evaluation of a work-place smoking cessation group training programme with incentives compared with a training programme without incentives. DESIGN:A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) from a societal perspective and an employer's perspective. SETTING:Sixty-one companies in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 604 tobacco-smoking employees. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR:A 7-week work-place smoking cessation group training programme. The intervention group earned gift vouchers of €350 for 12 months' continuous abstinence. The comparator group received no incentives. MEASUREMENTS:Online questionnaires were administered to assess quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L) and resource use during the 14-month follow-up period (2-month training period plus 12-month abstinence period). For the CEA the primary outcome measure was carbon monoxide (CO)-validated continuous abstinence; for the CUA the primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) tables were used to determine cost-effectiveness from a life-time perspective. FINDINGS:Of the participants in the intervention group, 41.1% had quit smoking compared with 26.4% in the control group. From a societal perspective with a 14-month follow-up period, the ICER per quitter for an intervention with financial incentives compared with no incentives was €11?546. From an employer's perspective, the ICER was €5686. There was no significant difference in QALYs between the intervention and control group within the 14-month follow-up period. The intervention was dominated by the comparator in the primary analysis at a threshold of €20?000 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, these results were uncertain. A life-time perspective showed an ICER of €1249 (95% confidence interval = €850-2387) per QALY. CONCLUSIONS:Financial incentives may be cost-effective in increasing quitting smoking, particularly from a life-time perspective.

Project description:BackgroundInclisiran is a novel, cholesterol-lowering therapy, with a long duration of effect, administered every 6 months (subcutaneously by a healthcare professional). In the ORION-10 trial in US patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in addition to maximum tolerated statins, with or without ezetimibe, inclisiran demonstrated statistically significant reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of up to 51%. This is the first peer-reviewed publication to investigate the price at which inclisiran is cost effective in the US.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the maximum price at which inclisiran is cost effective in addition to standard of care, in US patients with ASCVD, versus standard of care alone, at different willingness-to-pay thresholds.Design, setting and participantsA lifetime Markov model from the US health system perspective, including 15 health states, was used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of inclisiran. The following states were separated by time from a previous cardiovascular event (0-1 years, 1-2 years, 2+ years ['stable']): initial, unstable angina, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Additional states included revascularization and death (cardiovascular or non-cardiovascular causes). Baseline risk of cardivoascular events were from US database sources or published literature. Reductions in LDL-C from inclisiran were from the ORION-10 trial. LDL-C reduction was used to adjust baseline risk of cardiovascular events, based on established relationships between 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C and decreases in cardiovascular events, from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists studies. The population included adults with a history of ASCVD, and LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL, despite maximum tolerated doses of statin therapy.InterventionsInclisiran as an adjunct to standard of care, compared with standard of care alone.Main outcomes and measuresThe threshold price of inclisiran.ResultsInclisiran as an adjunct to standard of care resulted in threshold annual inclisiran prices of $6383, $9973, and $13,563 at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a threshold of $100,000 per QALY, inclisiran had a 100% probability of being cost effective, with an annual price below $9000. At the publicly available price of $3250 per dose, inclisiran was found to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio just above the $50,000 per QALY threshold, of $51,686.Conclusions and relevanceThis study identified the price at which inclisiran is cost effective for the US health system, at generally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Project description:Dengue virus (DENV) is a flavivirus of worldwide importance, with approximately 4 billion people across 128 countries at risk of infection, and up to 390 million infections and 96 million clinically apparent cases estimated annually. Previous in vitro studies have shown that lipids and lipoproteins play a role in modifying virus infectivity. However, the relationship between development of severe dengue and total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), respectively, is unclear. We analyzed data from 789 laboratory-confirmed dengue cases and 447 other febrile illnesses (OFI) in a prospective pediatric hospital-based study in Managua, Nicaragua between August 2005 and January 2013, using three different classifications of dengue severity: World Health Organization (WHO) 1997, WHO 2009, and standardized intervention categories. Total serum cholesterol and LDL-C levels decreased over the course of illness and were generally lower with increasing dengue severity, regardless of classification scheme. Greater decreases in LDL-C than HDL-C were observed among dengue-positive patients compared to patients with OFI and among severe dengue compared to mild dengue cases. Furthermore, daily cholesterol levels declined with daily albumin blood levels. To examine the effect of cholesterol at presentation on subsequent risk of development of severe dengue, relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using multivariable modified Poisson models. We found that lower total serum cholesterol and LDL-C levels at presentation were associated with subsequent risk of developing dengue hemorrhagic fever/dengue shock syndrome using the WHO 1997 dengue severity classification, and thus that the reduction in LDL-C is likely driving the decreases observed in total serum cholesterol levels among dengue-positive patients. Our results suggest that cholesterol blood levels are important correlates of dengue pathophysiology and should be explored as part of a prognostic biomarker panel for severe dengue.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Financial Incentives for Patients and Physicians to Manage Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Interventions

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of Financial Incentives for Patients and Physicians to Manage Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets