Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives for improving diet and health through Medicare and Medicaid: A microsimulation study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Economic incentives through health insurance may promote healthier behaviors. Little is known about health and economic impacts of incentivizing diet, a leading risk factor for diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), through Medicare and Medicaid.

Methods and findings

A validated microsimulation model (CVD-PREDICT) estimated CVD and diabetes cases prevented, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), health-related costs (formal healthcare, informal healthcare, and lost-productivity costs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of two policy scenarios for adults within Medicare and Medicaid, compared to a base case of no new intervention: (1) 30% subsidy on fruits and vegetables ("F&V incentive") and (2) 30% subsidy on broader healthful foods including F&V, whole grains, nuts/seeds, seafood, and plant oils ("healthy food incentive"). Inputs included national demographic and dietary data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2009-2014, policy effects and diet-disease effects from meta-analyses, and policy and health-related costs from established sources. Overall, 82 million adults (35-80 years old) were on Medicare and/or Medicaid. The mean (SD) age was 68.1 (11.4) years, 56.2% were female, and 25.5% were non-whites. Health and cost impacts were simulated over the lifetime of current Medicare and Medicaid participants (average simulated years = 18.3 years). The F&V incentive was estimated to prevent 1.93 million CVD events, gain 4.64 million QALYs, and save $39.7 billion in formal healthcare costs. For the healthy food incentive, corresponding gains were 3.28 million CVD and 0.12 million diabetes cases prevented, 8.40 million QALYs gained, and $100.2 billion in formal healthcare costs saved, respectively. From a healthcare perspective, both scenarios were cost-effective at 5 years and beyond, with lifetime ICERs of $18,184/QALY (F&V incentive) and $13,194/QALY (healthy food incentive). From a societal perspective including informal healthcare costs and lost productivity, respective ICERs were $14,576/QALY and $9,497/QALY. Results were robust in probabilistic sensitivity analyses and a range of one-way sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including by different durations of the intervention (5, 10, and 20 years and lifetime), food subsidy levels (20%, 50%), insurance groups (Medicare, Medicaid, and dual-eligible), and beneficiary characteristics within each insurance group (age, race/ethnicity, education, income, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program [SNAP] status). Simulation studies such as this one provide quantitative estimates of benefits and uncertainty but cannot directly prove health and economic impacts.

Conclusions

Economic incentives for healthier foods through Medicare and Medicaid could generate substantial health gains and be highly cost-effective.

SUBMITTER: Lee Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6424388 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives for improving diet and health through Medicare and Medicaid: A microsimulation study.

Lee Yujin Y Mozaffarian Dariush D Sy Stephen S Huang Yue Y Liu Junxiu J Wilde Parke E PE Abrahams-Gessel Shafika S Jardim Thiago de Souza Veiga TSV Gaziano Thomas A TA Micha Renata R

PLoS medicine 20190319 3

<h4>Background</h4>Economic incentives through health insurance may promote healthier behaviors. Little is known about health and economic impacts of incentivizing diet, a leading risk factor for diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), through Medicare and Medicaid.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>A validated microsimulation model (CVD-PREDICT) estimated CVD and diabetes cases prevented, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), health-related costs (formal healthcare, informal healthcare, and lost-pr ...[more]

PMID: 30889188

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides approximately US$70 billion annually to support food purchases by low-income households, supporting approximately 1 in 7 Americans. In the 2018 Farm Bill, potential SNAP revisions to improve diets and health could include financial incentives, disincentives, or restrictions for certain foods. However, the overall and comparative impacts on health outcomes and costs are not established. We aimed to estimate the health impact, program and healthcare costs, and cost-effectiveness of food incentives, disincentives, or restrictions in SNAP.Methods and findingsWe used a validated microsimulation model (CVD-PREDICT), populated with national data on adult SNAP participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2009-2014, policy effects from SNAP pilots and food pricing meta-analyses, diet-disease effects from meta-analyses, and policy, food, and healthcare costs from published literature to estimate the overall and comparative impacts of 3 dietary policy interventions: (1) a 30% incentive for fruits and vegetables (F&V), (2) a 30% F&V incentive with a restriction of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), and (3) a broader incentive/disincentive program for multiple foods that also preserves choice (SNAP-plus), combining 30% incentives for F&V, nuts, whole grains, fish, and plant-based oils and 30% disincentives for SSBs, junk food, and processed meats. Among approximately 14.5 million adults on SNAP at baseline with mean age 52 years, our simulation estimates that the F&V incentive over 5 years would prevent 38,782 cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, gain 18,928 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and save $1.21 billion in healthcare costs. Adding SSB restriction increased gains to 93,933 CVD events prevented, 45,864 QALYs gained, and $4.33 billion saved. For SNAP-plus, corresponding gains were 116,875 CVD events prevented, 56,056 QALYs gained, and $5.28 billion saved. Over a lifetime, the F&V incentive would prevent approximately 303,900 CVD events, gain 649,000 QALYs, and save $6.77 billion in healthcare costs. Adding SSB restriction increased gains to approximately 797,900 CVD events prevented, 2.11 million QALYs gained, and $39.16 billion in healthcare costs saved. For SNAP-plus, corresponding gains were approximately 940,000 CVD events prevented, 2.47 million QALYs gained, and $41.93 billion saved. From a societal perspective (including programmatic costs but excluding food subsidy costs as an intra-societal transfer), all 3 scenarios were cost-saving. From a government affordability perspective (i.e., incorporating food subsidy costs, including for children and young adults for whom no health gains were modeled), the F&V incentive was of low cost-effectiveness at 5 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $548,053/QALY) but achieved cost-effectiveness ($66,525/QALY) over a lifetime. Adding SSB restriction, the intervention was cost-effective at 10 years ($68,857/QALY) and very cost-effective at 20 years ($26,435/QALY) and over a lifetime ($5,216/QALY). The combined incentive/disincentive program produced the largest health gains and reduced both healthcare and food costs, with net cost-savings of $10.16 billion at 5 years and $63.33 billion over a lifetime. Results were consistent in probabilistic sensitivity analyses: for example, from a societal perspective, 1,000 of 1,000 iterations (100%) were cost-saving for all 3 interventions. Due to the nature of simulation studies, the findings cannot prove the health and cost impacts of national SNAP interventions.ConclusionsLeveraging healthier eating through SNAP could generate substantial health benefits and be cost-effective or cost-saving. A combined food incentive/disincentive program appears most effective and may be most attractive to policy-makers.

Project description:Policy Points The World Health Organization has recommended sodium reduction as a "best buy" to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). Despite this, Congress has temporarily blocked the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from implementing voluntary industry targets for sodium reduction in processed foods, the implementation of which could cost the industry around $16 billion over 10 years. We modeled the health and economic impact of meeting the two-year and ten-year FDA targets, from the perspective of people working in the food system itself, over 20 years, from 2017 to 2036. Benefits of implementing the FDA voluntary sodium targets extend to food companies and food system workers, and the value of CVD-related health gains and cost savings are together greater than the government and industry costs of reformulation. CONTEXT:The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set draft voluntary targets to reduce sodium levels in processed foods. We aimed to determine cost effectiveness of meeting these draft sodium targets, from the perspective of US food system workers. METHODS:We employed a microsimulation cost-effectiveness analysis using the US IMPACT Food Policy model with two scenarios: (1) short term, achieving two-year FDA reformulation targets only, and (2) long term, achieving 10-year FDA reformulation targets. We modeled four close-to-reality populations: food system "ever" workers; food system "current" workers in 2017; and subsets of processed food "ever" and "current" workers. Outcomes included cardiovascular disease cases prevented and postponed as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from 2017 to 2036. FINDINGS:Among food system ever workers, achieving long-term sodium reduction targets could produce 20-year health gains of approximately 180,000 QALYs (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 150,000 to 209,000) and health cost savings of approximately $5.2 billion (95% UI: $3.5 billion to $8.3 billion), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $62,000 (95% UI: $1,000 to $171,000) per QALY gained. For the subset of processed food industry workers, health gains would be approximately 32,000 QALYs (95% UI: 27,000 to 37,000); cost savings, $1.0 billion (95% UI: $0.7bn to $1.6bn); and ICER, $486,000 (95% UI: $148,000 to $1,094,000) per QALY gained. Because many health benefits may occur in individuals older than 65 or the uninsured, these health savings would be shared among individuals, industry, and government. CONCLUSIONS:The benefits of implementing the FDA voluntary sodium targets extend to food companies and food system workers, with the value of health gains and health care cost savings outweighing the costs of reformulation, although not for the processed food industry.

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:ImportanceFinancial 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.ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of financial incentives on LDL-C level control.Design, setting, and participantsIn 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.InterventionsThe 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 measuresDiscounted costs (2017 US dollars), lifetime cardiovascular disease risk, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).ResultsThe 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 relevanceThis 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.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives for improving diet and health through Medicare and Medicaid: A microsimulation study.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives for improving diet and health through Medicare and Medicaid: A microsimulation study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets