Effectiveness of an Out-of-Pocket Cost Removal Intervention on Health Check Attendance in Japan.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Murayama H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8197396 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundNo clinical trials have assessed the effects or cost-effectiveness of health check strategies to detect and manage vascular disease. We used a mathematical model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of several health check strategies in six European countries.MethodsWe used country-specific data from Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom to generate simulated populations of individuals aged 40-75 eligible for health checks in those countries (e.g. individuals without a previous diagnosis of diabetes, myocardial infarction, stroke, or serious chronic kidney disease). For each country, we used the Archimedes model to compare seven health check strategies consisting of assessments for diabetes, hypertension, lipids, and smoking. For patients diagnosed with vascular disease, treatment was simulated in a standard manner. We calculated the effects of each strategy on the incidence of type 2 diabetes, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and microvascular complications in addition to quality of life, costs, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).ResultsCompared with current care, health checks reduced the incidence of MACE (6-17 events prevented per 1000 people screened) and diabetes related microvasular complications (5-11 events prevented per 1000 people screened), and increased QALYs (31-59 discounted QALYs) over 30 years, in all countries. The cost per QALY of offering a health check to all individuals in the study cohort ranged from €14903 (France) to cost saving (Poland). Pre-screening the population and offering health checks only to higher risk individuals lowered the cost per QALY. Pre-screening on the basis of obesity had a cost per QALY of €10200 (France) or less, and pre-screening with a non-invasive risk score was similar.ConclusionsA vascular disease health check would likely be cost effective at 30 years in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom.
| S-EPMC3712021 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe examined the magnitude of and trends in the burden of out-of-pocket (OOP) costs among Medicare beneficiaries age 65 years or older with diabetes overall, by income level, by race/ethnicity, and compared with beneficiaries without diabetes.Research design and methodsUsing data from the 1999-2017 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, we estimated average annual per capita OOP costs and percentage of beneficiaries experiencing high OOP burden, defined as OOP costs >10% or >20% of household income. We used joinpoint regression to examine the trends and generalized linear model and logistic regression for comparisons between beneficiaries with and without diabetes. Cost and income estimates were adjusted to 2017 USD.ResultsTotal OOP costs were $3,609-$5,283, with significant increases until 2005 followed by a leveling off. The prevalence of high OOP burden was 57%-72% at the 10% income threshold and 29%-41% at the 20% threshold, with significant increasing trends until 2003 followed by decreases. Total OOP costs were the highest in the ≥75% income quartile, whereas prevalence of high OOP burden was highest in the <25% and 25-50% income quartiles. Non-Hispanic Whites had the highest OOP costs and prevalence of high OOP burden. Beneficiaries with diabetes had significantly higher OOP costs ($498, P < 0.01) and were more likely to have high OOP burden than those without diabetes (odds ratios 1.32 and 1.25 at >10% and >20% thresholds, respectively, P < 0.01).ConclusionsOver the past two decades, Medicare beneficiaries age 65 years or older with diabetes have faced substantial OOP burden, with large income-related disparities.
| S-EPMC8376067 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOut-of-pocket (OOP) costs for medical and surgical care can result in substantial financial burden for patients and families. Relatively little is known regarding OOP costs for commercially insured patients receiving orthopaedic surgery. The aim of this study is to analyze the trends in OOP costs for common, elective orthopaedic surgeries performed in the hospital inpatient setting.MethodsThis study used an employer-sponsored insurance claims database to analyze billing data of commercially insured patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery between 2014 and 2019. Patients who received single-level anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF), single-level posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and total hip arthroplasty (THA) were identified. OOP costs associated with the surgical episode were calculated as the sum of deductible payments, copayments, and coinsurance. Monetary data were adjusted to 2019 dollars. General linear regression, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for analysis, as appropriate.ResultsIn total, 10,225 ACDF, 28,841 PLF, 70,815 THA, and 108,940 TKA patients were analyzed. Most patients in our study sample had preferred provider organization insurance plans (ACDF 70.3%, PLF 66.9%, THA 66.2%, and TKA 67.0%). The mean OOP costs for patients, by procedure, were as follows: ACDF $3,180 (SD = 2,495), PLF $3,166 (SD = 2,529), THA $2,884 (SD = 2,100), and TKA $2,733 (SD = 1,994). Total OOP costs increased significantly from 2014 to 2019 for all procedures (P < 0.0001). Among the insurance plans examined, patients with high-deductible health plans had the highest episodic OOP costs. The ratio of patient contribution (OOP costs) to total insurer contribution (payments from insurers to providers) was 0.07 for ACDF, 0.04 for PLF, 0.07 for THA, and 0.07 for TKA.ConclusionAmong commercially insured patients who underwent elective spinal fusion and major lower extremity joint arthroplasty surgery, OOP costs increased from 2014 to 2019. The OOP costs for elective orthopaedic surgery represent a substantial and increasing financial burden for patients.
| S-EPMC9273018 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9428735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe financial protection of the prevention provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) doesn't apply to breast MRI but only to mammography for breast cancer screening. The purpose of the study is to examine the financial burden among women who received breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for screening.MethodsThis observational study used the Marketscan database. Women who underwent breast MRI between 2009 and 2017 and had screening mammography within 6 months of the MRI were included. We compared the time trend of the proportion of zero cost-share for women undergoing screening mammography and that for MRI. We quantified out-of-pocket (OOP) costs as the sum of copayment, coinsurance, and deductible and defined zero cost-share as having no OOP cost. We conducted multivariable logistic regression and 2-part model to examine factors associated with zero cost-share and OOP costs of MRI, respectively.ResultsDuring the study period, 16 341 women had a screening breast MRI. The proportion of screening MRI claims with zero cost-share decreased from 43.1% (2009) to 26.2% (2017). The adjusted mean OOP cost for women in high-deductible plans was more than twice the cost for their counterparts ($549 vs $251; 2-sided P < .001). Women who resided in the South in the post-Affordable Care Act era were less likely to have zero cost-share and paid higher OOP costs for screening MRI.ConclusionsMany women are subject to high financial burden when receiving MRI for breast cancer screening. Those enrolled in high-deductible plans and who reside in the South are especially vulnerable financially.
| S-EPMC8826560 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a common cause of hospital admissions, readmissions, and mortality worldwide. Digital health interventions (DHIs) that promote self-management, adherence to guideline-directed therapy, and cardiovascular risk reduction may improve health outcomes in this population. The "Corrie" DHI consists of a smartphone application, smartwatch, and wireless blood pressure monitor to support medication tracking, education, vital signs monitoring, and care coordination. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of this DHI plus standard of care in reducing 30-day readmissions among AMI patients in comparison to standard of care alone.MethodsA Markov model was used to explore cost-effectiveness from the hospital perspective. The time horizon of the analysis was 1 year, with 30-day cycles, using inflation-adjusted cost data with no discount rate. Currencies were quantified in US dollars, and effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The results were interpreted as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at a threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Univariate sensitivity and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested model uncertainty.ResultsThe DHI reduced costs and increased QALYs on average, dominating standard of care in 99.7% of simulations in the probabilistic analysis. Based on the assumption that the DHI costs $2750 per patient, use of the DHI leads to a cost-savings of $7274 per patient compared with standard of care alone.ConclusionsOur results demonstrate that this DHI is cost-saving through the reduction of risk for all-cause readmission following AMI. DHIs that promote improved adherence with guideline-based health care can reduce hospital readmissions and associated costs.
| S-EPMC8516712 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOut-of-pocket costs pose a substantial economic burden to cancer patients and their families. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the literature on out-of-pocket costs of cancer care.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies that estimated the out-of-pocket cost burden faced by cancer patients and their caregivers. The average monthly out-of-pocket costs per patient were reported/estimated and converted to 2018 USD. Costs were reported as medical and non-medical costs and were reported across countries or country income levels by cancer site, where possible, and category. The out-of-pocket burden was estimated as the average proportion of income spent as non-reimbursable costs.ResultsAmong all cancers, adult patients and caregivers in the U.S. spent between USD 180 and USD 2600 per month, compared to USD 15-400 in Canada, USD 4-609 in Western Europe, and USD 58-438 in Australia. Patients with breast or colorectal cancer spent around USD 200 per month, while pediatric cancer patients spent USD 800. Patients spent USD 288 per month on cancer medications in the U.S. and USD 40 in other high-income countries (HICs). The average costs for medical consultations and in-hospital care were estimated between USD 40-71 in HICs. Cancer patients and caregivers spent 42% and 16% of their annual income on out-of-pocket expenses in low- and middle-income countries and HICs, respectively.ConclusionsWe found evidence that cancer is associated with high out-of-pocket costs. Healthcare systems have an opportunity to improve the coverage of medical and non-medical costs for cancer patients to help alleviate this burden and ensure equitable access to care.
| S-EPMC8025828 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntegrated care can generate health and social care efficiencies through the defragmentation of care and adoption of patient-centered preventive models. eHealth can be a key enabling technology for integrated care.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the implementation of a mobile health (mHealth)-enabled integrated care model for complex chronic patients.MethodsAs part of the CONNECARE Horizon 2020 project, a prospective, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel implementation trial was held in a rural region of Catalonia, Spain. During 3 months, elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure and their carers experienced the combined benefits of the CONNECARE organizational integrated care model and the eHealth platform supporting it, consisting of a patient self-management app, a set of integrated sensors, and a web-based platform connecting professionals from different settings, or usual care. We assessed changes in health status with the 12-Item Short-Form Survey (SF-12), unplanned visits and admissions during a 6-month follow up, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsA total of 48 patients were included in the integrated care arm and 28 patients receiving usual care were included in the control arm (mean age 82 years, SD 7 years; mean Charlson index 7, SD 2). Integrated care patients showed a significant increase in the SF-12 physical domain with a mean change of +3.7 (SD 8.4) (P=.004) and total SF-12 score with a mean change of +5.8 (SD 12.8) (P=.003); however, the differences in differences between groups were not statistically significant. Integrated care patients had 57% less unplanned visits (P=.004) and 50% less hospital admissions related to their main chronic diseases (P=.32). The integrated care program generated savings in different cost scenarios and the ICER demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of the program.ConclusionsThe implementation of a patient-centered mHealth-enabled integrated care model empowering the patient, and connecting primary, hospital, and social care professionals reduced unplanned contacts with the health system and health costs, and was cost-effective. These findings support the notion of system-wide cross-organizational care pathways supported by mHealth as a successful way to implement integrated care.
| S-EPMC7843204 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this study, we analyzed healthcare provision and health expenditure across six Mediterranean countries that adopt the National Health System (Beveridge model) and that form part of the European Union (EU) with the main aim being that of analyzing and comparing out-of-pocket health spending in countries with a European Mediterranean connection. To this end, we considered various economic indicators and statistics to derive commonalities and differences across these countries and also compared trends in these indicators to those observed across the rest of the EU. We then analyzed these findings in light of other data related to the quality of healthcare delivery and the infrastructure of the health system and discussed recent developments in healthcare within each country and the main challenges faced by the respective health systems. The results show that on average, Mediterranean countries spend less on total healthcare expenditure (THE) than the EU average, both as a proportion of GDP, as well as in per capita terms. This is primarily driven by lower-than-EU-average public funding of healthcare. The 2008/2009 macro-economic and financial crisis had a significant impact on the countries under review, and explains the persistent reductions in public health spending as part of the austerity measures put in force across sectors. On the flipside, Mediterranean countries have a higher presence of private health providers in total funding, thereby explaining the higher Out-of-Pocket (OOPs) health expenditures in these countries relative to the EU-average. With regard to the overall health infrastructure in these countries, we observed that although the supply of physicians is largely in line with the rest of the EU, there is under-supply when it comes to hospital beds. This may be symptomatic of lower government funding. Nonetheless, all countries score highly in the evaluation of the quality of health services, as recorded by international rankings like the WHO's 2000 metric, whereas health system performance indicators, namely mortality rates and life expectancy reveal favorable health outcomes in the Mediterranean EU countries. The findings in this paper may be seen in light of the Mediterranean region's lifestyle in terms of diet, health behavior, health beliefs and shared culture. In particular, the higher out-of-pocket expenditure may reflect the tendency for one-to-one relationships with private clinicians and the pursuit of person-centered care (1). Additionally, the Mediterranean people may not be as disciplined as their European counterparts in accessing and using the public health sector. The lower THE also reflects the fact that the Mediterranean countries are less wealthy than the more economically-advanced European countries.
| S-EPMC5974227 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if use of point of care testing (POCT) is less costly than laboratory testing to the National Health Service (NHS) in delivering the NHS Health Check (NHSHC) programme in the primary care setting.DesignObservational study and theoretical mathematical model with microcosting approach.SettingWe collected data on NHSHC delivered at nine general practices (seven using POCT; two not using POCT).ParticipantsWe recruited nine general practices offering NHSHC and a pathology services laboratory in the same area.MethodsWe conducted mathematical modelling with permutations in the following fields: provider type (healthcare assistant or nurse), type of test performed (total cholesterol with either lab fasting glucose or HbA1c), cost of consumables and variable uptake rates, including rate of non-response to invite letter and rate of missed [did not attend (DNA)] appointments. We calculated total expected cost (TEC) per 100 invites, number of NHSHC conducted per 100 invites and costs for completed NHSHC for laboratory and POCT-based pathways. A univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for uncertainty in the input parameters.Main outcome measuresWe collected data on cost, volume and type of pathology services performed at seven general practices using POCT and a pathology services laboratory. We collected data on response to the NHSHC invitation letter and DNA rates from two general practices.ResultsTEC of using POCT to deliver a routine NHSHC is lower than the laboratory-led pathway with savings of £29 per 100 invited patients up the point of cardiovascular disease risk score presentation. Use of POCT can deliver NHSHC in one sitting, whereas the laboratory pathway offers patients several opportunities to DNA appointment.ConclusionsTEC of using POCT to deliver an NHSHC in the primary care setting is lower than the laboratory-led pathway. Using POCT minimises DNA rates associated with laboratory testing and enables completion of NHSHC in one sitting.
| S-EPMC5724165 | biostudies-literature