Incorporating future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis: implications for the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of hypertension

Cost evaluation of the medical management of neurofibromatosis 1: a prospective study on 201 patients

Neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) is associated with many internal complications as well as skin manifestations, and patients may require a variety of medical and surgical interventions. We aimed to assess the medical needs of NF1 patients, and to evaluate the financial cost of the resources used for them in relation to the severity of the disease. We conducted a prospective analysis on a cohort of 201 patients in our referral centre for adults. Severity of the disease was assessed. Therapeutic management was considered as multidisciplinary if it required more than three different specialists. Plastic and dermatological surgery procedures performed were recorded. Hospital costs were computed over a 3-year period and included all hospitalization days, clinic visits and procedures performed in all departments where the patients were admitted. One hundred and thirty-seven patients had at least one out-patient procedure or one hospitalization during the follow-up period. The mean cost per patient per year was pound810 (median 240; range 0-13, 860). Multidisciplinary procedures were more frequent in moderately and severely affected NF1 patients than in milder cases (P < 0. 0001); hence, the costs for moderate and severe cases were higher than for less severe groups (P = 0.005). Plastic and/or dermatological surgery was performed with the same frequency in the different severity groups (71%). Regardless of the presence of serious intractable complications, the patients' priority is for treatment of the disfigurement due to the disease. The management of these patients can be considered relatively inexpensive from the viewpoint of the healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness of universal compared with voluntary screening for human immunodeficiency virus among pregnant women in Chicago

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the cost-effectiveness of implementing 3 screening strategies to detect human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among pregnant women in Chicago, Illinois: no screening, voluntary screening, and universal screening.

METHODS

A decision-analysis model was developed, using standard cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective. Reference case estimates were derived from a surveillance project conducted by the Illinois Department of Public Health and studies were published in the medical literature. Costs included direct and indirect medical costs associated with identification of pregnant women infected with HIV and identification, prevention, and treatment of perinatally HIV-infected newborns. Specifically, for each screening option, the cost per pregnant woman screened, the resulting number of pediatric HIV infections, and the number of newborn life-years were calculated. All costs were adjusted to the 1997 dollar value and discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses were determined for all variables included in the decision model.

RESULTS

The estimated prevalence of HIV infection among pregnant women in Chicago is .41%. For every 100,000 pregnant women, it is estimated that 104.6 children would be infected with HIV if no screening strategy were implemented and 44.8 children would be infected if voluntary HIV testing (assuming a 92.7% acceptance rate) were available. In comparison, if universal HIV testing was performed, the number of children infected with HIV would decrease to 40 cases. Sensitivity analysis across a maternal HIV prevalence rate of.01% to 2.2% found that universal screening would be cost-saving in communities where the seroprevalence is.21%. In Chicago, it would take an estimated 5. 2 months of screening pregnant women to avert 1 case of pediatric HIV. Taking into consideration the lifetime costs of treating a child with HIV infection, universal HIV testing of 100,000 pregnant women would result in a cost-savings of $3.69 million when compared with no screening, and $269,445 when compared with voluntary screening. We estimated that it would cost $11.1 million to screen 100,000 pregnant women in Chicago. The cost-savings produced with increased screening are the direct result of reduced cases of newborns infected with HIV. A 2-way sensitivity analysis was performed to examine how costs vary as a function of the voluntary rates for HIV-positive and HIV-negative women. When screening falls below 50% for HIV-positive mothers, universal screening becomes cheaper than voluntary screening even if no HIV-negative mothers were screened.

CONCLUSION

Reference case analyses showed that universal HIV screening of pregnant women in Chicago would both decrease the number of HIV-infected newborns and save money in comparison to voluntary or no testing strategies. Sensitivity analysis was robust across all variables for the conclusion that universal screening was more effective than voluntary screening. For many communities that have HIV prevalence rates for mothers of >.21%, universal screening would also save money in comparison to voluntary screening. For communities with prevalence rates <.21%, the benefits of universal screening may outweigh the costs for screening as we found that desirable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were found for prevalence rates as low as.0075%.

A concise review of the cost-effectiveness of coronary heart disease prevention

Coronary heart disease is one of the largest sources of morbidity, mortality, and health care expenditure in the United States. This article reviews a number of studies that estimate the cost per unit of health benefits associated with different primary and secondary prevention strategies for coronary heart disease. Although prevention does not provide a panacea for rising health care spending, many preventive strategies are cost-effective when compared to other common clinical interventions. Prevention should be incorporated into regular clinical practice.

Inconsistencies in the "societal perspective" on costs of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine

A key recommendation of the recent Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine was that cost-effectiveness analyses be carried out from a societal perspective. The authors show that two of the Panel's recommendations concerning costs are not consistent with a societal perspective, and how to correct those inconsistencies. In its recommendations concerning costs resulting from morbidity, the Panel advises excluding lost income from costs in the belief that individuals take income changes into account when they respond to the quality-of-life questions that are used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). It is shown that even if individuals do consider income changes in responding to these quality-of-life questions, this recommendation would seriously underestimate production losses due to morbidity, since individuals do not bear a major part of lost production. In its recommendations concerning costs resulting from mortality, the Panel does not require that health care costs for "unrelated" illness and non-health care consumption and production during added life years be included in the Reference Case. It is shown that omitting these costs will seriously distort comparisons of programs at different ages and favor programs that extend life over those that improve quality of life. This can be corrected by including total consumption minus production in added life-years among costs.