Pandya A, Asch DA, Volpp KG, Sy S, Troxel AB, Zhu J, Weinstein MC, Rosenthal MB, Gaziano TA. Cost-effectiveness of Financial Incentives for Patients and Physicians to Manage Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels.
JAMA Netw Open 2018;
1:e182008. [PMID:
30646152 PMCID:
PMC6324619 DOI:
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.2008]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
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.
Collapse