Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Objective:The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence and estimate total costs for chronic health conditions in the U.S. workforce for the Dow Chemical Company (Dow).Methods:Using the Stanford Presenteeism Scale, information was collected from workers at five locations on work impair

/pdf/the-assessment-of-chronic-health-conditions-on-work-1y9fu7wvqp.pdf

The assessment of chronic health conditions on work performance, absence, and total economic impact for employers.

It is thought that between a third and a half of all medicines1
There are many causes of non-adherence but they fall into two overlapping categories: intentional and unintentional. Unintentional non-adherence occurs when the patient wants to follow the agreed treatment but is prevented from doing so by barriers that are beyond their control. Examples include poor recall or difficulties in understanding the instructions, problems with using the treatment, inability to pay for the treatment, or simply forgetting to take it. prescribed for long-term conditions are not taken as recommended. If the prescription is appropriate, then this may represent a loss to patients, the healthcare system and society. The costs are both personal and economic. Adherence presumes an agreement between prescriber and patient about the prescriber’s recommendations. Adherence to medicines is defined as the extent to which the patient’s action matches the agreed recommendations. Non-adherence may limit the benefits of medicines, resulting in lack of improvement, or deterioration, in health. The economic costs are not limited to wasted medicines but also include the knock-on costs arising from increased demands for healthcare if health deteriorates. Non-adherence should not be seen as the patient’s problem. It represents a fundamental limitation in the delivery of healthcare, often because of a failure to fully agree the prescription in the first place or to identify and provide the support that patients need later on. Addressing non-adherence is not about getting patients to take more medicines per se. Rather, it starts with an exploration of patients’ perspectives of medicines and the reasons why they may not want or are unable to use them. Healthcare professionals have a duty to help patients make informed decisions about treatment and use appropriately prescribed medicines to best effect

Medicines adherence: Involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence

Objective To determine the economic impact of medication non-adherence across multiple disease groups. Design Systematic review. Evidence review A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus in September 2017. Studies quantifying the cost of medication non-adherence in relation to economic impact were included. Relevant information was extracted and quality assessed using the Drummond checklist. Results Seventy-nine individual studies assessing the cost of medication non-adherence across 14 disease groups were included. Wide-scoping cost variations were reported, with lower levels of adherence generally associated with higher total costs. The annual adjusted disease-specific economic cost of non-adherence per person ranged from $949 to $44 190 (in 2015 US$). Costs attributed to ‘all causes’ non-adherence ranged from $5271 to $52 341. Medication possession ratio was the metric most used to calculate patient adherence, with varying cut-off points defining non-adherence. The main indicators used to measure the cost of non-adherence were total cost or total healthcare cost (83% of studies), pharmacy costs (70%), inpatient costs (46%), outpatient costs (50%), emergency department visit costs (27%), medical costs (29%) and hospitalisation costs (18%). Drummond quality assessment yielded 10 studies of high quality with all studies performing partial economic evaluations to varying extents. Conclusion Medication non-adherence places a significant cost burden on healthcare systems. Current research assessing the economic impact of medication non-adherence is limited and of varying quality, failing to provide adaptable data to influence health policy. The correlation between increased non-adherence and higher disease prevalence should be used to inform policymakers to help circumvent avoidable costs to the healthcare system. Differences in methods make the comparison among studies challenging and an accurate estimation of true magnitude of the cost impossible. Standardisation of the metric measures used to estimate medication non-adherence and development of a streamlined approach to quantify costs is required. PROSPERO registration number CRD42015027338.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/8/1/e016982.full.pdf

Economic impact of medication non-adherence by disease groups: a systematic review

Background:Nonadherence to medication is a recognized problem and may be the most challenging aspect of treatment.Methods:We performed a systematic review of factors that influence adherence and the consequences of nonadherence to the patient, healthcare system and society, in patients with schizophrenia. Particular attention was given to the effect of nonadherence on hospitalization rates, as a key driver of increased costs of care. A qualitative systematic literature review was conducted using a broad search strategy using disease and adherence terms. Due to the large number of abstracts identified, article selection was based on studies with larger sample sizes published after 2001. Thirty-seven full papers were included: 15 studies on drivers and 22 on consequences, of which 12 assessed the link between nonadherence and hospitalization.Results:Key drivers of nonadherence included lack of insight, medication beliefs and substance abuse. Key consequences of nonadherence included greater risk of relapse,...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2045125312474019

Medication adherence in schizophrenia: factors influencing adherence and consequences of nonadherence, a systematic literature review

Assessment of compliance with antipsychotic treatmentand resource utilization in a medicaid population

The availability of long-acting risperidone injection may increase adherence and lead to improved clinical and economic outcomes for individuals with schizophrenia. The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of long-acting risperidone, oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, aripiprazole, and haloperidol depot in patients with schizophrenia over 1 year from a healthcare system perspective. Published medical literature, unpublished data from clinical trials and a consumer health database, and a clinical expert panel were utilized to populate a decision analytical model comparing the seven treatment alternatives. The model captured rates of patient compliance, the rates, frequency and duration of relapse, incidence of adverse events, and healthcare resource utilization and associated costs. Primary outcomes were expressed in terms of percentage of patients relapsing per year, number of relapse days per year (number and duration of relapses per patient per year), and total direct 2003 medical cost per patient per year. On the basis of model projections, the proportions of patients experiencing a relapse requiring hospitalization in 1 year were 66% for haloperidol depot, 41% for oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole, and 26% for long-acting risperidone, whereas the proportions of patients with an exacerbation not requiring hospitalization were 60% for haloperidol depot, 37% for oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole, and 24% for long-acting risperidone. The mean number of days of relapse requiring hospitalization per patient per year were 28 for haloperidol depot, 18 for oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole, and 11 for long-acting risperidone, whereas the mean number of days of exacerbation not requiring hospitalization were eight for haloperidol depot, five for oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole, and three for long-acting risperidone. This would translate into direct medical cost savings with long-acting risperidone compared with oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, aripiprazole, and haloperidol depot of US dollars 161, 1425, 508, 259, 1068, and 8224, respectively. These findings were supported by sensitivity analyses. The utilization of long-acting risperidone is predicted to result in better clinical outcomes and lower total healthcare costs than its comparators, oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, aripiprazole, and haloperidol depot. Long-acting risperidone may therefore be a cost saving therapeutic option for patients with schizophrenia.

Cost effectiveness of long-acting risperidone injection versus alternative antipsychotic agents in patients with schizophrenia in the USA

Objective: To calculate and compare the human capital approach (HCA) and friction cost approach (FCA) methods for estimating the cost of lost productivity of migraineurs after the initiation of sumatriptan from a US societal perspective. Design: Secondary, retrospective analysis to a prospective observational study. Setting: A mixed-model managed care organisation in western Pennsylvania, USA. Patients: Patients with migraine using sumatriptan therapy. Interventions: Patient-reported questionnaires collected at baseline, 3 and 6 months after initiation of sumatriptan therapy. Outcome measures: The cost of lost productivity estimated with the HCA and FCA methods. Results: Of the 178 patients who completed the study, 51% were full-time employees, 13% were part-time, 18% were not working and 17% changed work status. Twenty-four percent reported a clerical or administrative position. From the HCA, the estimated total cost of lost productivity for 6 months following the initiation of sumatriptan was $US117 905 (1996 values). From the FCA, the six-month estimated total cost of lost productivity ranged from $US28 329 to $US117 905 (1996 values). Conclusions: This was the first study to retrospectively estimate lost productivity of patients with migraine using the FCA methodology. Our results demonstrate that depending on the assumptions and illustrations employed, the FCA can yield lost productivity estimates that vary greatly as a percentage of the HCAestimate. Prospective investigations are needed to better determine the components and the nature of the lost productivity for chronic episodic diseases such as migraine headache.

Julie C. Locklear

Papers

Assessment of compliance with antipsychotic treatmentand resource utilization in a medicaid population

Cost effectiveness of long-acting risperidone injection versus alternative antipsychotic agents in patients with schizophrenia in the USA

Different Approaches To Valuing the Lost Productivity of Patients with Migraine