7 research outputs found
The Modeled Lifetime Cost-Effectiveness of Published Adherence-Improving Interventions for Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Medications
AbstractObjectiveWe sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of different interventions that have been shown to improve adherence with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy, by combining a burden of nonadherence model framework with literature-based data on adherence-improving interventions.MethodsMEDLINE was reviewed for studies that evaluated ≥1 adherence intervention compared with a control, used an adherence measure other than self-report, and followed patients for ≥6 months. Effectiveness was assessed as Relative Improvement, ratio of adherence with an intervention versus control. Costs, standardized to 12 months and adjusted to 2007 US17,520, and compared with no adherence intervention, had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 17,896, and versus self-monitoring, reminders, and education had an ICER of $6358 per QALY gained.ConclusionsOf published interventions shown to improve adherence, reminders and educational materials, and a pharmacist/nurse management program, appear to be cost-effective and should be considered before other interventions. Understanding relative cost-effectiveness of adherence interventions may guide design and implementation of efficient adherence-improving program
Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Reduces the Cost of Venous Thromboembolism Treatment Compared with Unfractionated Heparin in US Hospitals.
Estimated Budget Impact of Adopting the Affordable Care Act’s Required Smoking Cessation Coverage on United States Healthcare Payers
<p><strong>Article full
text</strong></p>
<p><br>
The full text of this article can be found <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-016-0446-y"><b>here</b>.</a><br>
<br>
<strong>Provide enhanced digital features for this article</strong><br>
If you are an author of this publication and would like to provide additional
enhanced digital features for your article then please contact <u>[email protected]</u>.<br>
<br>
The journal offers a range of additional features designed to increase
visibility and readership. All features will be thoroughly peer reviewed to ensure the content is of the
highest scientific standard and all features are marked as ‘peer reviewed’ to
ensure readers are aware that the content has been reviewed to the same level
as the articles they are being presented alongside. Moreover, all sponsorship
and disclosure information is included to provide complete transparency and
adherence to good publication practices. This ensures that however the content
is reached the reader has a full understanding of its origin. No fees are
charged for hosting additional open access content.<br>
<br>
Other enhanced features include, but are
not limited to:<br>
• Slide decks<br>
• Videos and animations<br>
• Audio abstracts<br>
• Audio slides<u></u></p
Evaluating Real-World National and Regional Trends in Definitive Closure in U.S. Burn Care: A Survey of U.S. Burn Centers.
To better understand trends in burn treatment patterns related to definitive closure, this study sought to benchmark real-world survey data with national data contained within the National Burn Repository version 8.0 (NBR v8.0) across key burn center practice patterns, resource utilization, and clinical outcomes. A survey, administered to a representative sample of U.S. burn surgeons, collected information across several domains: burn center characteristics, patient characteristics including number of patients and burn size and depth, aggregate number of procedures, resource use such as autograft procedure time and dressing changes, and costs. Survey findings were aggregated by key outcomes (number of procedures, costs) nationally and regionally. Aggregated burn center data were also compared to the NBR to identify trends relative to current treatment patterns. Benchmarking survey results against the NBR v8.0 demonstrated shifts in burn center patient mix, with more severe cases being seen in the inpatient setting and less severe burns moving to the outpatient setting. An overall reduction in the number of autograft procedures was observed compared to NBR v8.0, and time efficiencies improved as the intervention time per TBSA decreases as TBSA increases. Both nationally and regionally, an increase in costs was observed. The results suggest resource use estimates from NBR v8.0 may be higher than current practices, thus highlighting the importance of improved and timely NBR reporting and further research on burn center standard of care practices. This study demonstrates significant variations in burn center characteristics, practice patterns, and resource utilization, thus increasing our understanding of burn center operations and behavior