Costs and Quality of Life in Multiple Sclerosis. A Cross-Sectional Observational Study in Germany

We performed a cross-sectional, “bottom-up” observational study of resource consumption and quality of life of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in Germany. Six centers participated in the study. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire, and a total of 737 patients returned the questionnaire (the answer rate being 66%). The questionnaire provided information on all resource consumption, medical and non-medical, work absence and informal care related to their MS. Simultaneously, medical charts were also abstracted for a sub sample of 202 patients. For this sub sample, disease scores (Expanded Disability Status Scale, EDSS) were available from the study centers. For the remainder, disease scores were assigned using a matrix of disease (mobility) descriptions and EDSS scores. Mean total cost per patient and year was 65,400 DM, adjusted for usage of interferons, which was higher in this sample than the current average usage in Germany. When this cost is extrapolated to an estimated patient population of 120,000, total costs to society are estimated at 7.85 billion DM. Direct costs represented 57.5%, informal care accounted for 12.1% and indirect costs amounted to 42.5%. An estimated 24,800 DM per patient or 38% of total costs are paid for by public payers. Intangible costs were estimated 16,650 DM per patient and year. The mean age of the cohort was 42 years (disease onset 33), the mean utility measured with EQ-5D was 0.552 (0.919 to –0.429), and the mean EDSS score 4.4 (1.0 to 9.5). All costs (direct, informal care, indirect) increased with increasing EDSS scores, while utilities decreased.Keywords: multiple sclerosis; cost-of-illness; quality of life; EDSS; utility

EuroEco (European Health Economic Trial on Home Monitoring in ICD Patients): a provider perspective in five European countries on costs and net financial impact of follow-up with or without remote monitoring

Aim: Remote follow-up (FU) of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) allows for fewer in-office visits in combination with earlier detection of relevant findings. Its implementation requires investment and reorganization of care. Providers (physicians or hospitals) are unsure about the financial impact. The primary end-point of this randomized prospective multicentre health economic trial was the total FU-related cost for providers, comparing Home Monitoring facilitated FU (HM ON) to regular in-office FU (HM OFF) during the first 2 years after ICD implantation. Also the net financial impact on providers (taking national reimbursement into account) and costs from a healthcare payer perspective were evaluated. Methods and results: Atotal of 312 patients with VVI-or DDD-ICD implants from 17 centres in six EU countries were randomised to HMON or OFF, of which 303 were eligible for data analysis. For all contacts (in-office, calendar-or alert-triggered web-based review, discussions, calls) time-expenditure was tracked. Country-specific cost parameters were used to convert resource use into monetary values. Remote FU equipment itself was not included in the cost calculations. Given only two patients from Finland (one in each group) a monetary valuation analysis was not performed for Finland. Average age was 62.4 +/- 13.1 years, 81% were male, 39% received a DDD system, and 51% had a prophylactic ICD. Resource use with HM ON was clearly different: less FU visits (3.79 +/- 1.67 vs. 5.53 +/- 2.32; P < 0.001) despite a small increase of unscheduled visits (0.95 +/- 1.50 vs. 0.62 +/- 1.25; P < 0.005), more non-office-based contacts (1.95+3.29 vs. 1.01 +/- 2.64; P < 0.001), more Internet sessions (11.02 +/- 15.28 vs. 0.06 +/- 0.31; P < 0.001) and more in-clinic discussions (1.84 +/- 4.20 vs. 1.28 +/- 2.92; P < 0.03), but with numerically fewer hospitalizations (0.67 +/- 1.18 vs. 0.85 +/- 1.43, P = 0.23) and shorter length-of-stay (6.31 +/- 15.5 vs. 8.26 +/- 18.6; P = 0.27), although not significant. For the whole study population, the total FU cost for providers was not different for HM ON vs. OFF [mean (95% CI): (sic)204 169-238) vs. (sic)213 (182-243); range for difference ((sic)-36 to 54), NS]. From a payer perspective, FU-related costs were similar while the total cost per patient (including other physician visits, examinations, and hospitalizations) was numerically (but not significantly) lower. There was no difference in the net financial impact on providers [profit of (sic)408 (327-489) vs. (sic)400 (345-455); range for difference ((sic)-104 to 88), NS], but there was heterogeneity among countries, with less profit for providers in the absence of specific remote FU reimbursement (Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands) and maintained or increased profit in cases where such reimbursement exists (Germany and UK). Quality of life (SF-36) was not different. Conclusion: For all the patients as a whole, FU-related costs for providers are not different for remote FU vs. purely in-office FU, despite reorganized care. However, disparity in the impact on provider budget among different countries illustrates the need for proper reimbursement to ensure effective remote FU implementation

Cost-consequence analysis of daily continuous remote monitoring of implantable cardiac defibrillator and resynchronization devices in the UK.

The need for ongoing and lifelong follow-up (FU) of patients with cardiac implantable electric devices (CIED) requires significant resources. Remote CIED management has been established as a safe alternative to conventional periodical in-office FU (CFU). An economic model compares the long-term cost and consequences of using daily Home Monitoring® (HM) instead of CFU