Home-Based Medication Review in Older People: Is it Cost Effective?
Abstract
Background: Medication review by pharmacists is increasingly being implemented in the primary care setting and has been incorporated into the new pharmacy contract in the UK. This study aims to determine the cost effectiveness of home-based medication review in older people. Methods: This economic evaluation was based on a randomised controlled trial (the HOMER [HOME-based medication Review] trial). Patients aged >80 years (n_=_872) were recruited if admitted as an emergency to an acute or community hospital in Norfolk or Suffolk (any cause), returning to their own home or warden-controlled accommodation, and taking two or more drugs daily on discharge. Patients randomised to the intervention group received two home visits by a pharmacist within 2 and 8 weeks of discharge to educate patients and carers about their drugs, remove out-of-date drugs, inform GPs of drug reactions or interactions and inform the local pharmacist if an adherence aid was needed. The control arm received usual care. Economic evaluation was performed from the UK NHS perspective, with follow-up for 6 months and cost data from 2000. Resource use data were collected from hospital episode statistics and from a sample of GP records of trial participants. Intervention, hospital, ambulance and general practice costs were considered to determine average costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Use of the EQ-5D questionnaire permitted outcomes to be expressed as QALYs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was employed to calculate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: Mortality and admission data were available for 829 of 855 patients included in the study (415 intervention and 414 control patients). Of those patients randomised to the intervention group, 358 had a medication review at a total intervention cost of Lstg 51_622 (or Lstg 124 per randomised patient). The intervention did not reduce hospital admissions. The average cost per intervention group patient was Lstg 1695 compared with Lstg 1424 for control patients. The incremental cost per life year gained through the intervention was Lstg 33_541. The incremental cost per QALY gained in the intervention was Lstg 54_454. Sensitivity analysis suggested a 25% probability that home-based medication review is cost effective using a threshold of Lstg 30_000 per QALY. Conclusion: The current policy imperative for implementing medicines review needs to be reconsidered in the light of the findings of this study: a small, non significant gain in quality of life, no reduction in hospital admissions and a low probability of cost effectiveness.Download Info
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic Info
Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.
Volume (Year): 25 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 171-180
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:25:y:2007:i:2:p:171-180
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://pharmacoeconomics.adisonline.com/
For corrections or technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Dave Dustin).
Related research
Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; Cost-utility; Elderly; Pharmaceutical-care-programmes;Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
- D - Microeconomics
- I - Health, Education, and Welfare
- Z - Other Special Topics
- I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
- I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other
- I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
- I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
References
No references listed on IDEASYou can help add them by filling out this form.
Citations
Lists
This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Statistics
Access and download statisticsCorrections
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:25:y:2007:i:2:p:171-180For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.