IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v15y2017i3d10.1007_s40258-016-0298-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Evaluation of Community-Based Case Management of Patients Suffering From Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Author

Listed:
  • Sabrina Storgaard Sørensen

    () (Aalborg University)

  • Kjeld Møller Pedersen

    () (Aalborg University
    University of Southern Denmark)

  • Ulla Møller Weinreich

    () (Aalborg University Hospital
    Aalborg University Hospital)

  • Lars Ehlers

    () (Aalborg University)

Abstract

Objectives To analyse the cost effectiveness of community-based case management for patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods The study took place in the third largest municipality in Denmark and was conducted as a randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. A total of 150 patients with COPD were randomised into two groups receiving usual care and case management in addition to usual care. Case management included among other things self care proficiency, medicine compliance, and care coordination. Outcome measure for the analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) from the perspective of the healthcare sector. Costs were valued in British Pounds (£) at price level 2016. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted in order to assess uncertainty of the ICER estimate. Results The intervention resulted in a QALY improvement of 0.0146 (95% CI −0.0216; 0.0585), and a cost increase of £494 (95% CI −1778; 2766) per patient. No statistically significant difference was observed either in costs or effects. The ICER was £33,865 per QALY gained. Scenario analyses confirmed the robustness of the result and revealed slightly lower ICERs of £28,100–£31,340 per QALY. Conclusions Analysis revealed that case management led to a positive incremental QALY, but were more costly than usual care. The highly uncertain ICER somewhat exceeds for instance the threshold value used by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). No formally established Danish threshold value exists. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01512836.

Suggested Citation

  • Sabrina Storgaard Sørensen & Kjeld Møller Pedersen & Ulla Møller Weinreich & Lars Ehlers, 2017. "Economic Evaluation of Community-Based Case Management of Patients Suffering From Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 413-424, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0298-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0298-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0298-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(3), pages 367-372, June.
    2. Andrea Manca & Neil Hawkins & Mark J. Sculpher, 2005. "Estimating mean QALYs in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 487-496, May.
    3. Culyer, Anthony J., 2016. "Cost-effectiveness thresholds in health care: a bookshelf guide to their meaning and use," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 415-432, October.
    4. Andrew R. Willan & Andrew H. Briggs & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2004. "Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non‐censored cost‐effectiveness data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 461-475, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0298-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.