The European Journal of Health Economics最新文献

Many health insurance schemes include deductibles to provide consumers with cost containment incentives (CCI) and to counteract moral hazard. Policymakers are faced with choices on the implementation of a specific cost sharing design. One of the guiding principles in this decision process could be which design leads to the strongest CCI. Despite the vast amount of literature on the effects of cost sharing, the relative effects of specific cost sharing designs-e.g., a traditional deductible versus a doughnut hole-will mostly be absent for a certain context. This papers aims at developing a simulation model to approximate the relative effects of different deductible modalities on the CCI. We argue that the CCI depends on the probability that healthcare expenses end up in the deductible range and the expected healthcare expenses given that they end up in the deductible range. Our empirical application shows that different deductible modalities result in different CCIs and that the CCI under a certain modality differs across risk-groups.

Background: Policymakers need to know the cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes (T2D). The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a T2D prevention initiative targeting weight reduction, increased physical activity and healthier diet in persons in pre-diabetic states by comparing a hypothetical intervention versus no intervention in a Swedish setting.

Methods: A Markov model was used to study the cost-effectiveness of a T2D prevention program based on lifestyle change versus a control group where no prevention was applied. Analyses were done deterministically and probabilistically based on Monte Carlo simulation for six different scenarios defined by sex and age groups (30, 50, 70 years). Cost and quality adjusted life year (QALY) differences between no intervention and intervention and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated and visualized in cost-effectiveness planes (CE planes) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEA curves).

Results: All ICERs were cost-effective and ranged from 3833 €/QALY gained (women, 30 years) to 9215 €/QALY gained (men, 70 years). The CEA curves showed that the probability of the intervention being cost-effective at the threshold value of 50,000 € per QALY gained was very high for all scenarios ranging from 85.0 to 91.1%.

Discussion/conclusion: The prevention or the delay of the onset of T2D is feasible and cost-effective. A small investment in healthy lifestyle with change in physical activity and diet together with weight loss are very likely to be cost-effective.

This study aims to estimate the mean annual social cost per patient with chronic kidney disease (CKD) by stages 4 and 5 pre-dialyses and cost components in Italy. The multicenter cross-sectional study included all adult outpatients in charge of the 14 main Nephrology Centers of Tuscany Region during 7 weeks from 2012 to 2013. Direct medical costs have been estimated using tariffs for laboratory tests, diagnostic exams, visits, hospitalization and prices for drugs. Non-medical costs included expenses of low-protein special foods, travel, and formal and informal care. Patients' and caregivers' losses of productivity have been estimated as indirect costs using the human capital approach. Costs have been expressed in Euros (2016). Totals of 279 patients in stage 4 and 205 patients in stage 5 have been enrolled. The estimated mean annual social cost of a patient with CKD were €7422 (±€6255) for stage 4 and €8971 (±€6503) for stage 5 (p < 0.05). Direct medical costs were higher in stage 5 as compared to stage 4; direct non-medical costs and indirect costs accounted, respectively, for 41 and 5 % of the total social cost of CKD stage 4 and for 33 and 9 % of CKD stage 5. In Italy, the overall annual social cost of CKD was €1,809,552,398 representing 0.11 % of the Gross Domestic Product. Direct non-medical costs and indirect costs were weighted on the social cost of CKD almost as much as the direct medical cost. Patients, their families and the productivity system sustain the burden of the disease almost as much as the healthcare system.