Multicentre randomised control trial comparing real time teledermatology with conventional outpatient dermatological care:societal cost-benefit analysis

Comparison of real time teledermatology with outpatient dermatology in terms of clinical outcomes, cost-benefits, and patient reattendance.

A comparison of real-time and store-and-forward teledermatology:a cost-benefit study

Increasing use of teledermatology should be based on demonstration of favourable accuracy and cost-benefit analysis for the different methods of use of this technique. Objectives To evaluate the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of real-time and store-and-forward teledermatology.

Incorporating Severity and Risk as Factors to the Fardal Cost-Effectiveness Model to Create a Cost-Benefit Model for Periodontal Treatment

Background: A previously described economic model was based on average values for patients diagnosed with chronic periodontitis (CP). However, tooth loss varies among treated patients and factors for tooth loss include CP severity and risk. The model was refined to incorporate CP severity and risk to determine the cost of treating a specific level of CP severity and risk that is associated with the benefit of tooth preservation.

Methods: A population that received and another that did not receive periodontal treatment were used to determine treatment costs and tooth loss. The number of teeth preserved was the difference of the number of teeth lost between the two populations. The cost of periodontal treatment was divided by the number of teeth preserved for combinations of CP severity and risk.

Results: The cost of periodontal treatment divided by the number of teeth preserved ranged from (US) $ 1,405 to $ 4,895 for high or moderate risk combined with any severity of CP and was more than $ 8,639 for low risk combined with mild CP. The cost of a three-unit bridge was $ 3,416, and the cost of a single-tooth replacement was $ 4,787.

Conclusion: Periodontal treatment could be justified on the sole basis of tooth preservation when CP risk is moderate or high regardless of disease severity.

Opportunity cost based analysis of corporate eco-efficiency: A methodology and its application to the CO2-efficiency of German companies

In this paper, we propose the return-to-cost-ratio (RCR) as an alternative approach to the analysis of operational eco-efficiency of companies based on the notion of opportunity costs. RCR helps to overcome two fundamental deficits of existing approaches to eco-efficiency. (1) It translates eco-efficiency into managerial terms by applying the well-established notion of opportunity costs to eco-efficiency analysis. (2) RCR allows to identify and quantify the drivers behind changes in corporate eco-efficiency. RCR is applied to the analysis of the CO2-efficiency of German companies in order to illustrate its usefulness for a detailed analysis of changes in corporate eco-efficiency as well as for the development of effective environmental strategies. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of an Adapted U.S. Model of Pharmaceutical Care for Nursing Home Residents in Northern Ireland (Fleetwood Northern Ireland Study): A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an adapted U.S. model of pharmaceutical care to improve psychoactive prescribing for nursing home residents in Northern Ireland (Fleetwood NI Study).
DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: Nursing homes in NI randomized to intervention (receipt of the adapted model of care; n511) or control (usual care continued; n511).
PARTICIPANTS: Residents aged 65 and older who provided informed consent (N5253; 128 intervention, 125 control) and who had full resource use data at 12 months.
INTERVENTION: Trained pharmacists reviewed intervention home residents’ clinical and prescribing information for 12 months, applied an algorithm that guided them in assessing the appropriateness of psychoactive medication, and worked with prescribers (general practitioners) to make changes. The control homes received usual care in which there was no pharmacist intervention.
MEASUREMENTS: The proportion of residents prescribed one or more inappropriate psychoactive medications (according to standardized protocols), costs, and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. The latter two outcomes are the focus for this article.
RESULTS: The proportions of residents receiving inappropriate psychoactive medication at 12 months in the intervention and control group were 19.5% and 50.4%, respectively. The mean cost of healthcare resources used per resident per year was $4,923 (95% con?dence interval.

A lesson in business: cost-effectiveness analysis of a novel financial incentive intervention for increasing physical activity in the workplace

Background: Recently both the UK and US governments have advocated the use of financial incentives to encourage healthier lifestyle choices but evidence for the cost-effectiveness of such interventions is lacking. Our aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a quasi-experimental trial, exploring the use of financial incentives to increase employee physical activity levels, from a healthcare and employer’s perspective.

Methods: Employees used a ‘loyalty card’ to objectively monitor their physical activity at work over 12 weeks. The Incentive Group (n=199) collected points and received rewards for minutes of physical activity completed. The No Incentive Group (n=207) self-monitored their physical activity only. Quality of life (QOL) and absenteeism were assessed at baseline and 6 months follow-up. QOL scores were also converted into productivity estimates using a validated algorithm. The additional costs of the Incentive Group were divided by the additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs) or productivity gained to calculate incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) and population expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was used to characterize and value the uncertainty in our estimates.

Results: The Incentive Group performed more physical activity over 12 weeks and by 6 months had achieved greater gains in QOL and productivity, although these mean differences were not statistically significant. The ICERs were £2,900/QALY and £2,700 per percentage increase in overall employee productivity. Whilst the confidence intervals surrounding these ICERs were wide, CEACs showed a high chance of the intervention being cost-effective at low willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds.

Conclusions: The Physical Activity Loyalty card (PAL) scheme is potentially cost-effective from both a healthcare and employer’s perspective but further research is warranted to reduce uncertainty in our results. It is based on a sustainable “business model” which should become more cost-effective as it is delivered to more participants and can be adapted to suit other health behaviors and settings. This comes at a time when both UK and US governments are encouraging business involvement in tackling public health challenges.