Living with osteoarthritis: Patient expenditures, health status, and social impact

Objective. To determine out-of-pocket expenditures related to osteoarthritis (OA) and to explore whether demographic details, health status scores (Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form [SF-36] and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]), or perception of social effect were expenditure determinants. Methods. A prospective cohort study of community-dwelling subjects with OA completed 4 consecutive 3-month cost diaries. In addition, subjects completed the SF-36 and WOMAC at baseline and at 12 months. Social impact at baseline was collected. Four groups categorized by age and sex were compared. Patients undergoing joint replacement were excluded. Results. Differences in health status were defined more by age than by sex, especially for physical function. The costs to the patients were high, particularly for women, who spent more on medications and special equipment. Women also reported receiving more assistance from family and friends. Higher disease-related expenditures were associated with greater pain levels, poorer social function and mental health, and longer duration of disease. Significant independent predictors of total patient expenditures related to OA were being female and having joint stiffness. Conclusion. Despite having heavily subsidized health care and access to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, out-of-pocket costs for patients with OA in Australia are considerable. Higher expenditures for patients with OA are related to more advanced disease, especially for women.

A randomized controlled trial assessing the health economics of realtime teledermatology compared with conventional care: an urban versus rural perspective

A randomized controlled trial was carried out to measure the cost-effectiveness of realtime teledermatology compared with conventional outpatient dermatology care for patients from urban and rural areas. One urban and one rural health centre were linked to a regional hospital in Northern Ireland by ISDN at 128 kbit/s. Over two years, 274 patients required a hospital outpatient dermatology referral -126 patients (46%) were randomized to a telemedicine consultation and 148 (54%) to a conventional hospital outpatient consultation. Of those seen by telemedicine, 61% were registered with an urban practice, compared with 71% of those seen conventionally. The clinical outcomes of the two types of consultation were similar - almost half the patients were managed after a single consultation with the dermatologist. The observed marginal cost per patient of the initial realtime teledermatology consultation was f52.85 for those in urban areas and f59.93 per patient for those from rural areas. The observed marginal cost of the initial conventional consultation was f47.13 for urban patients and f48.77 for rural patients. The total observed costs of teledermatology were higher than the costs of conventional care in both urban and rural areas, mainly because of the fixed equipment costs. Sensitivity analysis using a real-world scenario showed that in urban areas the average costs of the telemedicine and conventional consultations were about equal, while in rural areas the average cost of the telemedicine consultation was less than that of the conventional consultation.

Randomised controlled trial of telemedicine for new neurological outpatient referrals

Objective-To test the hypothesis that telemedicine for new patient referrals to neurological outpatients is as efficient and acceptable as conventional face to face consultation. Methods-A randomised controlled trial between two groups: face to face (FF) and telemedicine (TM). This study was carried out between a neurological centre and outlying clinics at two distant hospitals linked by identical medium cost commercial interactive video conferencing equipment with ISDN lines transmitting information at 384 kbits/s. The same two neurologists carried out both arms of the study. Of the 168 patients who were suitable for the study, 86 were randomised into the telemedicine group and 82 into the face to face group. Outcome measures were (I) consultation process: (a) number of investigations; (b) number of drugs prescribed; (c) number of patient reviews and (2) patient satisfaction: (a) confidence in consultation; (b) technical aspects of consultation; (c) aspects surrounding confidentiality. Diagnostic categories were also measured to check equivalence between the groups: these were structural neurological, structural non-neurological, nonstructural, and uncertain. Results-Diagnostic categories were similar (p>0.5) between the two groups. Patients in the telemedicine group had significantly more investigations (p=0.001). There was no difference in the number of drugs prescribed (p>0.5). Patients were generally satisfied with both types of consultation process except for concerns about confidentiality and embarrassment in the telemedicine group (p=0.017 and p=0.005 respectively). Conclusion-Telemedicine for new neurological outpatients is possible and feasible but generates more investigations and is less well accepted than face to face examination.