Carvedilol reduces the costs of medical care in severe heart failure: An economic analysis of the COPERNICUS study applied to the United Kingdom

Background: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of carvedilol on the costs related to the treatment of severe chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods: Costs for the treatment for heart failure within the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK) were applied to resource utilisation data prospectively collected in all patients randomized into the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) Study. Unit-specific, per them (hospital bed day) costs were used to calculate expenditures due to hospitalizations. We also included costs of carvedilol treatment, general practitioner surgery/office visits, hospital out-patient clinic visits and nursing home care based on estimates derived from validated patterns of clinical practice in the UK. Results: The estimated cost of carvedilol therapy and related ambulatory care for the 1156 patients assigned to active treatment was 530,771 pound (44.89 pound per patient/month of follow-up). However, patients assigned to carvedilol were hospitalised less often and accumulated fewer and less expensive days of admission. Consequently, the total estimated cost of hospital care was 3.49 pound million in the carvedilol group compared with 4.24 pound million for the 1133 patients in the placebo arm. The cost of post-discharge care was also less in the carvedilol than in the placebo group (479,200 pound vs. 548,300) pound. Overall, the cost per patient treated in the carvedilol group was 3948 pound compared to 4279 pound in the placebo group. This equated to a cost of 385.98 pound vs. 434.18 pound, respectively, per patient/month of follow-up: an 11.1% reduction in health care costs in favour of carvedilol. Conclusions: These findings suggest that not only can carvedilol treatment increase survival and reduce hospital admissions in patients with severe CHF but that it can also cut costs in the process.

Does health service utilisation vary by remoteness? South Australian population data and the Accessibility and Remoteness Index of Australia

Objective: To compare rates of self-reported use of health services between rural, remote and urban South Australians. Methods: Secondary data analysis from a population-based survey to assess health and well-being, conducted in South Australia in 2000. In all, 2,454 adults were randomly selected and interviewed using the computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) system. We analysed health service use by Accessibility and Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) category. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the median number of uses of the four types of health services studied across ARIA categories. Significantly fewer residents of highly accessible areas reported never using primary care services (14.4% vs. 22.2% in very remote areas), and significantly more reported high use ( greater than or equal to6 visits, 29.3% vs. 21.5%). Fewer residents of remote areas reported never attending hospital (65.6% vs. 73.8% in highly accessible areas). Frequency of use of mental health services was not statistically significantly different across ARIA categories. Very remote residents were more likely to spend at least one night in a public hospital (15.8%) than were residents of other areas (e.g. 5.9% for highly accessible areas). Conclusion: The self-reported frequency of use of a range of health services in South Australia was broadly similar across ARIA categories. However, use of primary care services was higher among residents of highly accessible areas and public hospital use increased with increasing remoteness. There is no evidence for systematic rural disadvantage in terms of self-reported health service utilisation in this State.