Modelling the population cost-effectiveness of current and evidence-based optimal treatment for anxiety disorders

Background. The present paper describes a component of a large Population cost-effectiveness study that aimed to identify the averted burden and economic efficiency of current and optimal treatment for the major mental disorders. This paper reports on the findings for the anxiety disorders (panic disorder/agoraphobia, social phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder). Method. Outcome was calculated as averted 'years lived with disability' (YLD), a population summary measure of disability burden. Costs were the direct health care costs in 1997-8 Australian dollars. The cost per YLD averted (efficiency) was calculated for those already in contact with the health system for a mental health problem (current care) and for a hypothetical optimal care package of evidence-based treatment for this same group. Data sources included the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-being and published treatment effects and unit costs. Results. Current coverage was around 40% for most disorders with the exception of social phobia at 21%. Receipt of interventions consistent with evidence-based care ranged from 32% of those in contact with services for social phobia to 64% for post-traumatic stress disorder. The cost of this care was estimated at $400 million, resulting in a cost per YLD averted ranging from $7761 for generalized anxiety disorder to $34 389 for panic/agoraphobia. Under optimal care, costs remained similar but health gains were increased substantially, reducing the cost per YLD to < $20 000 for all disorders. Conclusions. Evidence-based care for anxiety disorders would produce greater population health gain at a similar cost to that of current care, resulting in a substantial increase in the cost-effectiveness of treatment.

Evidence-based medicine is affordable: The cost-effectiveness of current compared with optimal treatment in rheumatoid and osteoarthritis

Objective. To determine the cost-effectiveness of averting the burden of disease. We used secondary population data and metaanalyses of various government-funded services and interventions to investigate the costs and benefits of various levels of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) in adults using a burden of disease framework. Method. Population burden was calculated for both diseases in the absence of any treatment as years lived with disability (YLD), ignoring the years of life lost. We then estimated the proportion of burden averted with current interventions, the proportion that could be averted with optimally implemented cut-rent evidence-based guidelines, and the direct treatment cost-effectiveness ratio in dollars per YLD averted for both treatment levels. Results. The majority of people with arthritis sought medical treatment. Current treatment for RA averted 26% of the burden, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,000 per YLD averted. Optimal, evidence-based treatment would avert 48% of the burden. with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $12,000 per YLD averted. Current treatment of OA in Australia averted 27% of the burden, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,000 per YLD averted. Optimal, evidence-based treatment would avert 39% of the burden, with an unchanged cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,000 per YLD averted. Conclusion. While the precise dollar costs in each country will differ, the relativities at this level of coverage should remain the same. There is no evidence that closing the gap between evidence and practice would result in a drop in efficiency.