Cargando…

Should health insurers target prevention of cardiovascular disease?: a cost-effectiveness analysis of an individualised programme in Germany based on routine data

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases are the main cause of death worldwide, making their prevention a major health care challenge. In 2006, a German statutory health insurance company presented a novel individualised prevention programme (KardioPro), which focused on coronary heart disease (CHD) scre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aljutaili, Majed, Becker, Christian, Witt, Sabine, Holle, Rolf, Leidl, Reiner, Block, Michael, Brachmann, Johannes, Silber, Sigmund, Bestehorn, Kurt, Stollenwerk, Björn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4086686/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24938674
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-263
_version_ 1782324836122492928
author Aljutaili, Majed
Becker, Christian
Witt, Sabine
Holle, Rolf
Leidl, Reiner
Block, Michael
Brachmann, Johannes
Silber, Sigmund
Bestehorn, Kurt
Stollenwerk, Björn
author_facet Aljutaili, Majed
Becker, Christian
Witt, Sabine
Holle, Rolf
Leidl, Reiner
Block, Michael
Brachmann, Johannes
Silber, Sigmund
Bestehorn, Kurt
Stollenwerk, Björn
author_sort Aljutaili, Majed
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases are the main cause of death worldwide, making their prevention a major health care challenge. In 2006, a German statutory health insurance company presented a novel individualised prevention programme (KardioPro), which focused on coronary heart disease (CHD) screening, risk factor assessment, early detection and secondary prevention. This study evaluates KardioPro in CHD risk subgroups, and analyses the cost-effectiveness of different individualised prevention strategies. METHODS: The CHD risk subgroups were assembled based on routine data from the statutory health insurance company, making use of a quasi-beta regression model for risk prediction. The control group was selected via propensity score matching based on logistic regression and an approximate nearest neighbour approach. The main outcome was cost-effectiveness. Effectiveness was measured as event-free time, and events were defined as myocardial infarction, stroke and death. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios comparing participants with non-participants were calculated for each subgroup. To assess the uncertainty of results, a bootstrapping approach was applied. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness of KardioPro in the group at high risk of CHD was €20,901 per event-free year; in the medium-risk group, €52,323 per event-free year; in the low-risk group, €186,074 per event-free year; and in the group with known CHD, €26,456 per event-free year. KardioPro was associated with a significant health gain but also a significant cost increase. However, statistical significance could not be shown for all subgroups. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness of KardioPro differs substantially according to the group being targeted. Depending on the willingness-to-pay, it may be reasonable to only offer KardioPro to patients at high risk of further cardiovascular events. This high-risk group could be identified from routine statutory health insurance data. However, the long-term consequences of KardioPro still need to be evaluated.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4086686
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40866862014-07-09 Should health insurers target prevention of cardiovascular disease?: a cost-effectiveness analysis of an individualised programme in Germany based on routine data Aljutaili, Majed Becker, Christian Witt, Sabine Holle, Rolf Leidl, Reiner Block, Michael Brachmann, Johannes Silber, Sigmund Bestehorn, Kurt Stollenwerk, Björn BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases are the main cause of death worldwide, making their prevention a major health care challenge. In 2006, a German statutory health insurance company presented a novel individualised prevention programme (KardioPro), which focused on coronary heart disease (CHD) screening, risk factor assessment, early detection and secondary prevention. This study evaluates KardioPro in CHD risk subgroups, and analyses the cost-effectiveness of different individualised prevention strategies. METHODS: The CHD risk subgroups were assembled based on routine data from the statutory health insurance company, making use of a quasi-beta regression model for risk prediction. The control group was selected via propensity score matching based on logistic regression and an approximate nearest neighbour approach. The main outcome was cost-effectiveness. Effectiveness was measured as event-free time, and events were defined as myocardial infarction, stroke and death. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios comparing participants with non-participants were calculated for each subgroup. To assess the uncertainty of results, a bootstrapping approach was applied. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness of KardioPro in the group at high risk of CHD was €20,901 per event-free year; in the medium-risk group, €52,323 per event-free year; in the low-risk group, €186,074 per event-free year; and in the group with known CHD, €26,456 per event-free year. KardioPro was associated with a significant health gain but also a significant cost increase. However, statistical significance could not be shown for all subgroups. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness of KardioPro differs substantially according to the group being targeted. Depending on the willingness-to-pay, it may be reasonable to only offer KardioPro to patients at high risk of further cardiovascular events. This high-risk group could be identified from routine statutory health insurance data. However, the long-term consequences of KardioPro still need to be evaluated. BioMed Central 2014-06-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4086686/ /pubmed/24938674 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-263 Text en Copyright © 2014 Aljutaili et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Aljutaili, Majed
Becker, Christian
Witt, Sabine
Holle, Rolf
Leidl, Reiner
Block, Michael
Brachmann, Johannes
Silber, Sigmund
Bestehorn, Kurt
Stollenwerk, Björn
Should health insurers target prevention of cardiovascular disease?: a cost-effectiveness analysis of an individualised programme in Germany based on routine data
title Should health insurers target prevention of cardiovascular disease?: a cost-effectiveness analysis of an individualised programme in Germany based on routine data
title_full Should health insurers target prevention of cardiovascular disease?: a cost-effectiveness analysis of an individualised programme in Germany based on routine data
title_fullStr Should health insurers target prevention of cardiovascular disease?: a cost-effectiveness analysis of an individualised programme in Germany based on routine data
title_full_unstemmed Should health insurers target prevention of cardiovascular disease?: a cost-effectiveness analysis of an individualised programme in Germany based on routine data
title_short Should health insurers target prevention of cardiovascular disease?: a cost-effectiveness analysis of an individualised programme in Germany based on routine data
title_sort should health insurers target prevention of cardiovascular disease?: a cost-effectiveness analysis of an individualised programme in germany based on routine data
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4086686/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24938674
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-263
work_keys_str_mv AT aljutailimajed shouldhealthinsurerstargetpreventionofcardiovasculardiseaseacosteffectivenessanalysisofanindividualisedprogrammeingermanybasedonroutinedata
AT beckerchristian shouldhealthinsurerstargetpreventionofcardiovasculardiseaseacosteffectivenessanalysisofanindividualisedprogrammeingermanybasedonroutinedata
AT wittsabine shouldhealthinsurerstargetpreventionofcardiovasculardiseaseacosteffectivenessanalysisofanindividualisedprogrammeingermanybasedonroutinedata
AT hollerolf shouldhealthinsurerstargetpreventionofcardiovasculardiseaseacosteffectivenessanalysisofanindividualisedprogrammeingermanybasedonroutinedata
AT leidlreiner shouldhealthinsurerstargetpreventionofcardiovasculardiseaseacosteffectivenessanalysisofanindividualisedprogrammeingermanybasedonroutinedata
AT blockmichael shouldhealthinsurerstargetpreventionofcardiovasculardiseaseacosteffectivenessanalysisofanindividualisedprogrammeingermanybasedonroutinedata
AT brachmannjohannes shouldhealthinsurerstargetpreventionofcardiovasculardiseaseacosteffectivenessanalysisofanindividualisedprogrammeingermanybasedonroutinedata
AT silbersigmund shouldhealthinsurerstargetpreventionofcardiovasculardiseaseacosteffectivenessanalysisofanindividualisedprogrammeingermanybasedonroutinedata
AT bestehornkurt shouldhealthinsurerstargetpreventionofcardiovasculardiseaseacosteffectivenessanalysisofanindividualisedprogrammeingermanybasedonroutinedata
AT stollenwerkbjorn shouldhealthinsurerstargetpreventionofcardiovasculardiseaseacosteffectivenessanalysisofanindividualisedprogrammeingermanybasedonroutinedata