Cargando…

EuroEco (European Health Economic Trial on Home Monitoring in ICD Patients): a provider perspective in five European countries on costs and net financial impact of follow-up with or without remote monitoring

AIM: Remote follow-up (FU) of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) allows for fewer in-office visits in combination with earlier detection of relevant findings. Its implementation requires investment and reorganization of care. Providers (physicians or hospitals) are unsure about the financial...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heidbuchel, Hein, Hindricks, Gerd, Broadhurst, Paul, Van Erven, Lieselot, Fernandez-Lozano, Ignacio, Rivero-Ayerza, Maximo, Malinowski, Klaus, Marek, Andrea, Garrido, Rafael F. Romero, Löscher, Steffen, Beeton, Ian, Garcia, Enrique, Cross, Stephen, Vijgen, Johan, Koivisto, Ulla-Maija, Peinado, Rafael, Smala, Antje, Annemans, Lieven
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4297469/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25179766
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu339
_version_ 1782353158920470528
author Heidbuchel, Hein
Hindricks, Gerd
Broadhurst, Paul
Van Erven, Lieselot
Fernandez-Lozano, Ignacio
Rivero-Ayerza, Maximo
Malinowski, Klaus
Marek, Andrea
Garrido, Rafael F. Romero
Löscher, Steffen
Beeton, Ian
Garcia, Enrique
Cross, Stephen
Vijgen, Johan
Koivisto, Ulla-Maija
Peinado, Rafael
Smala, Antje
Annemans, Lieven
author_facet Heidbuchel, Hein
Hindricks, Gerd
Broadhurst, Paul
Van Erven, Lieselot
Fernandez-Lozano, Ignacio
Rivero-Ayerza, Maximo
Malinowski, Klaus
Marek, Andrea
Garrido, Rafael F. Romero
Löscher, Steffen
Beeton, Ian
Garcia, Enrique
Cross, Stephen
Vijgen, Johan
Koivisto, Ulla-Maija
Peinado, Rafael
Smala, Antje
Annemans, Lieven
author_sort Heidbuchel, Hein
collection PubMed
description AIM: Remote follow-up (FU) of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) allows for fewer in-office visits in combination with earlier detection of relevant findings. Its implementation requires investment and reorganization of care. Providers (physicians or hospitals) are unsure about the financial impact. The primary end-point of this randomized prospective multicentre health economic trial was the total FU-related cost for providers, comparing Home Monitoring facilitated FU (HM ON) to regular in-office FU (HM OFF) during the first 2 years after ICD implantation. Also the net financial impact on providers (taking national reimbursement into account) and costs from a healthcare payer perspective were evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 312 patients with VVI- or DDD-ICD implants from 17 centres in six EU countries were randomised to HM ON or OFF, of which 303 were eligible for data analysis. For all contacts (in-office, calendar- or alert-triggered web-based review, discussions, calls) time-expenditure was tracked. Country-specific cost parameters were used to convert resource use into monetary values. Remote FU equipment itself was not included in the cost calculations. Given only two patients from Finland (one in each group) a monetary valuation analysis was not performed for Finland. Average age was 62.4 ± 13.1 years, 81% were male, 39% received a DDD system, and 51% had a prophylactic ICD. Resource use with HM ON was clearly different: less FU visits (3.79 ± 1.67 vs. 5.53 ± 2.32; P < 0.001) despite a small increase of unscheduled visits (0.95 ± 1.50 vs. 0.62 ± 1.25; P < 0.005), more non-office-based contacts (1.95 ± 3.29 vs. 1.01 ± 2.64; P < 0.001), more Internet sessions (11.02 ± 15.28 vs. 0.06 ± 0.31; P < 0.001) and more in-clinic discussions (1.84 ± 4.20 vs. 1.28 ± 2.92; P < 0.03), but with numerically fewer hospitalizations (0.67 ± 1.18 vs. 0.85 ± 1.43, P = 0.23) and shorter length-of-stay (6.31 ± 15.5 vs. 8.26 ± 18.6; P = 0.27), although not significant. For the whole study population, the total FU cost for providers was not different for HM ON vs. OFF [mean (95% CI): €204 (169–238) vs. €213 (182–243); range for difference (€−36 to 54), NS]. From a payer perspective, FU-related costs were similar while the total cost per patient (including other physician visits, examinations, and hospitalizations) was numerically (but not significantly) lower. There was no difference in the net financial impact on providers [profit of €408 (327–489) vs. €400 (345–455); range for difference (€−104 to 88), NS], but there was heterogeneity among countries, with less profit for providers in the absence of specific remote FU reimbursement (Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands) and maintained or increased profit in cases where such reimbursement exists (Germany and UK). Quality of life (SF-36) was not different. CONCLUSION: For all the patients as a whole, FU-related costs for providers are not different for remote FU vs. purely in-office FU, despite reorganized care. However, disparity in the impact on provider budget among different countries illustrates the need for proper reimbursement to ensure effective remote FU implementation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4297469
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42974692015-02-19 EuroEco (European Health Economic Trial on Home Monitoring in ICD Patients): a provider perspective in five European countries on costs and net financial impact of follow-up with or without remote monitoring Heidbuchel, Hein Hindricks, Gerd Broadhurst, Paul Van Erven, Lieselot Fernandez-Lozano, Ignacio Rivero-Ayerza, Maximo Malinowski, Klaus Marek, Andrea Garrido, Rafael F. Romero Löscher, Steffen Beeton, Ian Garcia, Enrique Cross, Stephen Vijgen, Johan Koivisto, Ulla-Maija Peinado, Rafael Smala, Antje Annemans, Lieven Eur Heart J FASTTrack Esc Hot Line AIM: Remote follow-up (FU) of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) allows for fewer in-office visits in combination with earlier detection of relevant findings. Its implementation requires investment and reorganization of care. Providers (physicians or hospitals) are unsure about the financial impact. The primary end-point of this randomized prospective multicentre health economic trial was the total FU-related cost for providers, comparing Home Monitoring facilitated FU (HM ON) to regular in-office FU (HM OFF) during the first 2 years after ICD implantation. Also the net financial impact on providers (taking national reimbursement into account) and costs from a healthcare payer perspective were evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 312 patients with VVI- or DDD-ICD implants from 17 centres in six EU countries were randomised to HM ON or OFF, of which 303 were eligible for data analysis. For all contacts (in-office, calendar- or alert-triggered web-based review, discussions, calls) time-expenditure was tracked. Country-specific cost parameters were used to convert resource use into monetary values. Remote FU equipment itself was not included in the cost calculations. Given only two patients from Finland (one in each group) a monetary valuation analysis was not performed for Finland. Average age was 62.4 ± 13.1 years, 81% were male, 39% received a DDD system, and 51% had a prophylactic ICD. Resource use with HM ON was clearly different: less FU visits (3.79 ± 1.67 vs. 5.53 ± 2.32; P < 0.001) despite a small increase of unscheduled visits (0.95 ± 1.50 vs. 0.62 ± 1.25; P < 0.005), more non-office-based contacts (1.95 ± 3.29 vs. 1.01 ± 2.64; P < 0.001), more Internet sessions (11.02 ± 15.28 vs. 0.06 ± 0.31; P < 0.001) and more in-clinic discussions (1.84 ± 4.20 vs. 1.28 ± 2.92; P < 0.03), but with numerically fewer hospitalizations (0.67 ± 1.18 vs. 0.85 ± 1.43, P = 0.23) and shorter length-of-stay (6.31 ± 15.5 vs. 8.26 ± 18.6; P = 0.27), although not significant. For the whole study population, the total FU cost for providers was not different for HM ON vs. OFF [mean (95% CI): €204 (169–238) vs. €213 (182–243); range for difference (€−36 to 54), NS]. From a payer perspective, FU-related costs were similar while the total cost per patient (including other physician visits, examinations, and hospitalizations) was numerically (but not significantly) lower. There was no difference in the net financial impact on providers [profit of €408 (327–489) vs. €400 (345–455); range for difference (€−104 to 88), NS], but there was heterogeneity among countries, with less profit for providers in the absence of specific remote FU reimbursement (Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands) and maintained or increased profit in cases where such reimbursement exists (Germany and UK). Quality of life (SF-36) was not different. CONCLUSION: For all the patients as a whole, FU-related costs for providers are not different for remote FU vs. purely in-office FU, despite reorganized care. However, disparity in the impact on provider budget among different countries illustrates the need for proper reimbursement to ensure effective remote FU implementation. Oxford University Press 2015-01-14 2014-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4297469/ /pubmed/25179766 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu339 Text en © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle FASTTrack Esc Hot Line
Heidbuchel, Hein
Hindricks, Gerd
Broadhurst, Paul
Van Erven, Lieselot
Fernandez-Lozano, Ignacio
Rivero-Ayerza, Maximo
Malinowski, Klaus
Marek, Andrea
Garrido, Rafael F. Romero
Löscher, Steffen
Beeton, Ian
Garcia, Enrique
Cross, Stephen
Vijgen, Johan
Koivisto, Ulla-Maija
Peinado, Rafael
Smala, Antje
Annemans, Lieven
EuroEco (European Health Economic Trial on Home Monitoring in ICD Patients): a provider perspective in five European countries on costs and net financial impact of follow-up with or without remote monitoring
title EuroEco (European Health Economic Trial on Home Monitoring in ICD Patients): a provider perspective in five European countries on costs and net financial impact of follow-up with or without remote monitoring
title_full EuroEco (European Health Economic Trial on Home Monitoring in ICD Patients): a provider perspective in five European countries on costs and net financial impact of follow-up with or without remote monitoring
title_fullStr EuroEco (European Health Economic Trial on Home Monitoring in ICD Patients): a provider perspective in five European countries on costs and net financial impact of follow-up with or without remote monitoring
title_full_unstemmed EuroEco (European Health Economic Trial on Home Monitoring in ICD Patients): a provider perspective in five European countries on costs and net financial impact of follow-up with or without remote monitoring
title_short EuroEco (European Health Economic Trial on Home Monitoring in ICD Patients): a provider perspective in five European countries on costs and net financial impact of follow-up with or without remote monitoring
title_sort euroeco (european health economic trial on home monitoring in icd patients): a provider perspective in five european countries on costs and net financial impact of follow-up with or without remote monitoring
topic FASTTrack Esc Hot Line
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4297469/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25179766
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu339
work_keys_str_mv AT heidbuchelhein euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT hindricksgerd euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT broadhurstpaul euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT vanervenlieselot euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT fernandezlozanoignacio euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT riveroayerzamaximo euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT malinowskiklaus euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT marekandrea euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT garridorafaelfromero euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT loschersteffen euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT beetonian euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT garciaenrique euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT crossstephen euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT vijgenjohan euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT koivistoullamaija euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT peinadorafael euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT smalaantje euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring
AT annemanslieven euroecoeuropeanhealtheconomictrialonhomemonitoringinicdpatientsaproviderperspectiveinfiveeuropeancountriesoncostsandnetfinancialimpactoffollowupwithorwithoutremotemonitoring