Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives to improve glycemic control in adults with diabetes: A pilot randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE: Determine the cost-effectiveness of three financial incentive structures in obtaining a 1% within group drop in HbA1c among adults with diabetes. METHODS: 60 African Americans with type 2 diabetes were randomized to one of three financial incentive structures and followed for 3-months. Grou...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Egede, Leonard E., Walker, Rebekah J., Dismuke-Greer, Clara E., Pyzyk, Sarah, Dawson, Aprill Z., Williams, Joni S., Campbell, Jennifer A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7971847/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33735275
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248762
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Determine the cost-effectiveness of three financial incentive structures in obtaining a 1% within group drop in HbA1c among adults with diabetes. METHODS: 60 African Americans with type 2 diabetes were randomized to one of three financial incentive structures and followed for 3-months. Group 1 (low frequency) received a single incentive for absolute HbA1c reduction, Group 2 (moderate frequency) received a two-part incentive for home testing of glucose and absolute HbA1c reduction and Group 3 (high frequency) received a multiple component incentive for home testing, attendance of weekly telephone education classes and absolute HbA1c reduction. The primary clinical outcome was HbA1c reduction within each arm at 3-months. Cost for each arm was calculated based on the cost of the intervention, cost of health care visits during the 3-month time frame, and cost of workdays missed from illness. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated based on achieving a 1% within group drop in HbA1c and were bootstrapped with 1,000 replications. RESULTS: The ICER to decrease HbA1c by 1% was $1,100 for all three arms, however, bootstrapped standard errors differed with Group 1 having twice the variation around the ICER coefficient as Groups 2 and 3. ICERs were statistically significant for Groups 2 and 3 (p<0.001) indicating they are cost effective interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Given ICERs of prior diabetes interventions range from $1,000-$4,000, a cost of $1,100 per 1% within group decrease in HbA1c is a promising intervention. Multi-component incentive structures seem to have the least variation in cost-effectiveness.