No abstract

Although healthcare costs of non-institutionalized Borderline patients might not be disproportionate, total societal costs are substantial.

Despite the initial slight disadvantage in QALYs, there is a high probability that compared with TFP, SFT is a cost-effective treatment for borderline personality disorder.

Although the routine starting point of an analysis should always be an unadjusted analysis of the cost effectiveness, a baseline difference between treatment groups should be adjusted for. This should be done by reported patient characteristics or, when these are not sufficiently present, by baseline costs as a substitute. This adjustment should be carried out most preferably with a regression-based method.

No abstract

At a willingness-to-pay threshold of € 40,000 per QALY, SET likely is a cost-effective therapeutic option for patients with claudication.

We conclude that the EQ-5D is fairly responsive in BPD, and, therefore, especially because of its brevity and user-friendliness, can serve as a useful tool in economic evaluations in patients with BPD.

We examined the incremental cost-effectiveness of telemonitoring (TM) versus usual care (UC) in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). In one university and two general hospitals, 382 patients were randomised to usual care or telemonitoring and followed for 1 year. Hospital-related and home costs were estimated, based on resource use multiplied by the appropriate unit prices. Effectiveness was expressed as QALYs gained. Information was gathered, using 3 monthly costs diaries and questionnaires. The mean age of the patients was 71 years (range 32-93), 59% were male and 64% lived with a partner. Health related quality of life improved by 0.07 points for the usual care and 0.1 points for the telemonitoring group, but the difference between groups was not significant. There were no significant differences in annual costs per patient between groups. At a threshold of €50,000 the probability of telemonitoring being cost-effective was 48%. The cost effectiveness analysis showed a high level of decision uncertainty, probably caused by the divergence between the participating institutions. It is therefore premature to draw an unambiguous conclusion regarding cost-effectiveness for the whole group.