OBJECTIVETo examine the cost-effectiveness of a hepatitis B vaccination program for unvaccinated adults with diagnosed diabetes in the U.S.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe used a cost-effectiveness simulation model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating adults 20–59 years of age with diagnosed diabetes not previously vaccinated for or infected by hepatitis B virus (HBV). The model estimated acute and chronic HBV infections, complications, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Data sources included surveillance data, epidemiological studies, and vaccine prices.RESULTSWith a 10% uptake rate, the intervention will vaccinate 528,047 people and prevent 4,271 acute and 256 chronic hepatitis B infections. Net health care costs will increase by $91.4 million, and 1,218 QALYs will be gained, producing a cost-effectiveness ratio of $75,094 per QALY gained. Results are most sensitive to age, the discount rate, the hepatitis B incidence ratio for people with diabetes, and hepatitis B infection rates. Cost-effectiveness ratios rise with age at vaccination; an alternative intervention that vaccinates adults with diabetes 60 years of age or older had a cost-effectiveness ratio of $2.7 million per QALY.CONCLUSIONSHepatitis B vaccination for adults with diabetes 20–59 years of age is modestly cost-effective. Vaccinating older adults with diabetes is not cost-effective. The study did not consider hepatitis outbreak investigation costs, and limited information exists on hepatitis progression among older adults with diabetes. Partly based on these results, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recently recommended hepatitis B vaccination for people 20–59 years of age with diagnosed diabetes.

IntroductionIn 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) launched Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW), a $485 million program to reduce obesity, tobacco use, and exposure to secondhand smoke. CPPW awardees implemented evidence-based policy, systems, and environmental changes to sustain reductions in chronic disease risk factors. This article describes short-term and potential long-term benefits of the CPPW investment.MethodsWe used a mixed-methods approach to estimate population reach and to simulate the effects of completed CPPW interventions through 2020. Each awardee developed a community action plan. We linked plan objectives to a common set of interventions across awardees and estimated population reach as an early indicator of impact. We used the Prevention Impacts Simulation Model (PRISM), a systems dynamics model of cardiovascular disease prevention, to simulate premature deaths, health care costs, and productivity losses averted from 2010 through 2020 attributable to CPPW.ResultsAwardees completed 73% of their planned objectives. Sustained CPPW improvements may avert 14,000 premature deaths, $2.4 billion (in 2010 dollars) in discounted direct medical costs, and $9.5 billion (in 2010 dollars) in discounted lifetime and annual productivity losses through 2020.ConclusionPRISM results suggest that large investments in community preventive interventions, if sustained, could yield cost savings many times greater than the original investment over 10 to 20 years and avert 14,000 premature deaths.

METHODS:A decision analytic tree and a long-term Markov model represented the risk of perinatal and childhood infections under different prevention alternatives, and the long-term health and economic consequences of HepB infection. Outcome measures were the number of perinatal infections and childhood infections from infants born to HepB surface antigen-positive women, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost per QALY gained. The health outcomes and total costs of each strategy were compared incrementally. Costs were evaluated from the health care system perspective and expressed in US dollars at a 2010 price base. RESULTS:In all analyses, the PHBPP increased QALYs and led to higher reductions in the number of perinatal and childhood infections than no PHBPP, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $2602 per QALY. In sensitivity analyses, the cost-effectiveness ratio was robust to variations in model inputs, and there were instances where the program was both more effective and cost saving.CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that the current PHBPP represents a cost-effective use of resources, and ensuring the program reaches all pregnant women could present additional public health benefits.

Introduction Public health focuses on a range of evidence-based approaches for addressing chronic conditions, from individual-level clinical interventions to broader changes in policies and environments that protect people’s health and make healthy living easier. This study examined the potential long-term impact of clinical and community interventions as they were implemented by Community Transformation Grant (CTG) program awardees. Methods We used the Prevention Impacts Simulation Model, a system dynamics model of cardiovascular disease prevention, to simulate the potential 10-year and 25-year impact of clinical and community interventions implemented by 32 communities receiving a CTG program award, assuming that program interventions were sustained during these periods. Results Sustained clinical interventions implemented by CTG awardees could potentially avert more than 36,000 premature deaths and $3.2 billion in discounted direct medical costs (2017 US dollars) over 10 years and 109,000 premature deaths and $8.1 billion in discounted medical costs over 25 years. Sustained community interventions could avert more than 24,000 premature deaths and $3.4 billion in discounted direct medical costs over 10 years and 88,000 premature deaths and $9.1 billion in discounted direct medical costs over 25 years. CTG clinical activities had cost-effectiveness of $302,000 per death averted at the 10-year mark and $188,000 per death averted at the 25-year mark. Community interventions had cost-effectiveness of $169,000 and $57,000 per death averted at the 10- and 25-year marks, respectively. Conclusion Clinical interventions have the potential to avert more premature deaths than community interventions. However, community interventions, if sustained over the long term, have better cost-effectiveness.

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionIn 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 50 communities to participate in the Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) program. CPPW supported community-based approaches to prevent or delay chronic disease and promote wellness by reducing tobacco use and obesity. We collected the direct costs of CPPW for the 44 communities funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and analyzed costs per person reached for all CPPW interventions and by intervention category.MethodsFrom 2011 through 2013, we collected quarterly data on costs from the 44 CPPW ARRA-funded communities. We estimated CPPW program costs as spending on labor; consultants; materials, travel, and services; overhead activities; and partners plus the value of in-kind donations. We estimated communities’ costs per person reached for each intervention implemented and compared cost allocations across communities that focused on reducing tobacco use, or obesity, or both. Analyses were conducted in 2014; costs are reported in 2012 dollars.ResultsThe largest share of CPPW total costs of $363 million supported interventions in communities that focused on obesity ($228 million). Average costs per person reached were less than $5 for 84% of tobacco-related interventions, 88% of nutrition interventions, and 89% of physical activity interventions. Costs per person reached were highest for social support and services interventions, almost $3 for tobacco‑use interventions and $1 for obesity prevention interventions.ConclusionsCPPW cost estimates are useful for comparing intervention cost per person reached with health outcomes and for addressing how community health intervention costs vary by type of intervention and by community size.

ICERs may inform decision makers as they decide whether the added cost of the preexposure strategy provides sufficient value in preventing infections.