Background
The study was conducted to estimate the relative cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States from a payer’s perspective.
Methods
A Markov model was constructed to simulate costs for 16 contraceptive methods and no method over a 5-year period. Failure rates, adverse event rates, and resource utilization were derived from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed on costs and failure rates.
Results
Any contraceptive method is superior to “no method”. The three least expensive methods were the copper-T IUD ($647), vasectomy ($713) and LNG-20 IUS ($930). Results were sensitive to the cost of contraceptive methods, the cost of an unintended pregnancy, and plan disenrollment rates.
Conclusion
The copper-T IUD, vasectomy, and the LNG-20 IUS are the most cost-effective contraceptive methods available in the United States. Differences in method costs, the cost of an unintended pregnancy, and time horizon are influential factors that determine the overall value of a contraceptive method.
The addition of alternative strategies to CC may improve AZA outcomes and reduce the total cost of care for steroid treated chronically active CD patients, with TPMT being more beneficial for initial response to treatment and MM being more beneficial for sustained response to treatment.
Anemia may substantially increase health-care costs at a level that is economically very relevant, despite the fact that these patients may comprise only one tenth of the overall anemic population.
The dearth of available evidence highlights the need for more rigorous scientific validation to identify the most accurate methods of diagnosing IBS. Until such time, the diagnostic algorithm presented herein could inform decision making for a range of providers caring for primary care patients with abdominal discomfort or pain and altered bowel function suggestive of IBS.
A reliable, accurate noninvasive method for identifying patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the primary care setting is needed. A population-based case-finding instrument may assist managed care organizations in identifying candidates for disease management or quality improvement programs. Our aim was to develop and validate a GERD case-finding instrument. A 12-item "GERD Screener" was developed based on literature review and expert opinion with questions about heartburn and regurgitation frequency and severity and medication use, as well demographics and exclusion criteria. Categorical and continuous scoring methods with and without medication use were developed a priori. Using a telephone interview in a medical group, we identified and enrolled 100 subjects with a history of GERD-like symptoms and 103 controls. Each subject completed the GERD Screener, a validated gastrointestinal symptom questionnaire, the Digestive Health Symptom Index (DHSI), and was evaluated independently by two gastroenterologists using a structured format. Agreement by the two physicians that symptoms were consistent with GERD and required an intervention was considered the gold standard. In all, 70 subjects were classified as having GERD and 106 as controls using the gold standard (K = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82). The scoring method for the screening instrument using a continuous measure of GERD symptoms (frequency and severity) and weighted medication use resulted in an area under ROC of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94). Using a cutoff of >9 points, this measure was 83% sensitive and 83% specific. Compared to the gold standard, the DHSI GERD subscale has an area under ROC of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94). The GERD Screener was highly correlated with the DHSI GERD subscale, r = 0.78 (95% CI 0.72-0.83; P < 0.0001). In conclusion, the GERD Screener has demonstrated construct, convergent, and predictive validity. It is shorter than existing validated instruments, practical, and easily administered, which may reduce the response and administrative burden. This may serve as a valuable case-finding instrument in primary-care and managed-care organizations wishing to implement programs to improve the quality and efficiency of care.
The GERD burden was substantial ($62,500,000). Treatment yielded $32,600,000 in savings ($1,630 saved/patient/year), mostly from reducing indirect costs. Treatment produced greater savings among nighttime GERD patients throughout the PPI cost range ($1-$5/day). Savings dropped if the price of standard doses of PPI exceeded $3.92/day for the treatment of daytime GERD patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.