A 12-week intervention with oral nutritional supplementation plus physical exercise improves function, nutritional status, and quality of life in frail institutionalized older adults.

Objective Healthcare leaders seek guidance on prudent investment in programs that improve patient outcomes and reduce costs, which includes the value of nutrition therapy. The purpose of this project was to conduct an evidence review and evaluate claims analyses to understand the financial and quality impact of nutrition support therapy on high‐priority therapeutic conditions. Methods Task 1 included a review of existing literature from 2013 to 2018 to identify evidence that demonstrated the clinical and economic impact of nutrition intervention on patient outcomes across 13 therapeutic areas (TAs). In Task 2, analytic claims modeling was performed using the Medicare Parts A and B claims 5% sample dataset. Beneficiaries diagnosed in 5 selected TAs (sepsis, gastrointestinal [GI] cancer, hospital‐acquired infections, surgical complications, and pancreatitis) were identified in the studies from Task 1, and their care costs were modeled based on nutrition intervention. Results Beginning with 1099 identified articles, 43 articles met the criteria, with a final 8 articles used for the Medicare claims modeling. As examples of the modeling demonstrated, the use of advanced enteral nutrition formula could save at least $52 million annually in a sepsis population. The total projected annual cost savings from the 5 TAs was $580 million. Conclusion Overall, optimization of nutrition support therapy for specific patient populations is estimated to reduce Medicare spending by millions of dollars per year across key TAs. These findings demonstrate the evidence‐based value proposition of timely nutrition support to improve clinical outcomes and yield substantial cost savings.

Objective: Peptide -based (PB) enteral tube feeding (ETF) formulas have been shown to reduce gastrointestinal (GI) intolerance in patients receiving enteral nutrition. However, limited data exist in relation to their use in the postacute/home care setting. We sought to assess the real-world GI tolerance, healthcare utilization, and resource use costs of 100% whey-protein PB ETF in adults in a postacute care setting and describe their demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics.Method: Using medical claims data from the United States, we analyzed GI intolerance events occurring in adults receiving 100% whey-protein PB ETF (Peptamen ® adult formulas) for one year before and after initiation of ETF. Resource use costs were subsequently estimated using a multivariate general linearized model and adjusted for age, gender, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score.

Reimbursing OPTIFAST leads to meaningful cost-savings for US payers as compared with "no intervention" and liraglutide and naltrexone/bupropion in obese patients. Similar results can be expected in matching healthcare settings of other countries. Moreover, OPTIFAST has additional clinical and economic advantages through very low complication and adverse events rates.

Background: Obesity is a disease associated with high direct medical costs and high indirect costs resulting from productivity loss. The high prevalence of obesity generates the need for payers to identify cost-effective weight loss approaches. Among various weight management techniques, the OPTI (Optifast ® ) program is a clinically recognised total meal replacement diet that can lead to significant weight loss and reduction in complications. This study's objective is to assess OPTI program's cost-effectiveness in Switzerland in comparison to "no intervention" and pharmacotherapy. Methods: An event-driven decision-analytic model was used to estimate the payer's cost savings through the reimbursement of OPTI program over a 1-year period as well as a lifetime in Switzerland. The analysis was performed on a broad population of people with obesity with a body mass index (BMI) higher than 30 kg/m 2 following the OPTI program vs two comparators (liraglutide and "no intervention"). The model incorporated a higher risk of complications due to an increased BMI and their related healthcare costs. Data sources included published literature, clinical trials, official Swiss price/tariff lists and national population statistics. The primary perspective was that of a Swiss payer. Scenario analyses -for example, for patients with existing complications (such as myocardial infarction, stroke, type 2 diabetes mellitus) or severe obesity -were conducted to test the robustness of the results. Results: The OPTI program results in cost savings of CHF 20,886 (€ 18,724) and CHF 15,382 (€ 13,790) per person compared with "no intervention" and liraglutide 3 mg, respectively. In addition, OPTI program led to 1.133 and 0.734 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained respectively against its comparators. Scenario analyses showed similar outcomes with cost savings and QALYs gained. Conclusion: OPTI program is a dominant strategy compared to "no intervention" and liraglutide 3 mg as it leads to both cost savings and QALY gain. Therefore, reimbursing the OPTI program for patients with obesity would be cost-effective for Swiss payers.