Meredith Y. Smith, PhD
Purdue Pharma, Stamford, Conn.
Jerry Cromwell, PhD
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Judith DePue, EdD
Miriam Hospital/Brown Medical School, Providence, R.I.
Bonnie Spring, PhD
Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill.
William Redd, PhD
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, N.Y.
Marina Unrod, PhD
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, N.Y.
PDF version: 

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the incremental effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a staged-based, computerized smoking cessation intervention relative to standard care in an urban managed care network of primary care physicians.

Design: Decision-analytic model based on results of a randomized clinical trial.

Methodology: Patient outcomes and cost estimates were derived from clinical trial data. Effectiveness was measured in terms of 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 6 months post-intervention. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness (CE) were calculated, with CE measured as cost per patient per life year saved and per quality-adjusted life years saved. CE estimates were adjusted to account for partial behavior change as measured in terms of progression in stage of readiness to quit. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of key model assumptions.

Principal findings: Intervention patients were 1.77 times more likely to be smoke-free at 6 months follow-up than those in standard care (p=.078). The intervention generated an additional 3.24 quitters per year. Annualized incremental costs were $5,570 per primary care practice, and $40.83 per smoker. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,174 per life year saved ($869 per QALY). When the intervention impact on progression in stage of readiness to quit was also considered, the mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio declined to $999 per life year saved ($739 per QALY).

Conclusions: From a physician's practice perspective, the stage-based computer tailored intervention was cost-effective relative to standard care. Incorporation of partial behavior change into the model further enhanced favorability of the cost-effectiveness ratio.

Key words: cost-effectiveness, smoking cessation, primary care, expert system, stages of change

The research was conducted at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, N.Y.

Corresponding author:
Meredith Y. Smith, MPA, PhD
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Director, Risk Management & Health Policy, Purdue Pharma
One Stamford Forum, Stamford, CT 06901-3431, USA

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.