Cost-Effectiveness of Nurse-Led Disease Management for Heart Failure in an Ethnically Diverse Urban Community
P. Hebert,J. Sisk,Jason J. Wang,L. Tuzzio,J. Casabianca,M. Chassin,C. Horowitz,M. McLaughlin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-149-8-200810210-00006
IF: 39.2
2008-10-21
Annals of Internal Medicine
Abstract:Context Although evidence indicates that nurse-led care management improves clinical outcomes for patients with heart failure, evidence on the economic benefits of these programs is lacking. Contribution Using data on costs from a randomized trial of 12 months of care management versus usual care for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with heart failure, the investigators estimated that the cost-effectiveness of case management is less than $20000/QALY. Caution The results might not apply to patients in less socioeconomically disadvantaged settings. The Editors Health care administrators and policymakers are increasingly turning to nurse-led disease management to lessen the economic and health burden of chronic diseases, such as heart failure. Meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that nurse management can be effective at reducing rehospitalization and sometimes at improving functioning (1). To our knowledge, however, no previous RCT has included a cost-effectiveness analysis sufficient to inform policymakers as to whether nurse management improves quality of life for patients with heart failure at a reasonable cost to society. Studies have not followed recommended cost-effectiveness guidelines or thoroughly calculated intervention costs (2). Establishing the cost-effectiveness of nurse management for heart failure may be especially important in minority communities, which have disproportionate rates of hospitalization for heart failure (3) and shortfalls in the use of proven effective therapies (4) and in patients' understanding of heart failure (5). We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led disease management intervention that was conducted alongside a randomized, controlled effectiveness trial. The trial, conducted in Harlem, New York, from 1999 to 2003, found that patients in the nurse-managed group maintained better physical functioning, as measured by the Short Form-12 (SF-12) physical component score, and had statistically significantly fewer hospitalizations than did patients in the control group (6). Methods For the RCT, we recruited patients from outpatient clinics at the 4 hospitals serving East and Central Harlem in New York City. We randomly assigned 406 patients to usual care (203 patients) or a nurse-led program (203 patients) in which patients had 1 in-person visit with a trained nurse and periodic follow-up telephone calls over 12 months (6). The nurses stressed adherence to a low-salt diet and to medications and worked with the patient's physician to optimize heart failure medications according to published guidelines. Primary outcomes were total hospitalizations and physical functioning as measured by the SF-12 physical component score. Trained surveyors who were blinded to treatment assignment called patients in both groups every 3 months for 18 months to administer the SF-12 and collect information on health care utilization, amount of informal care received, and patients' estimates of their time engaged in receiving health care over the past 3 months. We measured cost-effectiveness by using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is the difference in average costs between the nurse-managed and usual care groups (CostNCostUC) divided by the difference in mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (QALYNQALYUC): ICER = (CostNCostUC)/(QALYNQALYUC) QALYs We estimated QALYs for the 12-month intervention by translating the SF-12 physical and mental component scores into Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) quality-of-life scores by using methods described by Franks and colleagues (7). We chose these translations over other published methods (810) because they were validated in African-American patients, and most of the patients in our trial were African American or Hispanic. Patients who died were assigned a quality-of-life score of 0 in subsequent periods. We calculated QALYs by connecting the 5 quality-of-life scores for each patient (baseline and quarterly through 12 months) by using straight lines and calculating the area of the resulting 4 trapezoids. We estimated adjusted differences in QALYs by the coefficient on treatment from a linear regression of each patient's QALY on his or her quality-of-life score at baseline and treatment assignment (11). Societal Costs We followed guidelines for cost-effectiveness analysis (2) to estimate costs from a societal perspective and included intervention, medical, and nonmedical costs (Appendix Table). Intervention costs included all intervention materials (for example, scales), telephone service for 2 patients who did not have it, patients' transportation costs to the initial nurse meeting, nurses' salaries and fringe benefits, physician time overseeing the nurse activities, and costs for office space and equipment used by the nurses. Appendix Table. Data Sources and Imputations for Cost Items We derived medical costs for inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department use from administrative records from the 4 hospitals that participated in the trial. For inpatient costs, we converted billed charges to costs by using the cost-to-charge ratio for each hospital (2, 12) and converted the costs to 2001 U.S. dollars by using the Producer Price Index for general and surgical hospitals (13). For outpatient and emergency department claims, we applied the 2001 Medicare fee schedule for the New York City region (14) to billed procedure codes. For medication costs, we obtained medications prescribed from patients' charts and prices for those medications from the average prices paid by Medicaid (15). We used quarterly patient surveys to collect information on inpatient and outpatient utilization at nonparticipating institutions (to supplement administrative records from participating hospitals) and information on nonmedical costs, which included nursing home stays; patient transportation and time costs associated with medical encounters; and costs of informal care or assistance with household chores provided by friends, family members, or paid housekeepers. Costs are reported in 2001 U.S. dollars. Because of skewed cost data and a high percentage of patients with zero costs for many cost categories, we evaluated the statistical significance of the difference in costs between nurse-managed and usual care groups by using 2-part gamma models (16). In the first part, we estimated the probability of costs being greater than 0 by logistic regression, with treatment assignment; age; sex; race (non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, or other non-Hispanic); Hispanic ethnicity; recruitment site; education; preference for Spanish interview; New York Heart Association (NYHA) heart failure class; and indicators for diabetes, chronic pulmonary disease, and ischemic heart disease as explanatory variables. In the second part, for patients with costs greater than zero, we modeled costs as a function of the same explanatory variables by using generalized linear models with a gamma distribution and a logarithmic link function. For nursing home costs, which had a very small probability of being greater than 0, we calculated unadjusted differences in mean costs and bootstrapped SEs by using 500 replicates stratified by treatment. We replaced missing observations for SF-12 scores and self-reported utilization with 10 imputed values found by using imputation by chained equations (17) as implemented by the ICE command in Stata, version 10.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX) (18). The previously listed explanatory variables at baseline and administrative data for hospitalizations and outpatient visits at baseline and quarterly follow-up were regressors in these equations. We estimated the 2-part models described previously on each imputed data set and combined the results by using Rubin's rules (19). Uncertainty in the ICER We created 500 bootstrapped replicates (50 from each of the 10 imputations) and plotted the corresponding cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (20). We calculated approximate empirical CIs for the ICER by using the bootstrap percentile method (21). To explore whether nurse management is more likely to be cost-effective for patients with varying heart failure severity, we computed separate acceptability curves according to baseline NYHA class. Sensitivity Analysis We estimated costs on the basis of national prices for all cost items. We used the national 2001 Medicare fee schedule to calculate costs for outpatient and emergency department use (14), deflated costs for hospitalizations and self-reported medical use by the ratio of the United States to New York metropolitan area Consumer Price Index for medical care, and deflated nonmedical costs by the ratio of the United States to New York metropolitan area Consumer Price Index for urban dwellers (22). To characterize the cost implications from the payer's perspective, we also calculated costs to the Medicare program on the basis of categories and proportions of societal costs that Medicare typically covers. These included intervention costs but excluded costs for nursing home stays, patient time, telephone consultations, nonphysician office visits, and informal care. We decreased payer costs by the deductible and copayment rates for Medicare beneficiaries in 2001. We included drug costs because Medicare and most insurers now cover medications. We assumed the deductible and copayment rate of the 2006 Medicare prescription drug plan, but no coverage gap. We investigated the influence of imputing missing survey data on the results by reporting the ICER for the observed data only (available data analysis) for patients who responded to every quarterly telephone survey until death or 12 months (complete case analysis) and for a data set in which a patient's missing observations were replaced with the mean value of that patient's observed responses (patient-specific imputation). We conducted all analyses in Stata, version 10 (18). The study