TY - JOUR
T1 - Economics of Team-based Care in Controlling Blood Pressure
T2 - A Community Guide Systematic Review
AU - Jacob, Verughese
AU - Chattopadhyay, Sajal K.
AU - Thota, Anilkrishna B.
AU - Proia, Krista K.
AU - Njie, Gibril
AU - Hopkins, David P.
AU - Finnie, Ramona K.C.
AU - Pronk, Nicolaas P.
AU - Kottke, Thomas E.
AU - Community Preventive Services Task Force
N1 - Funding Information:
The work of Krista Proia, Gibril Njie, and Ramona Finnie was supported with funds from the Oak Ridge Institute for Scientific Education.
PY - 2015/11
Y1 - 2015/11
N2 - Context High blood pressure is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and stroke, the leading cause of death in the U.S., and a substantial national burden through lost productivity and medical care. A recent Community Guide systematic review found strong evidence of effectiveness of team-based care in improving blood pressure control. The objective of the present review is to determine from the economic literature whether team-based care for blood pressure control is cost beneficial or cost effective. Evidence acquisition Electronic databases of papers published January 1980-May 2012 were searched to find economic evaluations of team-based care interventions to improve blood pressure outcomes, yielding 31 studies for inclusion. Evidence synthesis In analyses conducted in 2012, intervention cost, healthcare cost averted, benefit-to-cost ratios, and cost effectiveness were abstracted from the studies. The quality of estimates for intervention and healthcare cost from each study were assessed using three elements: intervention focus on blood pressure control, incremental estimates in the intervention group relative to a control group, and inclusion of major cost-driving elements in estimates. Intervention cost per unit reduction in systolic blood pressure was converted to lifetime intervention cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved using algorithms from published trials. Conclusions Team-based care to improve blood pressure control is cost effective based on evidence that 26 of 28 estimates of $/QALY gained from ten studies were below a conservative threshold of $50,000. This finding is salient to recent U.S. healthcare reforms and coordinated patient-centered care through formation of Accountable Care Organizations.
AB - Context High blood pressure is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and stroke, the leading cause of death in the U.S., and a substantial national burden through lost productivity and medical care. A recent Community Guide systematic review found strong evidence of effectiveness of team-based care in improving blood pressure control. The objective of the present review is to determine from the economic literature whether team-based care for blood pressure control is cost beneficial or cost effective. Evidence acquisition Electronic databases of papers published January 1980-May 2012 were searched to find economic evaluations of team-based care interventions to improve blood pressure outcomes, yielding 31 studies for inclusion. Evidence synthesis In analyses conducted in 2012, intervention cost, healthcare cost averted, benefit-to-cost ratios, and cost effectiveness were abstracted from the studies. The quality of estimates for intervention and healthcare cost from each study were assessed using three elements: intervention focus on blood pressure control, incremental estimates in the intervention group relative to a control group, and inclusion of major cost-driving elements in estimates. Intervention cost per unit reduction in systolic blood pressure was converted to lifetime intervention cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved using algorithms from published trials. Conclusions Team-based care to improve blood pressure control is cost effective based on evidence that 26 of 28 estimates of $/QALY gained from ten studies were below a conservative threshold of $50,000. This finding is salient to recent U.S. healthcare reforms and coordinated patient-centered care through formation of Accountable Care Organizations.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84944744608&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84944744608&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.04.003
DO - 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.04.003
M3 - Review article
C2 - 26477804
AN - SCOPUS:84944744608
SN - 0749-3797
VL - 49
SP - 772
EP - 783
JO - American journal of preventive medicine
JF - American journal of preventive medicine
IS - 5
ER -