IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002532.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary care in mild to moderate chronic kidney disease in the United States: A modeling study

Author

Listed:
  • Eugene Lin
  • Glenn M Chertow
  • Brandon Yan
  • Elizabeth Malcolm
  • Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert

Abstract

Background: Multidisciplinary care (MDC) programs have been proposed as a way to alleviate the cost and morbidity associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the US. Methods and findings: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a theoretical Medicare-based MDC program for CKD compared to usual CKD care in Medicare beneficiaries with stage 3 and 4 CKD between 45 and 84 years old in the US. The program used nephrologists, advanced practitioners, educators, dieticians, and social workers. From Medicare claims and published literature, we developed a novel deterministic Markov model for CKD progression and calibrated it to long-term risks of mortality and progression to end-stage renal disease. We then used the model to project accrued discounted costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over patients’ remaining lifetime. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of MDC, or the cost of the intervention per QALY gained. MDC added 0.23 (95% CI: 0.08, 0.42) QALYs over usual care, costing $51,285 per QALY gained (net monetary benefit of $23,100 at a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained; 95% CI: $6,252, $44,323). In all subpopulations analyzed, ICERs ranged from $42,663 to $72,432 per QALY gained. MDC was generally more cost-effective in patients with higher urine albumin excretion. Although ICERs were higher in younger patients, MDC could yield greater improvements in health in younger than older patients. MDC remained cost-effective when we decreased its effectiveness to 25% of the base case or increased the cost 5-fold. The program costed less than $70,000 per QALY in 95% of probabilistic sensitivity analyses and less than $87,500 per QALY in 99% of analyses. Limitations of our study include its theoretical nature and being less generalizable to populations at low risk for progression to ESRD. We did not study the potential impact of MDC on hospitalization (cardiovascular or other). Conclusions: Our model estimates that a Medicare-funded MDC program could reduce the need for dialysis, prolong life expectancy, and meet conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds in middle-aged to elderly patients with mild to moderate CKD. Using a modeling approach, Eugene Lin and colleageus examine the cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary care in mild to moderate chronic kidney disease in the US.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Eugene Lin & Glenn M Chertow & Brandon Yan & Elizabeth Malcolm & Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary care in mild to moderate chronic kidney disease in the United States: A modeling study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-29, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002532
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002532
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002532
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002532&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002532?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Víctor Martínez-Majolero & Belén Urosa & Sonsoles Hernández-Sánchez, 2022. "Physical Exercise in People with Chronic Kidney Disease—Practices and Perception of the Knowledge of Health Professionals and Physical Activity and Sport Science Professionals about Their Prescription," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-11, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002532. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.