IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0207110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of the 45-49 year old health check versus usual care in Australian general practice: A modelling study

Author

Listed:
  • Si Si
  • John Moss
  • Jonathan Karnon
  • Nigel Stocks

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the potential cost-effectiveness of the 45–49 year old health check versus usual care in Australian general practice using secondary data sources. Method: Risk factor profiles were generated for a hypothetical Australian cohort using data from the National Health Survey. Intervention effects were modelled based on a meta-analysis on risk factor changes in the 5 years after a health check. The Framingham Risk Equation was applied to estimate the 5-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence in the health check and usual care group respectively. A Markov model was then constructed to extrapolate long-term CVD outcomes, health care costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) in both groups. Health check-related costs, applied to the health check group, were estimated from clinical guideline and experts’ opinion. Lifetime costs, applied to both groups, included costs of hospitalization for CVD events and associated post-event health service use. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was calculated for male and female patients respectively. Results: Compared to usual care, the health check reduced CVD incidence for both males (RR = 0.87) and females (RR = 0.91) over a 5-year time. In a lifetime projection, health check led to an average 0.008 and 0.003 QALYs gained per male and female participants respectively. The estimates ICERs were AU $42,355 and AU $133,504 per QALY gained for males and females, respectively. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a probability of cost-effectiveness of 17.5% and 0% for male and female attendees, assuming a willingness to pay threshold of AU $28,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion: The 45–49 year old health check is associated with a small expected QALY gain per participant, though the persons avoiding CVD events experience large health gains. The mean ICER is larger than an empirical estimate of the threshold ICER and the evaluated health check is highly unlikely to be cost-effective.

Suggested Citation

  • Si Si & John Moss & Jonathan Karnon & Nigel Stocks, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness evaluation of the 45-49 year old health check versus usual care in Australian general practice: A modelling study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207110
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207110
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207110&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0207110?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura Catherine Edney & Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Terence Chai Cheng & Jonathan Karnon, 2018. "Estimating the Reference Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio for the Australian Health System," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 239-252, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jisoo A Kwon & Georgina M Chambers & Fabio Luciani & Lei Zhang & Shamin Kinathil & Dennis Kim & Hla-Hla Thein & Willings Botha & Sandra Thompson & Andrew Lloyd & Lorraine Yap & Richard T Gray & Tony B, 2021. "Hepatitis C treatment strategies in prisons: A cost-effectiveness analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    2. Siverskog, Jonathan & Henriksson, Martin, 2022. "The health cost of reducing hospital bed capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    3. James Lomas & Jessica Ochalek & Rita Faria, 2022. "Avoiding Opportunity Cost Neglect in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health Technology Assessment," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 13-18, January.
    4. Claxton, Karl & Asaria, Miqdad & Chansa, Collins & Jamison, Julian & Lomas, James & Ochalek, Jessica & Paulden, Mike, 2019. "Accounting for timing when assessing health-related policies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100038, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Jonathan Karnon & Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Billie Bonevski, 2022. "An Economic Evaluation of Government-Funded COVID-19 Testing in Australia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 681-691, September.
    6. Cathrine Mihalopoulos & Yong Yi Lee & Lidia Engel & Long Khanh‐Dao Le & Eng Joo Tan & Mary Lou Chatterton, 2021. "The Productivity Commission Inquiry Report into Mental Health—A Commentary from a Health Economics Perspective," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 54(1), pages 119-129, March.
    7. Simon Walker & Susan Griffin & Miqdad Asaria & Aki Tsuchiya & Mark Sculpher, 2019. "Striving for a Societal Perspective: A Framework for Economic Evaluations When Costs and Effects Fall on Multiple Sectors and Decision Makers," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 577-590, October.
    8. Werner Brouwer & Pieter Baal & Job Exel & Matthijs Versteegh, 2019. "When is it too expensive? Cost-effectiveness thresholds and health care decision-making," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 175-180, March.
    9. Christopher McCabe, 2019. "Expanding the Scope of Costs and Benefits for Economic Evaluations in Health: Some Words of Caution," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 457-460, April.
    10. Niek Stadhouders & Xander Koolman & Christel van Dijk & Patrick Jeurissen & Eddy Adang, 2019. "The marginal benefits of healthcare spending in the Netherlands: Estimating cost‐effectiveness thresholds using a translog production function," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(11), pages 1331-1344, November.
    11. James Lomas & Stephen Martin & Karl Claxton, 2018. "Estimating the marginal productivity of the English National Health Service from 2003/04 to 2012/13," Working Papers 158cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    12. Dan Cai & Si Shi & Shan Jiang & Lei Si & Jing Wu & Yawen Jiang, 2022. "Estimation of the cost-effective threshold of a quality-adjusted life year in China based on the value of statistical life," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(4), pages 607-615, June.
    13. Jonathan Siverskog & Martin Henriksson, 2019. "Estimating the marginal cost of a life year in Sweden’s public healthcare sector," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(5), pages 751-762, July.
    14. Claxton, Karl & Asaria, Miqdad & Chansa, Collins & Jamison, Julian & Lomas, James & Ochalek, Jessica & Paulden, Mike, 2019. "Accounting for Timing when Assessing Health-Related Policies," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(S1), pages 73-105, April.
    15. Rachael Taylor & Deborah Sullivan & Penny Reeves & Nicola Kerr & Amy Sawyer & Emma Schwartzkoff & Andrew Bailey & Christopher Williams & Alexis Hure, 2023. "A Scoping Review of Economic Evaluations to Inform the Reorientation of Preventive Health Services in Australia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(12), pages 1-47, June.

    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:pone00:0207110. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.