IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v35y2017i12d10.1007_s40273-017-0554-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Effectiveness of Support for People Starting a New Medication for a Long-Term Condition Through Community Pharmacies: An Economic Evaluation of the New Medicine Service (NMS) Compared with Normal Practice

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel A. Elliott

    (The University of Manchester)

  • Lukasz Tanajewski

    (University of Nottingham)

  • Georgios Gkountouras

    (University of Nottingham)

  • Anthony J. Avery

    (University of Nottingham)

  • Nick Barber

    (UCL School of Pharmacy)

  • Rajnikant Mehta

    (University of Nottingham)

  • Matthew J. Boyd

    (University of Nottingham)

  • Asam Latif

    (University of Nottingham)

  • Antony Chuter

    (Patient and Public Representative)

  • Justin Waring

    (Nottingham University Business School, Jubilee Campus, University of Nottingham)

Abstract

Background The English community pharmacy New Medicine Service (NMS) significantly increases patient adherence to medicines, compared with normal practice. We examined the cost effectiveness of NMS compared with normal practice by combining adherence improvement and intervention costs with the effect of increased adherence on patient outcomes and healthcare costs. Methods We developed Markov models for diseases targeted by the NMS (hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and antiplatelet regimens) to assess the impact of patients’ non-adherence. Clinical event probability, treatment pathway, resource use and costs were extracted from literature and costing tariffs. Incremental costs and outcomes associated with each disease were incorporated additively into a composite probabilistic model and combined with adherence rates and intervention costs from the trial. Costs per extra quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were calculated from the perspective of NHS England, using a lifetime horizon. Results NMS generated a mean of 0.05 (95% CI 0.00–0.13) more QALYs per patient, at a mean reduced cost of −£144 (95% CI −769 to 73). The NMS dominates normal practice with a probability of 0.78 [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) −£3166 per QALY]. NMS has a 96.7% probability of cost effectiveness compared with normal practice at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that targeting each disease with NMS has a probability over 0.90 of cost effectiveness compared with normal practice at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY. Conclusions Our study suggests that the NMS increased patient medicine adherence compared with normal practice, which translated into increased health gain at reduced overall cost. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Trial reference number NCT01635361 ( http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01635361 ). Current Controlled trials: Trial reference number ISRCTN 23560818 ( http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN23560818/ ; DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN23560818 ). UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) study 12494 ( http://public.ukcrn.org.uk/Search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=12494 ). Funding Department of Health Policy Research Programme.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel A. Elliott & Lukasz Tanajewski & Georgios Gkountouras & Anthony J. Avery & Nick Barber & Rajnikant Mehta & Matthew J. Boyd & Asam Latif & Antony Chuter & Justin Waring, 2017. "Cost Effectiveness of Support for People Starting a New Medication for a Long-Term Condition Through Community Pharmacies: An Economic Evaluation of the New Medicine Service (NMS) Compared with Normal," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(12), pages 1237-1255, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0554-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0554-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-017-0554-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-017-0554-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rachel Elliott & Koen Putman & Matthew Franklin & Lieven Annemans & Nick Verhaeghe & Martin Eden & Jasdeep Hayre & Sarah Rodgers & Aziz Sheikh & Anthony Avery, 2014. "Cost Effectiveness of a Pharmacist-Led Information Technology Intervention for Reducing Rates of Clinically Important Errors in Medicines Management in General Practices (PINCER)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 573-590, June.
    2. Elisabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2001. "Representing uncertainty: the role of cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(8), pages 779-787, December.
    3. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 1995. "A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey," Working Papers 138chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    4. Gandjour, Afschin & Stock, Stephanie, 2007. "A national hypertension treatment program in Germany and its estimated impact on costs, life expectancy, and cost-effectiveness," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(2-3), pages 257-267, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Adam Martin & Rupert Payne & Edward CF Wilson, 2018. "Long-Term Costs and Health Consequences of Issuing Shorter Duration Prescriptions for Patients with Chronic Health Conditions in the English NHS," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 317-330, June.
    2. Lucia Leporatti & Rosella Levaggi & Marcello Montefiori, 2021. "Beyond price: the effects of non-financial barriers on access to drugs and health outcomes," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(4), pages 519-529, June.

    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. Garry Barton & Tracey Sach & Michael Doherty & Anthony Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Kenneth Muir, 2008. "An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D index , SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 237-249, August.
    2. Kobelt, G., 2013. "Health Economics: An Introduction to Economic Evaluation," Monographs, Office of Health Economics, number 000004.
    3. Nick Bansback & Huiying Sun & Daphne P. Guh & Xin Li & Bohdan Nosyk & Susan Griffin & Paul G. Barnett & Aslam H. Anis, 2008. "Impact of the recall period on measuring health utilities for acute events," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1413-1419.
    4. MerriKay Oleen-Burkey & Jane Castelli-Haley & Maureen Lage & Kenneth Johnson, 2012. "Burden of a Multiple Sclerosis Relapse," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(1), pages 57-69, March.
    5. Karl Claxton & Elisabeth Fenwick & Mark J. Sculpher, 2012. "Decision-making with Uncertainty: The Value of Information," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 51, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    7. Neil Hawkins & Mark Sculpher & David Epstein, 2005. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatments for Chronic Disease: Using R to Incorporate Time Dependency of Treatment Response," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(5), pages 511-519, September.
    8. Andrea Manca & Neil Hawkins & Mark J. Sculpher, 2005. "Estimating mean QALYs in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 487-496, May.
    9. David G. T. Whitehurst & Stirling Bryan & Martyn Lewis, 2011. "Systematic Review and Empirical Comparison of Contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D Group Mean Scores," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 34-44, November.
    10. Sylvain Druais & Agathe Doutriaux & Magali Cognet & Annabelle Godet & Christophe Lançon & Pierre Levy & Ludovic Samalin & Pascal Guillon, 2016. "Cost Effectiveness of Paliperidone Long-Acting Injectable Versus Other Antipsychotics for the Maintenance Treatment of Schizophrenia in France," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 363-391, April.
    11. R. McQueen & Samuel Ellis & David Maahs & Heather Anderson & Kavita Nair & Anne Libby & Jonathan Campbell, 2014. "Association Between Glycated Hemoglobin and Health Utility for Type 1 Diabetes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 197-205, June.
    12. Tzeyu L. Michaud & Robert L. Kane & J. Riley McCarten & Joseph E. Gaugler & John A. Nyman & Karen M. Kuntz, 2018. "Using Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarker Testing to Target Treatment to Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 309-323, September.
    13. José Leal & Stefania Manetti & James Buchanan, 2018. "The Impact of Hospital Costing Methods on Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Case Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(10), pages 1263-1272, October.
    14. Eberhard Wille & Jürgen Scholze & Eduardo Alegria & Claudio Ferri & Sue Langham & Warren Stevens & David Jeffries & Kerstin Uhl-Hochgraeber, 2011. "Modelling the costs of care of hypertension in patients with metabolic syndrome and its consequences, in Germany, Spain and Italy," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(3), pages 205-218, June.
    15. Petrie, Dennis & Doran, Chris & Shakeshaft, Anthony & Sanson-Fisher, Rob, 2008. "The relationship between alcohol consumption and self-reported health status using the EQ5D: Evidence from rural Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 1717-1726, December.
    16. Gisela Kobelt & J. Berg & P. Lindgren, 2006. "Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis in The Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 7(02), pages 55-64, July.
    17. Alejandro Arrieta & Timothy F Page & Emir Veledar & Khurram Nasir, 2017. "Economic Evaluation of PCSK9 Inhibitors in Reducing Cardiovascular Risk from Health System and Private Payer Perspectives," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, January.
    18. McKenna, Claire & Chalabi, Zaid & Epstein, David & Claxton, Karl, 2010. "Budgetary policies and available actions: A generalisation of decision rules for allocation and research decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 170-181, January.
    19. McNamee, Paul, 2007. "What difference does it make? The calculation of QALY gains from health profiles using patient and general population values," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(2-3), pages 321-331, December.
    20. J. Brown & N. J. Welton & C. Bankhead & S. H. Richards & L. Roberts & C. Tydeman & T. J. Peters, 2006. "A Bayesian approach to analysing the cost‐effectiveness of two primary care interventions aimed at improving attendance for breast screening," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 435-445, May.

    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:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0554-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.