Choudhry Niteesh K, Patrick Amanda R, Antman Elliott M, Avorn Jerry, Shrank William H
Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120, USA.
Circulation. 2008 Mar 11;117(10):1261-8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.735605. Epub 2008 Feb 19.
Effective therapies for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease-related events are significantly underused, and attempts to improve adherence have often yielded disappointing results. Elimination of patient out-of-pocket costs may be an effective strategy to enhance medication use. We sought to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of providing full coverage for aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and statins (combination pharmacotherapy) to individuals enrolled in the Medicare drug benefit program after acute myocardial infarction.
We created a Markov cost-effectiveness model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of providing Medicare beneficiaries with full coverage for combination pharmacotherapy compared with current coverage under the Medicare Part D program. Our analysis was conducted from the societal perspective and considered a lifetime time horizon. In a sensitivity analysis, we repeated our analysis from the perspective of Medicare. In the model, post-myocardial infarction Medicare beneficiaries who received usual prescription drug coverage under the Part D program lived an average of 8.21 quality-adjusted life-years after their initial event, incurring coronary heart disease-related medical costs of $114,000. Those who received prescription drug coverage without deductibles or copayments lived an average of 8.56 quality-adjusted life-years and incurred $111,600 in coronary heart disease-related costs. Compared with current prescription drug coverage, full coverage for post-myocardial infarction secondary prevention therapies would result in greater functional life expectancy (0.35 quality-adjusted life-year) and less resource use ($2500). From the perspective of Medicare, full drug coverage was highly cost-effective ($7182/quality-adjusted life-year) but not cost saving.
Our analysis suggests that providing full coverage for combination therapy to post-myocardial infarction Medicare beneficiaries would save both lives and money from the societal perspective.
冠心病相关事件二级预防的有效疗法未得到充分利用,提高依从性的尝试往往效果不佳。消除患者自付费用可能是提高药物使用的有效策略。我们试图估计为急性心肌梗死后参加医疗保险药品福利计划的个人提供阿司匹林、β受体阻滞剂、血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂或血管紧张素受体阻滞剂以及他汀类药物(联合药物治疗)全额保险的增量成本效益。
我们创建了一个马尔可夫成本效益模型,以估计为医疗保险受益人提供联合药物治疗全额保险相对于医疗保险D部分计划当前保险的增量成本效益。我们的分析从社会角度进行,并考虑了终身时间范围。在敏感性分析中,我们从医疗保险的角度重复了分析。在模型中,在D部分计划下获得常规处方药保险的心肌梗死后医疗保险受益人在初始事件后平均享有8.21个质量调整生命年,冠心病相关医疗费用为114,000美元。那些获得无免赔额或自付费用的处方药保险的人平均享有8.56个质量调整生命年,冠心病相关费用为111,600美元。与当前的处方药保险相比,心肌梗死后二级预防疗法的全额保险将带来更长的功能预期寿命(0.35个质量调整生命年)和更少的资源使用(2500美元)。从医疗保险的角度来看,全额药物保险具有很高成本效益(7182美元/质量调整生命年)但不节省成本。
我们的分析表明,从社会角度来看,为心肌梗死后医疗保险受益人提供联合治疗全额保险将挽救生命并节省资金。