Centre for Health Policy, Programs and Economics, School of Population Health, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria 3010, Australia.
Deakin Health Economics, Deakin Strategic Research Centre - Population Health, Deakin University, Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia.
Heart Lung Circ. 2014 May;23(5):414-21. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2013.10.084. Epub 2013 Oct 29.
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of disease burden in Australia's Indigenous population, and the greatest contributor to the Indigenous 'health gap'. Economic evidence can help identify interventions that efficiently address this discrepancy.
Five interventions (one community-based and four pharmacological) to prevent cardiovascular disease in Australia's Indigenous population were subject to economic evaluation. Pharmacological interventions were evaluated as delivered either via Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services or mainstream general practitioner services. Cost-utility analysis methods were used, with health benefit measured in disability-adjusted life-years saved.
All pharmacological interventions produced more Indigenous health benefit when delivered via Indigenous health services, but cost-effectiveness ratios were higher due to greater health service costs. Cost-effectiveness ratios were also higher in remote than in non-remote regions. The polypill was the most cost-effective intervention evaluated, while the community-based intervention produced the most health gain.
Local and decision-making contextual factors are important in the conduct and interpretation of economic evaluations. For Australia's Indigenous population, different models of health service provision impact on reach and cost-effectiveness results. Both the extent of health gain and cost-effectiveness are important considerations for policy-makers in light of government objectives to address health inequities and bridge the health gap.
心血管疾病是澳大利亚原住民人口疾病负担的主要原因,也是造成原住民“健康差距”的最大因素。经济证据可以帮助确定能够有效解决这一差异的干预措施。
对预防澳大利亚原住民心血管疾病的五种干预措施(一种基于社区的干预措施和四种药物干预措施)进行了经济评估。药物干预措施通过土著社区控制的卫生服务机构或主流全科医生服务机构进行评估。采用成本-效用分析方法,以节省的伤残调整生命年来衡量健康效益。
所有药物干预措施通过土著卫生服务机构提供时,都能为原住民带来更多的健康效益,但由于卫生服务成本增加,成本效益比更高。在偏远地区,成本效益比也高于非偏远地区。多效药丸是评估中最具成本效益的干预措施,而基于社区的干预措施则带来了更多的健康收益。
地方和决策背景因素在经济评估的进行和解释中很重要。对于澳大利亚的原住民人口而言,不同的卫生服务提供模式会影响可及性和成本效益结果。鉴于政府解决健康不平等和缩小健康差距的目标,健康收益的程度和成本效益都是决策者需要考虑的重要因素。