Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Gerodontology. 2022 Jun;39(2):107-120. doi: 10.1111/ger.12530. Epub 2021 Jan 25.
This health-economic evaluation aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a number of alternatives for preventive and curative oral health care in institutionalised older people in Flanders.
A six-state Markov model was used to compare expected costs and healthy oral years (HOYs) of four alternatives: (1) usual care; (2) on-site preventive care; (3) on-site preventive care + curative care in the community; and (4) on-site preventive care + on-site curative care. A healthcare payer perspective was adopted, and the time horizon was 10 years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of alternatives 2, 3 and 4 (all compared to alternative 1) were as follows: (2) 7944 €/HOY gained; (3) 1576 €/HOY gained; and (4) 1132 €/HOY gained. Hence, alternatives 2 and 3 were not cost-effective compared to alternative 4. The probability that oral care interventions are more effective and cost-saving than usual care was <3% for all three interventions.
For institutionalised older people, on-site solutions for preventive and curative oral health care might be the most cost-effective alternative. It should be kept in mind that on-site solutions require large initial investment and that the advanced age of the population and the high costs of oral health care make it unlikely that these interventions would become cost-saving, even in the long term.
本项健康经济学评价旨在评估为弗拉芒地区机构老年人提供预防性和治疗性口腔保健的若干替代方案的成本效益。
采用六状态马尔可夫模型比较四种替代方案的预期成本和健康口腔年数(HOY):(1)常规护理;(2)现场预防性护理;(3)社区现场预防性护理+治疗性护理;(4)现场预防性护理+现场治疗性护理。采用医疗保健支付方视角,时间范围为 10 年。进行了确定性和概率敏感性分析。
与方案 1 相比,方案 2、3 和 4 的增量成本效益比(ICER)分别为:(2)7944 欧元/HOY 增加;(3)1576 欧元/HOY 增加;(4)1132 欧元/HOY 增加。因此,与方案 4 相比,方案 2 和 3 不具有成本效益。三种干预措施均有<3%的可能性比常规护理更有效且节省成本。
对于机构老年人,现场解决方案可能是预防性和治疗性口腔保健的最具成本效益的替代方案。应注意的是,现场解决方案需要大量的初始投资,而且人口老龄化和口腔保健成本高昂,使得这些干预措施即使在长期内也不太可能具有成本效益。