Suchergebnisse

"Heavy users" is a new term often used to describe those who occupy a disproportionate number of psychiatric beds. In this study we identified the heaviest 10% (193) inpatient service users in one London borough over a 61/2 year period and compared these with a control group of 400 ordinary inpatient users. A weighting index was used to combine frequency of admission with duration. Heavy users were diagnostically and demographically similar to ordinary inpatient service users and only differed by their extensive use of services, about 3 times more than ordinary users in terms of health care costs, during the measured year. Their heavy use mainly depended on occupying hospital beds, and their use of outpatient, day patient and community services was relatively light.

Objectives: This study measures the average per person and annual total costs of dementia in England in 2015. Methods/Design: Up-to-date data for England were drawn from multiple sources to identify prevalence of dementia by severity, patterns of health and social care service utilisation and their unit costs, levels of unpaid care and its economic impacts, and other costs of dementia. These data were used in a refined macrosimulation model to estimate annual per-person and aggregate costs of dementia. Results: There are around 690 000 people with dementia in England, of whom 565 000 receive unpaid care or community care or live in a care home. Total annual cost of dementia in England is estimated to be £24.2 billion in 2015, of which 42% (£10.1 billion) is attributable to unpaid care. Social care costs (£10.2 billion) are three times larger than health care costs (£3.8 billion). £6.2 billion of the total social care costs are met by users themselves and their families, with £4.0 billion (39.4%) funded by government. Total annual costs of mild, moderate, and severe dementia are £3.2 billion, £6.9 billion, and £14.1 billion, respectively. Average costs of mild, moderate, and severe dementia are £24 400, £27 450, and £46 050, respectively, per person per year. Conclusions: Dementia has huge economic impacts on people living with the illness, their carers, and society as a whole. Better support for people with dementia and their carers, as well as fair and efficient financing of social care services, are essential to address the current and future challenges of dementia.

OBJECTIVES: This study measures the average per person and annual total costs of dementia in England in 2015. METHODS/DESIGN: Up‐to‐date data for England were drawn from multiple sources to identify prevalence of dementia by severity, patterns of health and social care service utilisation and their unit costs, levels of unpaid care and its economic impacts, and other costs of dementia. These data were used in a refined macrosimulation model to estimate annual per‐person and aggregate costs of dementia. RESULTS: There are around 690 000 people with dementia in England, of whom 565 000 receive unpaid care or community care or live in a care home. Total annual cost of dementia in England is estimated to be £24.2 billion in 2015, of which 42% (£10.1 billion) is attributable to unpaid care. Social care costs (£10.2 billion) are three times larger than health care costs (£3.8 billion). £6.2 billion of the total social care costs are met by users themselves and their families, with £4.0 billion (39.4%) funded by government. Total annual costs of mild, moderate, and severe dementia are £3.2 billion, £6.9 billion, and £14.1 billion, respectively. Average costs of mild, moderate, and severe dementia are £24 400, £27 450, and £46 050, respectively, per person per year. CONCLUSIONS: Dementia has huge economic impacts on people living with the illness, their carers, and society as a whole. Better support for people with dementia and their carers, as well as fair and efficient financing of social care services, are essential to address the current and future challenges of dementia.

BACKGROUND: The importance of economic evaluation in decision making is growing with increasing budgetary pressures on health systems. Diverse economic evidence is available for a range of interventions across national contexts within Europe, but little attention has been given to identifying evidence gaps that, if filled, could contribute to more efficient allocation of resources. One objective of the Research Agenda for Health Economic Evaluation project is to determine the most important methodological evidence gaps for the ten highest burden conditions in the European Union (EU), and to suggest ways of filling these gaps. METHODS: The highest burden conditions in the EU by Disability Adjusted Life Years were determined using the Global Burden of Disease study. Clinical interventions were identified for each condition based on published guidelines, and economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE were mapped to each intervention. A panel of public health and health economics experts discussed the evidence during a workshop and identified evidence gaps. RESULTS: The literature analysis contributed to identifying cross-cutting methodological and technical issues, which were considered by the expert panel to derive methodological research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: The panel suggests a research agenda for health economics which incorporates the use of real-world evidence in the assessment of new and existing interventions; increased understanding of cost-effectiveness according to patient characteristics beyond the "-omics" approach to inform both investment and disinvestment decisions; methods for assessment of complex interventions; improved cross-talk between economic evaluations from health and other sectors; early health technology assessment; and standardized, transferable approaches to economic modeling.

INTRODUCTION: Approaches to economic evaluations of stroke therapies are varied and inconsistently described. An objective of the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) Health Economics Working Group is to standardise and improve the economic evaluations of interventions for stroke. METHODS: The ESO Health Economics Working Group and additional experts were contacted to develop a protocol and a guidance document for data collection for economic evaluations of stroke therapies. A modified Delphi approach, including a survey and consensus processes, was used to agree on content. We also asked the participants about resources that could be shared to improve economic evaluations of interventions for stroke. RESULTS: Of 28 experts invited, 16 (57%) completed the initial survey, with representation from universities, government, and industry. More than half of the survey respondents endorsed 13 specific items to include in a standard resource use questionnaire. Preferred functional/quality of life outcome measures to use for economic evaluations were the modified Rankin Scale (14 respondents, 88%) and the EQ-5D instrument (11 respondents, 69%). Of the 12 respondents who had access to data used in economic evaluations, 10 (83%) indicated a willingness to share data. A protocol template and a guidance document for data collection were developed and are presented in this article. CONCLUSION: The protocol template and guidance document for data collection will support a more standardised and transparent approach for economic evaluations of stroke care.

Introduction Approaches to economic evaluations of stroke therapies are varied and inconsistently described. An objective of the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) Health Economics Working Group is to standardise and improve the economic evaluations of interventions for stroke. Methods The ESO Health Economics Working Group and additional experts were contacted to develop a protocol and a guidance document for data collection for economic evaluations of stroke therapies. A modified Delphi approach, including a survey and consensus processes, was used to agree on content. We also asked the participants about resources that could be shared to improve economic evaluations of interventions for stroke. Results Of 28 experts invited, 16 (57%) completed the initial survey, with representation from universities, government, and industry. More than half of the survey respondents endorsed 13 specific items to include in a standard resource use questionnaire. Preferred functional/quality of life outcome measures to use for economic evaluations were the modified Rankin Scale (14 respondents, 88%) and the EQ-5D instrument (11 respondents, 69%). Of the 12 respondents who had access to data used in economic evaluations, 10 (83%) indicated a willingness to share data. A protocol template and a guidance document for data collection were developed and are presented in this article. Conclusion The protocol template and guidance document for data collection will support a more standardised and transparent approach for economic evaluations of stroke care.