Results suggest that a transitional home-based palliative care program is more cost-effective than customary palliative care service. Limitations of the study include small sample size, study confined to one city, clinic consultation costs, and societal costs including patient costs and unpaid care-giving costs were not included.

BackgroundReadmissions are costly and have implications for quality of care. Studies have been reported to support effects of transitional care programs in reducing hospital readmissions and enhancing clinical outcomes. However, there is a paucity of studies executing full economic evaluation to assess the cost-effectiveness of these transitional care programs. This study is therefore launched to fill this knowledge gap.MethodsCost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial that examined the effects of a Health-Social Transitional Care Management Program (HSTCMP) for medical patients discharged from an acute regional hospital in Hong Kong. The cost and health outcomes were compared between the patients receiving the HSTCMP and usual care. The total costs comprised the pre-program, program, and healthcare utilization costs. Quality of life was measured with SF-36 and transformed to utility values between 0 and 1.ResultsThe readmission rates within 28 (control 10.2%, study 4.0%) and 84 days (control 19.4%, study 8.1%) were significantly higher in the control group. Utility values showed no difference between the control and study groups at baseline (p = 0.308). Utility values for the study group were significantly higher than in the control group at 28 (p < 0.001) and 84 days (p = 0.002). The study group also had a significantly higher QALYs gain (p < 0.001) over time at 28 and 84 days when compared with the control group. The intervention had an 89% chance of being cost-effective at the threshold of £20000/QALY.ConclusionsPrevious studies on transitional care focused mainly on clinical outcomes and not too many included cost as an outcome measure. Studies examining the cost-effectiveness of the post-discharge support services are scanty. This study is the first to examine the cost-effectiveness of a transitional care program that used nurse-led services participated by volunteers. Results have shown that a health-social partnership transitional care program is cost-effective in reducing healthcare costs and attaining QALY gains. Economic evaluation helps to inform funders and guide decisions for the effective use of competing healthcare resources.

The findings in this study add to the evidence base, as summarised in the Surgeon General's report, extending the impact of effective smoke-free legislation to those aged 65 years or older and to cerebrovascular events in younger age groups. They also reinforced the need for comprehensive, enforced and effective smoke-free laws if the full extent of the health gains are to be achieved.

Background: home visits and telephone calls are two often used approaches in transitional care, but their differential economic effects are unknown.Objective: to examine the differential economic benefits of home visits with telephone calls and telephone calls only in transitional discharge support.Design: cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial (RCT).Participants: patients discharged from medical units randomly assigned to control (control, N = 210), home visits with calls (home, N = 196) and calls only (call, N = 204).Methods: cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted from the societal perspective comparing monetary benefits and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.Results: the home arm was less costly but less effective at 28 days and was dominating (less costly and more effective) at 84 days. The call arm was dominating at both 28 and 84 days. The incremental QALY for the home arm was −0.0002/0.0008 (28/84 days), and the call arm was 0.0022/0.0104 (28/84 days). When the three groups were compared, the call arm had a higher probability being cost-effective at 84 days but not at 28 days (home: 53%, call: 35% (28 days) versus home: 22%, call: 73% (84 days)) measuring against the NICE threshold of £20,000.Conclusion: the original RCT showed that the bundled intervention involving home visits and calls was more effective than calls only in the reduction of hospital readmissions. This study adds a cost perspective to inform policymakers that both home visits and calls only are cost-effective for transitional care support, but calls only have a higher chance of being cost-effective for a sustained period after intervention.

This study evaluated the short-term cost-effectiveness of the Patient Empowerment Programme (PEP) for diabetes mellitus (DM) in Hong Kong. Propensity score matching was used to select a matched group of PEP and non-PEP subjects. A societal perspective was adopted to estimate the cost of PEP. Outcome measures were the cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality and diabetic complication over a 5-year follow-up period and the number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid 1 event. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of cost per event avoided was calculated using the PEP cost per subject multiplied by the NNT. The PEP cost per subject from the societal perspective was US$247. There was a significantly lower cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality (2.9% vs 4.6%, P < .001), any DM complication (9.5% vs 10.8%, P = .001) and CVD events (6.8% vs 7.6%, P = .018), in the PEP group. The costs per death from any cause, DM complication or case of CVD avoided were US$14 465, US$19 617 and US$30 796, respectively. The extra amount allocated to managing PEP was small and it appears cost-effective in the short-term as an addition to RAMP.