Advertisement

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 11, Issue 6, pp 661–670 | Cite as

A Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Improved Primary Care Management of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Australia

  • Hossein Haji Ali AfzaliEmail author
  • Jodi Gray
  • Justin Beilby
  • Christine Holton
  • Jonathan Karnon
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

There are few studies investigating the economic value of the Australian practice nurse workforce on the management of chronic conditions. This is particularly important in Australia, where the government needs evidence to inform decisions on whether to maintain or redirect current financial incentives that encourage practices to recruit practice nurses.

Objective

The objective of this study was to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with two models of practice nurse involvement in clinical-based activities (high and low level) in the management of type 2 diabetes within the primary care setting.

Methods

A previously validated state transition model (the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model) was adapted, which uses baseline prognostic factors (e.g. gender, haemoglobin A1c [HbA1c]) to predict the risk of occurrence of diabetes-related complications (e.g. stroke). The model was populated by data from Australian and UK observational studies. Costs and utility values associated with complications were summed over patients’ lifetimes to estimate costs and QALY gains from the perspective of the health care system. All costs were expressed in 2011 Australian dollars (AU$). The base-case analysis assumed a 40-year time horizon with an annual discount rate of 5 %.

Results

Relative to low-level involvement of practice nurses in the provision of clinical-based activities, the high-level model was associated with lower mean lifetime costs of management of complications (−AU$8,738; 95 % confidence interval [CI] −AU$12,522 to −AU$4,954), and a greater average gain in QALYs (0.3; 95 % CI 0.2–0.4). A range of sensitivity analyses were performed, in which the high-level model was dominant in all cases.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that the high-level model is a dominant management strategy over the low-level model in all modelled scenarios. These findings indicate the need for effective primary care-based incentives to encourage general practices not only to employ practice nurses, but to better integrate them into the provision of clinical services.

Keywords

Propensity Score Practice Nurse United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Deterministic Sensitivity Analysis Utility Decrement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the Australian Research Council (ARC) and our research partners (SA Health and the Central Northern Adelaide Health Service) for funding this research. We also acknowledge the significant part played by the Adelaide Northern Division of General Practice (ANDGP), in particular the CEO, Barbara Magin, and the eHealth Data Support Officer, Jodie Pycroft. Professor Phil Ryan and Thomas Sullivan provided statistical advice, and Wendy Sutton provided advice in her role as manager of the GP Plus Health Care Centre within the Northern Division. Finally, we would like to thank the general practices and patients who participated in the research, and acknowledge the support of Woolworths in supplying discounted gift cards offered to patients during recruitment. We received a research licence to use the UKPDS Outcomes Model, version 1.3, from the University of Oxford. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are relevant to the content of this article.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to the study design. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali and Jonathan Karnon performed the analysis and interpretation of data and drafted the manuscript. All authors made substantial contributions to the revisions of the manuscript and gave final approval of the version to be published.

Supplementary material

40258_2013_62_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (105 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 106 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Diabetes: Australian facts. Canberra: The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shaw JE, Chisholm DJ. Epidemiology and prevention of type 2 diabetes and the metabolic syndrome. Med J Aust. 2003;179:379–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’Reilly D, Hopkins R, Blackhouse G, et al. Long-term cost-utility analysis of a multi-disciplinary primary care diabetes management program in Ontario. Can J Diabetes. 2007;31:205–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tshiananga JK, Kocher S, Weber C, et al. The effect of nurse-led diabetes self-management education on glycosylated hemoglobin and cardiovascular risk factors: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Educ. 2012;38:108–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Speight J, Browne JL, Holmes-Truscott E, et al. Diabetes MILES—Australia 2011 survey report, Melbourne; 2011.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Groeneveld Y, Petri H, Hermans J, et al. An assessment of structured care assistance in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes in general practice. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2001;19:25–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Australian General Practice Network: Prevention of type 2 diabetes [online]. http://www.agpn.com.au/programs/chronic-disease-prevention-and-management2/prevention-of-type-2-diabetes-program. Accessed 12 Sep 2012.
  8. 8.
    Renders CM, Valk GD, Griffin SJ, et al. Interventions to improve the management of diabetes mellitus in primary care, outpatient and community settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;1:CD001481.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Medicare Australia. Practice Nurse Incentive Program (PNIP) [online]. http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/provider/incentives/pnip.jsp. Accessed 14 Dec 2012.
  10. 10.
    Australian Practice Nurse Association: About practice nursing [online]. http://www.apna.asn.au/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=APNA/ccms.r?PageId=11012. Accessed 12 Sep 2012.
  11. 11.
    Australia Co. Parlimentary Debates: House of Representatives, Questions in Writing, Practice Incentives Program: Practice Nurse Incentive, Question 118 (Ms Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing). Canberra, February 10, 2011.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keleher H, Joyce CM, Parker R, et al. Practice nurses in Australia: current issues and future directions. Med J Aust. 2007;187:108–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halcomb EJ, Patterson E, Davidson PM. Evolution of practice nursing in Australia. J Adv Nurs. 2006;55:376–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Afzali HH, Karnon J, Gray J, et al. A model-based evaluation of collaborative care in management of patients with type 2 diabetes in Australia: an initial report. Aust Health Rev. 2012;36:258–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haji Ali Afzali H, Gray J, Beilby J, et al. A risk adjusted economic evaluation of alternative models of involvement of practice nurses in management of type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2013;30:855–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ. 1997;6:217–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clarke PM, Gray AM, Briggs A, et al. A model to estimate lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes: the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model. Diabetologia. 2004;47:1747–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McRae I, Butler J, Sibthorpe B, et al. A cost-effectiveness study of integrated care in health services: a diabetes program in Australia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:205.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Simon J, Gray A, Clarke P, et al. Cost effectiveness of self monitoring of blood glucose in patients with non-insulin treated type 2 diabetes: economic evaluation of data from the DiGEM trial. BMJ. 2008;336:1177–80.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Palmer AJ, Roze S, Valentine WJ, et al. Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications—a report on the Fourth Mount Hood Challenge Meeting. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:1638–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kothari V, Stevens RJ, Adler AI, et al. UKPDS 60: risk of stroke in type 2 diabetes estimated by the UK Prospective Diabetes Study risk engine. Stroke. 2002;33:1776–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:757–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kreif N, Grieve R, Radice R, et al. Methods for estimating subgroup effects in cost-effectiveness analyses that use observational data. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:750–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sekhon JS, Grieve R. A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost-effectiveness analyses. Health Econ. 2012;21:695–714.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies input parameter values. Multivar Behav Res. 2011;46:399–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clarke P, Leal J, Kelman C, et al. Estimating cost of complications of diabetes in Australia using administrative health care data. Value Health. 2008;11:199–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clarke P, Gray A, Legod R, et al. The impact of diabetes-related complications on health care costs: results from the UKPDS. Diabet Med. 2003;20:442–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clarke P, Gray A, Holman R. Estimating utility values for health states of type 2 diabetic patients using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62). Med Decis Making. 2002;22:340–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kiberd BA, Jindal KK. Screening to prevent renal failure in insulin dependent diabetic patients: an economic evaluation. BMJ. 1995;311:1595–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Department of Health and Ageing. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: The Australian Government; 2007.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fenwick E, O’Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves-facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ. 2004;13:405–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mason JM, Freemantle N, Gibson JM, et al. SPLINT trial. Specialist nurse-led clinics to improve control of hypertension and hyperlipidemia in diabetes: economic analysis of the SPLINT trial. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:40–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Steuten L, Bruijsten M, Vrijhoef H. Economic evaluation of a diabetes disease management programme with a central role for the diabetes nurse specialist. Eur Diabetes Nurs. 2007;4:64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Arts EA, Landewe-Cleuren S, Schaper NC. The cost-effectiveness of substituting physicians with diabetes nurse specialists: a randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68:1224–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gilmer TP, Roze S, Valentine WJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of diabetes case management for low-income populations. Health Serv Res. 2007;42:1943–59.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Houweling ST, Kleefstra N, van Hateren KJ, et al. Diabetes specialist nurse as main care provider for patients with type 2 diabetes. Neth J Med. 2009;67:279–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McKee M, Britton A, Black N, et al. Interpreting the evidence: choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies. BMJ. 1999;319:312–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Palmer AJ, Roze S, Valentine WJ, et al. The CORE Diabetes Model: projecting long-term clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions in diabetes mellitus (types 1 and 2) to support clinical and reimbursement decision-making. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;Supp 1:S5–S26.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bodmer M, Meier C, Krahenbuhl S, et al. Metformin, sulfonylureas, or other antidiabetes drugs and the risk of lactic acidosis or hypoglycemia: a nested case-control analysis. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:2086–91.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hossein Haji Ali Afzali
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jodi Gray
    • 1
  • Justin Beilby
    • 2
  • Christine Holton
    • 3
  • Jonathan Karnon
    • 1
  1. 1.Discipline of Public Health, School of Population HealthUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.Discipline of General PracticeUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations