Ariadna Juarez-Garcia

The costs of epilepsy misdiagnosis in England and Wales

BACKGROUND The management of epilepsy incurs significant costs to the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS). Making a diagnosis of epilepsy can, however, be difficult and misdiagnosis frequently occurs when patients are seen by non-specialists. This study estimates the financial costs of epilepsy misdiagnosis in the NHS in England and Wales. METHODS Standard costing methods were applied to estimate the costs attributable to epilepsy misdiagnosis. The primary data were published in UK studies on the prevalence of epilepsy, epilepsy misdiagnosis and costs identified from Medline, Cinahl and Embase (1996-May 2006). RESULTS An estimated total of 92,000 people were misdiagnosed with epilepsy in England and Wales in 2002. The average medical cost per patient per year of misdiagnosis was 316 pounds sterling, with the chief economic burdens being inpatient admissions (45%), inappropriate prescribing of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) (26%), outpatient attendances (16%) and general practitioner (GP) care (8%). The estimated annual medical costs in England and Wales were 29,000,000 pounds sterling, while total costs could reach up to 138,000,000 pounds sterling a year. CONCLUSIONS Allowing for uncertainty, and considering the analysis exclusively from the NHS/CBS (community based services) perspective the opportunity costs of misdiagnosis are substantial. There is a need for health care commissioners to ensure that misdiagnosis is kept to a minimum by ensuring that individuals with a recent onset suspected seizure are seen as soon as possible by a specialist medical practitioner with training and expertise in epilepsy.

Cost-effectiveness of a disease management programme for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and heart failure in primary care

Objective: To determine if a disease management programme for patients with coronary heart disease and heart failure represents an efficient use of health services resources. Methods: We carried out an economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised control trial of 1163 patients with coronary heart disease and chronic heart failure in 20 primary care practices in the United Kingdom. Practices were randomised to either a control group, where patients received standard general practice care, or an intervention group where patients had access to a specialist nurse-led disease management programme. We estimated costs in both groups for coronary heart disease-related resource use. The main outcome measure used in the economic evaluation was quality adjusted life years (QALY) measured using the EuroQol. Results: The disease management programme was associated with an increase in the QALY measured of 0.03 per year and an increase in the total NHS costs of £425 (€540), of this only £83 was directly associated with the provision of the nurse clinics. The clinics generated additional QALY at an incremental cost of £13 158 per QALY compared to the control group. Conclusions: The use of a nurse-led disease management programme is associated with increased costs in other coronary heart disease-related services as well as for the costs of the clinics. They are also associated with improvements in health. Even in the short term these disease management programmes may represent a cost-effective service, as additional QALY are generated at an acceptable extra cost.

Winners and losers: assessing the distributional effects of long-term care funding regimes

Using two linked simulation models, we examine the public expenditure costs and distributional effects of potential reforms to long-term care funding in the UK. Changes to the means tests for user contributions to care costs are compared with options for the abolition of these means tests (‘free’ personal care). The latter generally cost more than the former and benefit higher income groups more than those on lower incomes (measuring income in relation to the age-specific income distribution). Reforms to the means tests target benefits towards those on lower incomes. However, the highest income group are net losers if free personal care is financed by a higher tax rate on higher incomes and the effect on the whole population considered.