Jes Søgaard

Preventive health screenings and health consultations in primary care increase life expectancy without increasing costs

Aims: The intention was to investigate whether preventive health checks and health discussions are cost effective. Methods: In a randomized trial the authors compared two intervention groups (A and B) and one control group. In 1991 2,000 30- to 49-year-old persons were invited and those who accepted were randomized. Both intervention groups were offered a broad (multiphasic) screening including cardiovascular risk and a personal letter including screening results and advice on healthy living. Individuals in group A could contact their family physician for a normal consultation whereas group B were given fixed appointments for health consultations. The follow-up period was six years. Analysis was carried out on the ``intention to treat principle. Outcome parameters were life years gained, and direct and total health costs (including productivity costs), discounted by 3% annually. Costs were based on register data. Univariate sensitivity analysis was carried out. Results: Both intervention groups have significantly better life expectancy than the control group (no intervention). Group B and (A) significantly gain 0.14 (0.08) life years more than the control group. There were no differences in average direct (3,255 (3,703) versus 4,186) and total costs (10,409 (9,399) versus 10,667). The effect in group B is, however, better than in group A with no significant differences in costs. The results are insensitive to a range of assumptions regarding costs, effects, and discount rates. Conclusions: Preventive health screening and consultation in primary care in 30- to 49-year-olds produce significantly better life expectancy without extra direct and total costs over a six-year follow-up period.

Something is Amiss in Denmark: A Comparison of Preventable Hospitalisations and Readmissions for Chronic Medical Conditions in the Danish Healthcare System and Kaiser Permanente

BackgroundAs many other European healthcare systems the Danish healthcare system (DHS) has targeted chronic condition care in its reform efforts. Benchmarking is a valuable tool to identify areas for improvement. Prior work indicates that chronic care coordination is poor in the DHS, especially in comparison with care in Kaiser Permanente (KP), an integrated delivery system based in the United States. We investigated population rates of hospitalisation and readmission rates for ambulatory care sensitive, chronic medical conditions in the two systems.MethodsUsing a historical cohort study design, age and gender adjusted population rates of hospitalisations for angina, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hypertension, plus rates of 30-day readmission and mortality were investigated for all individuals aged 65+ in the DHS and KP.ResultsDHS had substantially higher rates of hospitalisations, readmissions, and mean lengths of stay per hospitalisation, than KP had. For example, the adjusted angina hospitalisation rates in 2007 for the DHS and KP respectively were 1.01/100 persons (95%CI: 0.98-1.03) vs. 0.11/100 persons (95%CI: 0.10-0.13/100 persons); 21.6% vs. 9.9% readmission within 30 days (OR = 2.53; 95% CI: 1.84-3.47); and mean length of stay was 2.52 vs. 1.80 hospital days. Mortality up through 30 days post-discharge was not consistently different in the two systems.ConclusionsThere are substantial differences between the DHS and KP in the rates of preventable hospitalisations and subsequent readmissions associated with chronic conditions, which suggest much opportunity for improvement within the Danish healthcare system. Reductions in hospitalisations also could improve patient welfare and free considerable resources for use towards preventing disease exacerbations. These conclusions may also apply for similar public systems such as the US Medicare system, the NHS and other systems striving to improve the integration of care for persons with chronic conditions.

A retrospective analysis of health systems in Denmark and Kaiser Permanente

BackgroundTo inform Danish health care reform efforts, we compared health care system inputs and performance and assessed the usefulness of these comparisons for informing policy.MethodsRetrospective analysis of secondary data in the Danish Health Care System (DHS) with 5.3 million citizens and the Kaiser Permanente integrated delivery system (KP) with 6.1 million members in California. We used secondary data to compare population characteristics, professional staff, delivery structure, utilisation and quality measures, and direct costs. We adjusted the cost data to increase comparability.ResultsA higher percentage of KP patients had chronic conditions than did patients in the DHS: 6.3% vs. 2.8% (diabetes) and 19% vs. 8.5% (hypertension), respectively. KP had fewer total physicians and staff compared to DHS, with134 physicians/100,000 individuals versus 311 physicians/100,000 individuals. KP physicians are salaried employees; in contrast, DHS primary care physicians own and run their practices, remunerated by a mixture of capitation and fee-for-service payments, while most specialists are employed at largely public hospitals. Hospitalisation rates and lengths of stay (LOS) were lower in KP, with mean acute admission LOS of 3.9 days versus 6.0 days in the DHS, and, for stroke admissions, 4.2 days versus 23 days. Screening rates also differed: 93% of KP members with diabetes received retinal screening; only 46% of patients in the DHS with diabetes did. Per capita operating expenditures were PPP

The RESCueH Programme: Testing New Non-Pharmacologic Interventions for Alcohol Use Disorders: Rationale and Methods

1,951 (KP) and PPP

Relay model for recruiting alcohol dependent patients in general hospitals - a single-blind pragmatic randomized trial

1,845 (DHS).ConclusionCompared to the DHS, KP had a population with more documented disease and higher operating costs, while employing fewer physicians and resources like hospital beds. Observed quality measures also appear higher in KP. However, simple comparisons between health care systems may have limited value without detailed information on mechanisms underlying differences or identifying translatable care improvement strategies. We suggest items for more in-depth analyses that could improve the interpretability of findings and help identify lessons that can be transferred.

Counting and discounting gained life-years.

Excessive alcohol consumption is one of the most important lifestyle factors affecting the disease burden in the Western world. The results of treatment in daily practice are modest at best. The aim of the RESCueH programme is to develop and evaluate methods, which are as practice-near as possible, and therefore can be implemented quickly and easily in everyday clinical practice. It is the first clinical alcohol programme to be transatlantic in scope, with implementation in treatment centers located in Denmark, Germany and the US. The RESCueH programme comprises 5 randomized controlled trials, and the studies can be expected to result in (1) more patients starting treatment in specialized outpatient clinics, (2) a greater number of elderly patients being treated, (3) increased patient motivation for treatment and thus improved adherence, (4) more patients with stable positive outcomes after treatment and (5) fewer patients relapsing into harmful drinking. The aim of this paper is to discuss the rationale for the RESCueH programme, to present the studies and expected results.

Health Inequality - determinants and policies:

BackgroundA large proportion of the Danish population consumes more than the officially recommended weekly amount of alcohol. Untreated alcohol use disorders lead to frequent contacts with the health care system and can be associated with considerable human and societal costs. However, only a small share of those with alcohol use disorders receives treatment. A referral model to ensure treatment for alcohol dependent patients after discharge is needed. This study evaluates the i) cost-effectiveness ii) efficacy and iii) overall impact on societal costs of the proposed referral model - The Relay Model.Method/DesignThe study is a single-blind pragmatic randomized controlled trial including patients admitted to the hospital. The study group (nu2009=u2009500) will receive an intervention, and the control group (nu2009=u2009500) will be referred to treatment by usual procedures. All patients complete a lifestyle questionnaire with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test embedded as a case identification strategy. The primary outcome of the study will be health care expenditures 12xa0months after discharge. The secondary outcome will be the percentage of the target group, who 30xa0days after discharge, reports at the alcohol treatment clinics. In order to analyse both outcomes, difference-in-difference models will be used.DiscussionWe expect to establish evidence as to whether The Relay Model is either cost-neutral or cost-effective, compared to referral by usual procedures.Trial registrationhttps://register.clinicaltrials.gov/by identifier:RESCueH_Relay NCT02188043 Project Relay Model for Recruiting Alcohol Dependent Patients in General Hospitals (TRN Registration: 07/09/2014)

The total lifetime health cost savings of smoking cessation to society

The life expectancy gain produced by a reduction in mortality can be determined by three different methods with respect to the timing of the gained life-years. One method adds the life expectancy gain to the expected end of life. Another method places the gain at the time of occurrence of the mortality reduction. A third method distributes the gained life-years over the maximum lifespan according to the differences in survival probabilities after and before the reduction in mortality. The three methods are all used in the literature together with a quasi-deterministic and a probabilistic approach to the notion of life expectancy. The counted numbers of gained life-years are the same, but due to different timing of life expectancy gains the discounted numbers are different. Several discounting models are identified when combining the three methods of counting with the deterministic and the probabilistic approaches to life expectancy. Some are symmetrical, some are not. However, most importantly, they come out with potentially very large differences in the discounted number of gained life-years. They differ by a factor of approximately (1 + r)e(a)-1, where r is a constant discount rate and e(a) is remaining life expectancy at age a, when the reduction of mortality occurs. For a new-born, discounting at 7% p.a., one discounting model provides a present value that is 150 times larger than another discounting model, the other models being in between. The various counting and discounting models for life expectancy gains are presented formally, graphically, and with numerical examples using Danish male mortality data. We show how three different discounting models provide large differences in discounted life expectancy gains and hence cost-effectiveness ratios in an economic evaluation of a colorectal cancer screening programme in Denmark. These different discounting models co-exist in the evaluation literature. Choice of method is rarely made explicit. Sensitivity analysis with respect to this choice is even rarer. We argue that one counting-discounting model is sufficient and that this should be to discount the differences between the two survival probability curves.