Cost-effectiveness of shared medical appointments for neuromuscular patients
Citation Manager Formats
Make Comment
See Comments
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective: To assess whether shared medical appointments (SMAs) for neuromuscular patients represent a way of using clinicians' time efficiently without compromising quality of care for patients.
Methods: Patients with a chronic neuromuscular disease (NMD) (n = 272) were randomly allocated to either an SMA or a regular individual annual appointment and followed up for a period of 6 months. Data on resource utilization and quality of life (EQ-5D) were collected prospectively, using a health care perspective. Incremental costs and changes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were computed using a probabilistic decision model. Factors critical to the incremental cost-effectiveness of SMAs were explored in sensitivity analyses.
Results: No substantial differences between SMAs and individual visits in terms of costs per QALY were found (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio €−960.00; 95% confidence interval €−34,600.00, €+36,800.00). Sensitivity analyses showed that the cost-effectiveness ratio was particularly sensitive to SMA group size and proportion of patients seeing their treating neurologist.
Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness of SMAs did not show a significant difference vs that of individual appointments based on data from our randomized controlled trial. On the other hand, we were able to show that a minimum of 6 patients per SMA and 75% of patients attending their treating neurologist are specific conditions under which SMAs qualify as a cost-effective alternative. This implies that SMAs may be a means to increase productivity of the physician without compromising quality of care.
Classification of evidence: This study provides Class III evidence that SMAs are not significantly more cost-effective than individual appointments for patients with NMDs. The study lacks the precision to exclude important differences in cost-effectiveness between SMAs and individual appointments.
GLOSSARY
- ICER=
- incremental cost-effectiveness ratio;
- NMD=
- neuromuscular disease;
- QALY=
- quality-adjusted life-year;
- RCT=
- randomized controlled trial;
- SMA=
- shared medical appointment
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
Supplemental data at Neurology.org
- Received February 5, 2015.
- Accepted in final form April 28, 2015.
- © 2015 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
For assistance, please contact:
AAN Members (800) 879-1960 or (612) 928-6000 (International)
Non-AAN Member subscribers (800) 638-3030 or (301) 223-2300 option 3, select 1 (international)
Sign Up
Information on how to subscribe to Neurology and Neurology: Clinical Practice can be found here
Purchase
Individual access to articles is available through the Add to Cart option on the article page. Access for 1 day (from the computer you are currently using) is US$ 39.00. Pay-per-view content is for the use of the payee only, and content may not be further distributed by print or electronic means. The payee may view, download, and/or print the article for his/her personal, scholarly, research, and educational use. Distributing copies (electronic or otherwise) of the article is not allowed.
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
You May Also be Interested in
Dr. Fabricio Ferreira de Oliveira and Dr. Alan Cronemberger Andrade
► Watch
Topics Discussed
Alert Me
Recommended articles
-
Article
Preventive Antibiotics in Stroke Study (PASS)A cost-effectiveness studyWilleke F. Westendorp, Elles Zock, Jan-Dirk Vermeij et al.Neurology, April 06, 2018 -
Articles
The cost-effectiveness of telestroke in the treatment of acute ischemic strokeR.E. Nelson, G.M. Saltzman, E.J. Skalabrin et al.Neurology, September 14, 2011 -
Articles
Cost-effectiveness of HLA-B*1502 genotyping in adult patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy in SingaporeDi Dong, Cynthia Sung, Eric Andrew Finkelstein et al.Neurology, September 05, 2012 -
Article
Cost-effectiveness of surgery for drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy in the USShehryar R. Sheikh, Michael W. Kattan, Michael Steinmetz et al.Neurology, July 08, 2020