Search

Background: Self-administered subcutaneous immunoglobulin G (SCIg) reduces nursing time and eliminates the need for treatment at ambulatory care clinics, as compared with clinic-based intravenously administered IgG (IVIg), and are therapeutically equivalent. Estimating the economic impact of self-administered SCIg versus clinic-administered IVIg therapy may guide treatment recommendations. Methods: A retrospective population-based cohort study using administrative data from Alberta was performed; those treated with IgG between April 1, 2012 and March 31, 2019 were included. Costs for medical laboratory staff and nursing time, as well as ambulatory care visits were considered. Univariate generalized linear model regression with gamma distribution and log link was used to compare cost ($CDN 2020) between SCIg and IVIg administration. Stratified analysis by age (≥ 18-years; < 18-years) was performed. Results: Among 7,890 (6,148 adults; 1,742 children) individuals who received IgG, the average administration cost per patient-year of self-administered SCIg was $5,386 (95% confidence interval [CI] $5,039, $5,734) lower than clinic-administered IVIg; per patient-year cost of self-administered SCIg was $817 (95% CI $723, $912) versus $6,204 (95% CI $6,100, $6,308) for clinic-administered IVIg. The per patient-year cost of self-administered SCIg was $5,931 (95% CI $5,543, $6,319) lower among adults and $3,177 (95% CI $2,473, $3,882) lower among children compared with clinic-administered IVIg. An estimated $31.0 million (95% CI $29.0, $33.0) in cost savings to the health system would be realised if 80% of individuals switched from clinic-administered IVIg to self-administered SCIg. Conclusions: Self-administered SCIg is substantially less costly from a health care payer perspective in Canada. Within this type of health system, switching to self-administered SCIg has the potential to reduce overall health care costs, lessen nursing burden, and may increase clinic-based capacity for others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Heart failure is a costly health condition and a major public health concern. We sought to examine the costs of hospital admissions for heart failure between fiscal years 2004 and 2013 in Canada and to model the future costs to 2030. Methods: Canadian Institutes for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database was used to identify admissions to hospital with heart failure as the primary diagnosis between fiscal years 2004 and 2013. Multiple linear regression models were used to calculate the trend in prevalence and extrapolate these to 2030. Canadian Institutes for Health Information patient cost estimates were used to identify costs of hospital admissions for heart failure. Generalized linear models were used to estimate average annual costs per heart failure patient. We conducted a sensitivity analysis including all admissions for heart failure in any diagnostic field. Results: In 2013, 45 600 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43 800-47 200) patients were admitted with heart failure as the primary diagnosis, accounting for $482 (95% CI $464-$500) million. By 2030, we estimate 54 000 (95% CI 49 000-60 000) patients and costs of $722 (95% CI $650-$801) million, with older adults (age ≥ 80 yr) accounting for 52% of costs. Including admissions for which heart failure was a secondary diagnosis increases the total cost to $2.8 (95% CI $2.6-$3.0) billion in 2030. Interpretation: As in other developed countries, hospital costs related to heart failure in Canada are on the rise. Older adults are the main consumers of such hospital services. Strategies to improve outpatient care to reduce rates of admission for heart failure are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical research is funded by industry, governments, charities, and hospitals. It is important to know the economic commitment of the various funding bodies, but until now there has been no national source available which provides these data. We surveyed the major funders to provide such a measure. There is evidence that government and charity funding of medical research is a trigger for private sector research investment; therefore, tracking all sources of funding for clinical research will provide policy-makers with an overall picture of health research funding. These data support policy decision-making related to clinical research in Canada.

Aims: Registries have reported large inter-hospital differences in intensive care unit admission rates for patients with acute heart failure, but little is known about the potential economic impact of over-admission of low-risk patients with heart failure to higher cost intensive care units. We described the variability in intensive care unit admission practices, the provision of critical care therapies, and estimated the potential national cost savings if all hospitals adopted low intensive care unit admission practices for patients admitted with heart failure., Methods: Using a national population health dataset, we identified 349,693 heart failure admission hospitalisations with a primary diagnosis of heart failure between 2007 and 2016. Hospitals were categorised as low (first quartile), medium (second and third quartile) and high (fourth quartiles) intensive care unit utilisation., Results: The mean intensive care unit admission rate was 16.4% (inter-hospital range 0.3-51%) including 5.4% in low, 14.5% in medium and 30% in high utilisation hospitals. Intensive care unit therapies in low, medium and high intensive care unit utilisation hospitals were 54.5%, 45.1% and 24.1% ( P <0.001), respectively and the inhospital mortality rate was not significantly different. The proportion of hospital costs incurred by intensive care unit care was 7.8% in low, 19.8% in medium and 28.2% in high ( P <0.001) admission hospitals. The potential cost savings of altering intensive care unit utilisation practices for patients with heart failure was CAN$234.8m over the study period., Conclusions: In a national cohort of patients hospitalised with heart failure, we observed that low intensive care unit utilisation centres had lower hospital costs with no differences in mortality rates. The development of standardised admission criteria for high-cost and high acuity intensive care unit beds could reduce costs to the healthcare system.

Background: There is substantial variability among hospitals in critical care unit (CCU) utilization for patients admitted with non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes (NSTE ACS). We estimated the potential cost saving if all hospitals adopted low CCU utilization practices for patients with NSTE ACS., Methods: National hospital claims data were used to identify all patients with a primary diagnosis of NSTE ACS initially admitted to an acute care hospital between 2007 and 2013. Hospital CCU utilization was classified as low (<30%), medium (30-70%), or high (>70%)., Results: Among the 270,564 NSTE ACS hospitalizations (71.6% non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; 28.4% unstable angina) admitted to 261 hospitals, 41.9% (inter-hospital range 0.3%-95.1%) were admitted to a CCU. The proportion of patients admitted to a CCU in low, medium and high utilization hospitals was 16.3%, 49.5%, and high 81.1%, respectively. No differences in adjusted inpatient mortality were observed by hospital CCU utilization. The overall inpatient costs of caring for NSTE ACS were $1.1 billion. CCU care accounted for 45.2% of all hospitalization costs including 22.6%, 49.9%, and 69.0% (P < .001) of costs in low, medium and high utilization centers. The national potential direct cost savings of medium and high CCU utilization centers adopting low NSTE ACS CCU utilization practices was $113.4 million over the study period., Conclusions: In a population-based contemporary cohort, CCU utilization for patients with NSTE ACS varied widely and in-hospital mortality was similar between low, medium and high utilization centers. CCU care accounted for 45% of hospitalization costs; thus, implementing policies and admission practices to align hospital resources with patient care needs have the potential to reduce overall health care costs., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)