Search

Background: The use of indoor tanning devices causes melanoma and other skin cancers with resulting morbidity, mortality and increased healthcare costs. Policymakers require robust economic evidence to inform decisions about a possible ban of such devices to mitigate these burdens. Objectives: To assess the health costs and consequences of introducing a policy‐based intervention across England to ban commercial indoor tanning with an accompanying public information campaign. Methods: A cost‐effectiveness analysis, adopting a healthcare system perspective, was conducted using a decision model to track a national cohort of 18‐year‐olds over a lifetime time horizon. A nationwide ban on commercial indoor tanning combined with a public information campaign (the policy‐based intervention) was compared with the status quo of availability of commercial indoor tanning. The expected costs (currency, GBP; price year, 2019) and quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) were calculated. Net monetary benefit (NMB) (net benefit measured in cost compared with an accepted threshold) and net health benefit (NHB) (net gain in QALYs compared with an accepted threshold) of implementation were calculated. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to calculate the probability that the intervention was cost‐effective. Results: Compared with the current situation, a ban on commercial indoor tanning combined with a public information campaign would result in 1206 avoided cases of melanoma, 207 fewer melanoma deaths and 3987 averted cases of keratinocyte cancers over the lifetime of all 18‐year‐olds (n = 618 873) living in England in 2019. An additional 497 QALYs would be realized along with healthcare cost‐savings of £697 858. This intervention would result in an NMB of £10.6m and an NHB of 530 QALYS. Multiple sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings. At a cost‐effectiveness threshold of £20 000, there is a 99% likelihood of this policy‐based intervention being cost‐effective. Conclusions: The implementation of a ban on commercial indoor tanning across England with an accompanying public information campaign would be an effective use of healthcare resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: We recently showed that a pharmacist-led information technology-based intervention (PINCER) was significantly more effective in reducing medication errors in general practices than providing simple feedback on errors, with cost per error avoided at £79 (US$131). We aimed to estimate cost effectiveness of the PINCER intervention by combining effectiveness in error reduction and intervention costs with the effect of the individual errors on patient outcomes and healthcare costs, to estimate the effect on costs and QALYs., Methods: We developed Markov models for each of six medication errors targeted by PINCER. Clinical event probability, treatment pathway, resource use and costs were extracted from literature and costing tariffs. A composite probabilistic model combined patient-level error models with practice-level error rates and intervention costs from the trial. Cost per extra QALY and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated from the perspective of NHS England, with a 5-year time horizon., Results: The PINCER intervention generated £2,679 less cost and 0.81 more QALYs per practice [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): -£3,037 per QALY] in the deterministic analysis. In the probabilistic analysis, PINCER generated 0.001 extra QALYs per practice compared with simple feedback, at £4.20 less per practice. Despite this extremely small set of differences in costs and outcomes, PINCER dominated simple feedback with a mean ICER of -£3,936 (standard error £2,970). At a ceiling 'willingness-to-pay' of £20,000/QALY, PINCER reaches 59 % probability of being cost effective., Conclusions: PINCER produced marginal health gain at slightly reduced overall cost. Results are uncertain due to the poor quality of data to inform the effect of avoiding errors.