Search

Purpose: Studies suggest that beta-blockers improve outcomes in heart failure patients and may be cost saving to society. However, many heart failure patients are not treated with beta-blockers. Economic incentives facing hospitals, physicians, payers, and patients may not encourage treatment adoption. We assessed the economic effects of beta-blocker therapy from various perspectives: societal, Medicare, hospital, physician, and patient., Methods: A Markov model of heart failure progression over 5 years was developed. Transition probabilities and the effect of beta-blockers on mortality and hospitalization were based on clinical trial data. Estimates of hospital costs and reimbursement were obtained from the Duke University Medical Center. Physician fees were based on the Medicare fee schedule., Results: Beta-blocker therapy increased survival by 0.3 years per patient and reduced societal costs by US dollars 3959 per patient over 5 years. Medicare costs declined by US dollars 6064 per patient, due primarily to lower hospitalization rates. Unless heart failure admissions could be replaced with other hospitalizations that generated an equal or greater revenue above variable cost, hospital revenue would be negatively affected. Physician revenue from treating heart failure patients would also decline. Patient costs increased with beta-blocker use (US dollars 2113 over 5 years)., Conclusion: Beta-blocker therapy improves the clinical outcomes of heart failure patients and is cost saving to society and Medicare. However, hospitals and physicians have no clear financial incentives to support increased beta-blocker use. Changes in practice patterns could be encouraged by linking reimbursement with evidence-based care and covering patients' medication costs.

Despite the established benefits of antiplatelet agents in coronary artery disease (CAD), many appropriate patients are not receiving them. We investigated the prevalence of and factors associated with aspirin use and nonuse within a large referral population with CAD. The goal was to identify an approach to increase the use of antiplatelet agents by such patients. We surveyed a subset (n = 2,694) of a large CAD referral population (n = 16,174) to determine the use of aspirin and factors associated with its use or nonuse. The subset was made up of all of the CAD referral population who were considered nonusers of aspirin and a 5% sample of those considered aspirin users. We then extrapolated survey data to the overall population to estimate how many eligible patients were not taking antiplatelet agents. In all, 1,626 (63%) of the surviving patients responded to the survey. Of these, 948 (58%) reported taking aspirin, and 678 (42%) reported no aspirin use. The extrapolated rate of aspirin use in the overall population was 85%. Of 2,367 nonusers, 998 (42%, or 6% of the overall cohort) were eligible for antiplatelet agents but were not taking such therapy. Although the rate of aspirin use in this population was higher than previously reported, an estimated 6% of eligible patients were not receiving antiplatelet therapy.

Despite substantial evidence that antiplatelet therapy saves lives and reduces adverse events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), use of the most widely available and lowest cost antiplatelet agent, aspirin, continues to be disappointingly low. In a large database of patients with known CAD, we (1) explored trends in the use of aspirin over time, (2) characterized patients most likely to take aspirin regularly, and (3) estimated the effectiveness of aspirin use by examining long-term outcomes. Using patients entered in the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Diseases, we explored the use of aspirin from 1969 to 1999. More than 25,000 patients were sent a questionnaire that included several questions about medication use, including 1 question specifically about aspirin. Patients who failed to respond to the questionnaire received a follow-up telephone call. Aspirin use increased substantially over the most recent 4 years in the study, from 59% in 1995 to 81% in 1999. Predictors of aspirin use included younger age, male sex, being a nonsmoker, and having had a myocardial infarction or revascularization procedure. Patients who never took aspirin had a risk ratio for death of 1.85 compared with patients who regularly took aspirin. Despite the well-known beneficial effects of aspirin, too many patients without contraindications to aspirin fail to take it regularly. The health care system currently lacks effective methods to ensure that patients who have CAD have adequate follow-up concerning aspirin use.

The spiraling cost of health care has created a health care crisis. Concerns about the appropriate use of expensive medical technologies have been heightened by health services research studies that demonstrate widespread and dramatic geographic variability in the use of tests and procedures. The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research has funded 14 Programmed Outcome Research Teams (PORTs) targeted at specific disease entities. The PORT in ischemic heart disease is examining 2 principal decisions--which patients should undergo cardiac catheterization and, following catheterization, how patients should be treated. The PORT in ischemic heart disease combines information from the literature, 18 databases, and patient preference studies in models examining these 2 decisions. The databases have also been used to develop statistical models that estimate outcomes with different therapies. The benefit of a therapy in a population can be illustrated using an empirically derived, marginal value curve that describes the expected improvement in outcome (e.g., survival) that accrues with additional procedures performed in patients who are most likely to benefit.