101. The Cost–Utility of Telemedicine to Screen for Diabetic Retinopathy in India
- Author
-
Sarah Polack, Robert Lindfield, Sudhir Rachapelle, Tarun Sharma, Hannah Kuper, Rosa Legood, and Yasmene Alavi
- Subjects
Adult ,Rural Population ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Telemedicine ,Pediatrics ,Cost-Benefit Analysis ,Visual Acuity ,India ,Teleophthalmology ,Sensitivity and Specificity ,Vision Screening ,medicine ,Humans ,Mass Screening ,Mass screening ,Diabetic Retinopathy ,Laser Coagulation ,Cost–benefit analysis ,business.industry ,Gold standard ,Reproducibility of Results ,Health Care Costs ,Markov Chains ,Annual Screening ,Quality-adjusted life year ,Ophthalmology ,Family medicine ,Cohort ,Quality-Adjusted Life Years ,business - Abstract
Purpose To assess the cost-effectiveness of a telemedicine diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening program in rural Southern India that conducts 1-off screening camps (i.e., screening offered once) in villages and to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of different screening intervals. Design A cost–utility analysis using a Markov model. Participants A hypothetical cohort of 1000 rural diabetic patients aged 40 years who had not been previously screened for DR and who were followed over a 25-year period in Chennai, India. Methods We interviewed 249 people with diabetes using the time trade-off method to estimate utility values associated with DR. Patient and provider costs of telemedicine screening and hospital-based DR treatment were estimated through interviews with 100 diabetic patients, sampled when attending screening in rural camps (n = 50) or treatment at the base hospital in Chennai (n = 50), and with program and hospital managers. The sensitivity and specificity of the DR screening test were assessed in comparison with diagnosis using a gold standard method for 346 diabetic patients. Other model parameters were derived from the literature. A Markov model was developed in TreeAge Pro 2009 (TreeAge Software Inc, Williamstown, MA) using these data. Main Outcome Measures Cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the current teleophthalmology program of 1-off screening in comparison with no screening program and the cost–utility of this program at different screening intervals. Results By using the World Health Organization threshold of cost-effectiveness, the current rural teleophthalmology program was cost-effective ($1320 per QALY) compared with no screening from a health provider perspective. Screening intervals of up to a frequency of screening every 2 years also were cost-effective, but annual screening was not (>$3183 per QALY). From a societal perspective, telescreening up to a frequency of once every 5 years was cost-effective, but not more frequently. Conclusions From a health provider perspective, a 1-off DR telescreening program is cost-effective compared with no screening in this rural Indian setting. Increasing the frequency of screening up to 2 years also is cost-effective. The results are dependent on the administrative costs of establishing and maintaining screening at regular intervals and on achieving sufficient coverage. Financial Disclosure(s) The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
- Published
- 2013