3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cost–Benefit Analysis of the COPE Program for Persons Living With Dementia: Toward a Payment Model

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and Objectives

          There is a critical need for effective interventions to support quality of life for persons living with dementia and their caregivers. Growing evidence supports nonpharmacologic programs that provide care management, disease education, skills training, and support. This cost–benefit analysis examined whether the Care of Persons with Dementia in their Environments (COPE) program achieves cost savings when incorporated into Connecticut’s home- and community-based services (HCBS), which are state- and Medicaid-funded.

          Research Design and Methods

          Findings are based on a pragmatic trial where persons living with dementia and their caregiver dyads were randomly assigned to COPE with HCBS, or HCBS alone. Cost measures included those relevant to HCBS decision makers: intervention delivery, health care utilization, caregiver time, formal care, and social services. Data sources included care management records and caregiver report.

          Results

          Per-dyad mean cost savings at 12 months were $2 354 for those who received COPE with a mean difference-in-difference of −$6 667 versus HCBS alone (95% CI: −$15 473, $2 734; not statistically significant). COPE costs would consume 5.6%–11.3% of Connecticut’s HCBS annual spending limit, and HCBS cost-sharing requirements align with participants’ willingness to pay for COPE.

          Discussion and Implications

          COPE represents a potentially cost-saving dementia care service that could be financed through existing Connecticut HCBS. HCBS programs represent an important, sustainable payment model for delivering nonpharmacological dementia interventions such as COPE.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

          Since publication of the report by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine in 1996, researchers have advanced the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis, and policy makers have experimented with its application. The need to deliver health care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand the clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health have increased in recent years.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report.

            Clinical trials evaluating medicines, medical devices, and procedures now commonly assess the economic value of these interventions. The growing number of prospective clinical/economic trials reflects both widespread interest in economic information for new technologies and the regulatory and reimbursement requirements of many countries that now consider evidence of economic value along with clinical efficacy. As decision makers increasingly demand evidence of economic value for health care interventions, conducting high-quality economic analyses alongside clinical studies is desirable because they broaden the scope of information available on a particular intervention, and can efficiently provide timely information with high internal and, when designed and analyzed properly, reasonable external validity. In 2005, ISPOR published the Good Research Practices for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials: The ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. ISPOR initiated an update of the report in 2014 to include the methodological developments over the last 9 years. This report provides updated recommendations reflecting advances in several areas related to trial design, selecting data elements, database design and management, analysis, and reporting of results. Task force members note that trials should be designed to evaluate effectiveness (rather than efficacy) when possible, should include clinical outcome measures, and should obtain health resource use and health state utilities directly from study subjects. Collection of economic data should be fully integrated into the study. An incremental analysis should be conducted with an intention-to-treat approach, complemented by relevant subgroup analyses. Uncertainty should be characterized. Articles should adhere to established standards for reporting results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Economic studies alongside trials are complementary to other evaluations (e.g., modeling studies) as information for decision makers who consider evidence of economic value along with clinical efficacy when making resource allocation decisions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Translating Evidence-Based Dementia Caregiving Interventions into Practice: State-of-the-Science and Next Steps.

              Over the past 3 decades, more than 200 dementia caregiver interventions have been tested in randomized clinical trials and found to be efficacious. Few programs have been translated for delivery in various service contexts, and they remain inaccessible to the 15+ million dementia family caregivers in the United States. This article examines translational efforts and offers a vision for more rapid advancement in this area. We summarize the evidence for caregiver interventions, review published translational efforts, and recommend future directions to bridge the research-practice fissure in this area. We suggest that as caregiver interventions are tested external to service contexts, a translational phase is required. Yet, this is hampered by evidentiary gaps, lack of theory to understand implementation challenges, insufficient funding and unsupportive payment structures for sustaining programs. We propose ways to advance translational activities and future research with practical applications.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Decision Editor
                Journal
                Innov Aging
                Innov Aging
                innovateage
                Innovation in Aging
                Oxford University Press (US )
                2399-5300
                2022
                16 October 2021
                16 October 2021
                : 6
                : 1
                : igab042
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Center for Health Outcomes, Policy & Economics, Rutgers University , Piscataway, New Jersey, USA
                [2 ] Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice, Brown University School of Public Health , Providence, Rhode Island, USA
                [3 ] Center of Innovation in Long Term Services and Supports, Providence VA Medical Center , Providence, Rhode Island, USA
                [4 ] Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University , Piscataway, New Jersey, USA
                [5 ] Center on Aging, University of Connecticut , Farmington, Connecticut, USA
                [6 ] School of Nursing, Quinnipiac University , Hamden, Connecticut, USA
                [7 ] Department of Occupational Therapy, Thomas Jefferson University , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
                [8 ] College of Nursing and Health Professions and AgeWell Collaboratory, Drexel University , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to: Laura T. Pizzi, PharmD, MPH, Center for Health Outcomes, Policy & Economics, Rutgers University, 160 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA. E-mail: laura.pizzi@ 123456rutgers.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7944-5306
                Article
                igab042
                10.1093/geroni/igab042
                8763605
                35047708
                e2e324a9-4433-42a9-bb2c-ce34304a62ae
                © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 May 2021
                : 18 September 2021
                : 17 January 2022
                Page count
                Pages: 11
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health, DOI 10.13039/100000002;
                Funded by: National Institute on Aging, DOI 10.13039/100000049;
                Award ID: R01AG044504
                Categories
                Original Research Article
                AcademicSubjects/SOC02600

                health care policy,health economics,home- and community-based services,medicaid/medicare,pragmatic trial

                Comments

                Comment on this article