Use of opioid substitution therapies in the treatment of opioid use disorder: results of a UK cost-effectiveness modelling study

Aims: This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) and methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) vs no opioid substitution therapy (OST) for the treatment of opioid use disorder, from the UK National Health Service (NHS)/personal social services (PSS) and societal perspectives over 1 year.

Methods: Cost-effectiveness of OST vs no OST was evaluated by first replicating and then expanding an existing UK health technology assessment model. The expanded model included the impact of OST on infection rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

Results: Versus no OST, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for BMT and MMT were £13,923 and £14,206 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively, from a NHS/PSS perspective. When total costs (NHS/PSS and societal) are considered, there are substantial savings associated with adopting OST; these savings are in excess of £14,032 for BMT vs no OST and £17,174 for MMT vs no OST over 1 year. This is primarily driven by a reduction in victim costs. OST treatment also impacted other aspects of criminality and healthcare resource use.

Limitations: The model’s 1-year timeframe means long-term costs and benefits, and the influence of changes over time are not captured.

Conclusions: OST can be considered cost-effective vs no OST from the UK NHS/PSS perspective, with a cost per QALY well below the UK’s willingness-to-pay threshold. There were only small differences between BMT and MMT. The availability of two or more cost-effective options is beneficial to retaining patients in OST programs. From a societal perspective, OST is estimated to save over £14,032 and £17,174 per year for BMT and MMT vs no OST, respectively, due to savings in victim costs. Further work is required to fully quantify the clinical and health economic impacts of different OST formulations and their societal impact over the long-term.     

Developing a tool to measure pharmacoeconomic outcomes of post-surgical pain management interventions

Background:

Financial pressures have limited the ability of providers to use medication that may improve clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. New interventions are often fraught with resistance from individual cost centers. A value realization tool (VRT) is essential for separate cost centers to communicate and comprehend the overall financial and clinical implications of post-surgical pain management medication interventions (PSMI). The goal was to describe development of a VRT.

Methods:

An evaluation of common in-patient PSMI approaches, impacts, and costs was performed. A multidisciplinary task force guided development of the VRT to ensure appropriate representation and relevance to clinical practice. The main outcome was an Excel-based tool that communicates the overall cost/benefit of PSMI for the post-operative patient encounter.

Results:

The VRT aggregated input data on costs, clinical impact, and nursing burden of PSMI assessment and monitoring into two high-level outcome reports: Overall Cost Impact and Nurse & Patient Impact. Costs included PSMI specific medication, equipment, professional placement, labor, overall/opioid-related adverse events, re-admissions, and length of stay. Nursing impact included level of practice interference, job satisfaction, and patient care metrics. Patient impact included pain scores, opioid use, PACU time, and satisfaction. Reference data was provided for individual institutions that may not collect all variables included in the VRT.

Conclusions:

The VRT is a valuable way for administrators to assess PSMI cost/benefits and for individual cost centers to see the overall value of individual interventions. The user-friendly, decision-support tool allows the end-user to use built-in referenced or personalized outcome data, increasing relevance to their institutions. This broad picture could facilitate communication across cost centers and evidence-based decisions for appropriate use and impacts of PSMI.