Estimated Therapy Costs and Downstream Cost Consequences of iBASIS-Video Interaction to Promote Positive Parenting Intervention vs Usual Care Among Children Displaying Early Behavioral Signs of Autism in Australia.

Importance: The growing global prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is associated with increasing costs for support services. Ascertaining the effects of a successful preemptive intervention for infants showing early behavioral signs of autism on human services budgets is highly policy relevant. Objective: To estimate the net cost impact of the iBASIS-Video Interaction to Promote Positive Parenting (iBASIS-VIPP) intervention on the Australian government. Design, Setting, and Participants: Infants (aged 12 months) showing early behavioral indicators of autism were recruited through community settings into the multicenter Australian iBASIS-VIPP randomized clinical trial (RCT), a 5- to 6-month preemptive parent-mediated intervention, between June 9, 2016, and March 30, 2018, and were followed up for 18 months to age 3 years. This economic evaluation, including cost analysis (intervention and cost consequences) and cost-effectiveness analyses of iBASIS-VIPP compared with usual care (treatment as usual [TAU]), modeled outcomes observed at age 3 through to 12 years (13th birthday) and was conducted from April 1, 2021, to January 30, 2023. Data analysis was conducted from July 1, 2021, to January 29, 2023. Exposures: iBASIS-VIPP intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures: To project the diagnostic trajectory and associated disability support costs drawing on the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), the main outcome was the differential treatment cost of iBASIS-VIPP plus TAU vs TAU and disability-related government costs modeled to age 12 years, using a clinical diagnosis of ASD and developmental delay (with autism traits) at 3 years. Costs were calculated in Australian dollars and converted to US dollars. Economic performance was measured through the following: (1) differential net present value (NPV) cost (iBASIS-VIPP less TAU), (2) investment return (dollars saved for each dollar invested, taking a third-party payer perspective), (3) break-even age when treatment cost was offset by downstream cost savings, and (4) cost-effectiveness in terms of the differential treatment cost per differential ASD diagnosis at age 3 years. Alternate values of key parameters were modeled in 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the latter identifying the likelihood of an NPV cost savings. Results: Of the 103 infants enrolled in the iBASIS-VIPP RCT, 70 (68.0%) were boys. Follow-up data at age 3 years were available for 89 children who received TAU (44 [49.4%]) or iBASIS-VIPP (45 [50.6%]) and were included in this analysis. The estimated mean differential treatment cost was A $5131 (US $3607) per child for iBASIS-VIPP less TAU. The best estimate of NPV cost savings was A $10 695 (US $7519) per child (discounted at 3% per annum). For each dollar invested in treatment, a savings of A $3.08 (US $3.08) was estimated; the break-even cost occurred at age 5.3 years (approximately 4 years after intervention delivery). The mean differential treatment cost per lower incident case of ASD was A $37 181 (US $26 138). We estimated that there was an 88.9% chance that iBASIS-VIPP would deliver a cost savings for the NDIS, the dominant third-party payer. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study suggest that iBASIS-VIPP represents a likely good-value societal investment for supporting neurodivergent children. The estimated net cost savings were considered conservative, as they covered only third-party payer costs incurred by the NDIS and outcomes were modeled to just age 12 years. These findings further suggest that preemptive interventions may be a feasible, effective, and efficient new clinical pathway for ASD, reducing disability and the costs of support services. Long-term follow-up of children receiving preemptive intervention is needed to confirm the modeled results.

Health system challenges affecting rehabilitation services in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that access to rehabilitation is a human right. To date, however, rehabilitation in South Africa has not been a health priority. The focus has rather been on saving lives from communicable diseases such as HIV/AIDs and TB, which has been increasingly successful. Whilst more South Africans are now living with pharmacologically managed chronic, communicable diseases, they often suffer significant challenges to their physical and mental health. Moreover, there are many health conditions in South Africa that have not attracted as much attention, and which also compromise individuals' capacity to contribute effectively to their own wellbeing, that of their families and communities, and to the general economy. These include birth trauma, degenerative neurological conditions, acquired injuries such as spinal cord damage, limb amputation or head trauma, and chronic noncommunicable diseases (heart or kidney disease, stroke). In the absence of robust prevalence studies, it is estimated that one-in-three adults suffer from at least one chronic health challenge. For South Africa not to invest in rehabilitation is counter-productive, as it means that a significant percentage of its population cannot contribute to its economy. In the face of scant health resources to underpin equitable rehabilitation services, evidence needs to be provided to demonstrate that for increased expenditure on rehabilitation, there will be increased return at individual, family, society, and country levels. PURPOSE: This article presents challenges and solutions to ensure that South Africa can meet WHO 2030 Rehabilitation Goals for equitable provision of effective public rehabilitation services using the WHO's health system building block framework.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONTo meet the challenge of providing rehabilitation for those in need requires country-specific, strategic, evidence-informed, and planned decisions in terms of best investment for highest return.Whilst there is sound international evidence for best-practice rehabilitation care, country-specific strategies are required to identify and address local barriers to evidence implementation.In South Africa, where rehabilitation has not been a priority to date, it is important that a planned and well-costed approach is taken to ensure provision of equitable, accessible, affordable, and evidence-based rehabilitation.Measuring social, economic, and educational return on investment from rehabilitation should be part of the South African service-delivery planning process.National data could be obtained through adding additional questions on disability to the national census and through local surveys and reports at various public health care facilities.

How Much Allied Health Therapy Care Is Enough? An Evidence Scan.

Purpose: Pressure to eliminate low-value health care is increasing internationally. This pressure has produced an urgent need to identify evidence-based methods to determine the value of allied health (AH) care, particularly to recognize when additional AH care adds no further benefits. This article reports on the published methods of determining the value of AH care. Method: We systematically scanned PubMed, MEDLINE, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Grey Literature Review database from inception until July 2018 for peer-reviewed English-language literature. Hierarchy of evidence and information on study design and the methods or measures used to determine the value of AH care were extracted. Results: Of 189 articles, 30 were potentially relevant; after the full text was read, all were included. Of these, 24 reported on ways of determining the value of AH care, and 6 described the optimal provision of AH episodes of care. No methods were reported that could be applied to establish when enough AH therapy had been provided. Conclusion: This review found a variety of attributes of value in AH care, but no standard value measure or methods to determine what constituted enough AH care. Repeated measurement of the standard attributes of value and costs is required throughout episodes of AH care to better understand the impact of AH care from the different stakeholders' perspectives.

Objectif : les pressions internationales s'accroissent pour éliminer les services de santé de faible valeur. Ainsi, il est urgent de trouver des méthodes fondées sur des données probantes pour déterminer la valeur des soins paramédicaux (SPM), notamment pour déterminer lorsqu'ils n'apportent pas de bienfaits. Le présent article rend compte des méthodes publiées pour déterminer la valeur des SPM. Méthodologie : les chercheurs ont procédé à une recherche systématique dans les bases de données de PubMed, Medline, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO et du Grey Literature Report à compter de leur création jusqu'en juillet 2018, pour en tirer des publications révisées par des pairs, en anglais. Ils en ont extrait la hiérarchie des données probantes, l'information sur la méthodologie des études et les méthodes ou les mesures utilisées pour déterminer la valeur des services de SPM. Résultats : trente des 189 articles étaient susceptibles d'être pertinents et ont tous été retenus après leur lecture. De ce nombre, 24 rendaient compte de manières de déterminer la valeur des services de SPM et six décrivaient la prestation optimale de périodes de SPM. Aucune méthode déclarée ne permettait d'établir le moment où des SPM suffisants avaient été fournis. Conclusion : les chercheurs ont trouvé diverses caractéristiques de la valeur des SPM, mais aucune mesure standard ni méthode pour en déterminer la quantité suffisante. Il faut répéter la mesure des caractéristiques standards de valeur et de coûts tout au long des périodes de SPM pour mieux comprendre les répercussions des SPM du point de vue de divers intervenants.

Cost effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a group-based diet intervention for treating major depression - the HELFIMED trial.

Background/objectives: Major depression has a negative impact on quality of life, increasing the risk of premature death. It imposes social and economic costs on individuals, families and society. Mental illness is now the leading cause globally of disability/lost quality life and premature mortality. Finding cost-effective treatments for depression is a public health priority. We report an economic evaluation of a dietary intervention for treating major depression. Methods: This economic evaluation drew on the HELFIMED RCT, a 3-month group-based Mediterranean-style diet (MedDiet) intervention (including cooking workshops), against a social group-program for people with major depression. We conducted (i) a cost-utility analysis, utility scores measured at baseline, 3-months and 6-months using the AQoL8D, modelled to 2 years (base case); (ii) a cost-effectiveness analysis, differential cost/case of depression resolved (to normal/mild) measured by the DASS. Differential program costs were calculated from resources use costed in AUD2017. QALYs were discounted at 3.5%pa. Results: Best estimate differential cost/QALY gain per person, MedDiet relative to social group was AUD2775. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying costs, utility gain, model period found 95% likelihood cost/QALY less than AUD20,000. Estimated cost per additional case of depression resolved, MedDiet group relative to social group was AUD2,225. Conclusions: A MedDiet group-program for treating major depression was highly cost-effective relative to a social group-program, measured in terms of cost/QALY gain and cost per case of major depression resolved. Supporting access by persons with major depression to group-based dietary programs should be a policy priority. A change to funding will be needed to realise the potential benefits.

Estimating the costs and benefits of stroke rehabilitation in South Africa.

OBJECTIVE: This paper explores the economic value of rehabilitation to South Africa, using a costed example of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) (stroke) rehabilitation. DESIGN: We report an economic modelling approach using a worked cost-effectiveness to validate the argument for the cost-saving benefits of stroke rehabilitation. SETTING: South African health care, employing analysis of available secondary data from South African research and government reports. PARTICIPANTS: In line with international trends in stroke epidemiology, we focused on people who were employed prior to having their stroke, with return-to-work as the desired rehabilitation outcome. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We used information on stroke rehabilitation and secondary data derived from grey and published literature, to determine if early stroke rehabilitation represents value for money from the government perspective. For our worked example, we used return-to-work rates, intervention costs, and the cost of rehabilitation services to estimate cost-savings as a result of an individualized workplace intervention. RESULTS: The cost of delivering the individualized intervention was estimated at R5633/patient. Combining survivor rates, return-to-work rate, and costs of the programme, a work intervention programme could result in a net saving of R133.1 million over 5 years (or about R26.6 per year (discount 3%). CONCLUSION: The value of rehabilitation should not be considered in terms of cost-effectiveness alone, but also as an investment for the country. A staged, prioritized approach should be considered in future South African national health budget.

What is the current evidence of the impact on quality of life whilst waiting for management/treatment of orthopaedic/musculoskeletal complaints? A systematic scoping review.

PURPOSE: To describe quality of life (QoL) outcome measures that are reported in the literature in patients waiting for outpatient orthopaedic/musculoskeletal specialist care and how waiting impacts on QoL in these terms. METHODS: A subset of studies reporting on QoL outcome measures were extracted from literature identified in a recent scoping search of Medline, Embase, Pubmed, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (Prospero registration CRD42016047332). The systematic scoping search examined impacts on patients waiting for orthopaedic specialist care. Two independent reviewers ranked study design using the National Health and Medical Research Council aetiology evidence hierarchy, and appraised study quality using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools. QoL measures were mapped against waiting period timepoints. RESULTS: The scoping search yielded 142 articles, of which 18 reported on impact on QoL. These studies reported only on patients waiting for hip and/or knee replacement surgery. The most recent study reported on data collected in 2006/7. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index and the SF-36 were the most commonly reported QoL measures. QoL was measured at variable timepoints in the waiting period (from a few weeks to greater than 12 months). The impact of waiting on QoL was inconsistent. CONCLUSION: The evidence base was over 10 years old, reported only on patients with hip and knee problems, and on limited QoL outcome measures, and with inconsistent findings. A better understanding of the impact on QoL for patients waiting for specialist care could be gained by using standard timepoints in the waiting period, patients with other orthopaedic conditions, comprehensive QoL measures, as well as expectations, choices and perspectives of patients waiting for specialist care.