Effects of Inpatient Occupational Rehabilitation vs. Outpatient Acceptance and Commitment Therapy on Sick Leave and Cost of Lost Production: 7-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Previously, we reported that an inpatient multimodal occupational rehabilitation program (I-MORE) was more effective than outpatient Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (O-ACT) in reducing sickness absence and was cost-effective over a 24-month period. Here we present 7-years of follow-up on sick leave and the cost of lost production. METHODS: We randomized individuals aged 18-60, sick-listed due to musculoskeletal or mental health disorders to I-MORE (n = 82) or O-ACT (n = 79). I-MORE, lasting 3.5 weeks, integrated ACT, physical training, and work-related problem-solving. In contrast, O-ACT mainly offered six weekly 2.5 h group sessions of ACT. We measured outcomes using registry data for days on medical benefits and calculated costs of lost production. Our analysis included regression analyses to examine differences in sickness absence days, logistic general estimating equations for repeated events, and generalized linear models to assess differences in costs of lost production. RESULTS: Unadjusted regression analyses showed 80 fewer days of sickness absence in the 7-year follow-up for I-MORE compared to O-ACT (95% CI - 264 to 104), with an adjusted difference of 114 fewer days (95% CI - 298 to 71). The difference in costs of production loss in favour of I-MORE was 27,048 euros per participant (95% CI - 35,009 to 89,104). CONCLUSIONS: I-MORE outperformed O-ACT in reducing sickness absence and production loss costs during seven years of follow-up, but due to a limited sample size the results were unprecise. Considering the potential for substantial societal cost savings from reduced sick leave, there is a need for larger, long-term studies to evaluate return-to-work interventions.

Economic Evaluation of Inpatient Multimodal Occupational Rehabilitation vs. Outpatient Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Sick-Listed Workers with Musculoskeletal- or Common Mental Disorders.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of inpatient multimodal occupational rehabilitation (I-MORE) compared to outpatient acceptance and commitment therapy (O-ACT) for individuals sick listed due to musculoskeletal- or common mental disorders during two-years of follow-up. METHODS: We conducted an economic evaluation with a societal perspective alongside a randomized controlled trial with 24 months follow-up. Individuals sick listed 2 to 12 months were randomized to I-MORE (n = 85) or O-ACT (n = 79). The outcome was number of working days. Healthcare use and sick leave data were obtained by registry data. RESULTS: Total healthcare costs during the 24 months was 12,057 euros (95% CI 9,181 to 14,933) higher for I-MORE compared to O-ACT, while the difference in production loss was 14,725 euros (95% CI -1,925 to 31,375) in favour of I-MORE. A difference of 43 (95% CI -6 to 92) workdays, in favour of I-MORE, gave an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 278 euros for one workday, less than the cost of one day production (339 euros). Net societal benefit was 2,667 euros during two years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Despite considerable intervention costs, the lower production loss resulted in I-MORE being cost-effective when compared to O-ACT. Based on economic arguments, I-MORE should be implemented as a treatment alternative for individuals on long-term sick leave. However, more research on subgroup effects and further follow-up of participants' permanent disability pension awards are warranted.

Modeling Obesity in Norway (The MOON Study): A Decision-Analytic Approach-Prevalence, Costs, and Years of Life Lost.

BACKGROUND: Limited knowledge exists on the expected long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of initiatives aiming to reduce the burden of obesity. AIM: To develop a Norwegian obesity-focused disease-simulation model: the MOON model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We developed a Markov model and simulated a Norwegian birth cohort's movement between the health states "normal weight,""overweight,""obese 1,""obese 2," and "dead" using a lifetime perspective. Model input was estimated using longitudinal data from health surveys and real-world data (RWD) from local and national registers (N = 99,348). The model is deterministic and probabilistic and stratified by gender. Model validity was assessed by estimating the cohort's expected prevalence, health care costs, and mortality related to overweight and obesity. RESULTS: Throughout the cohort's life, the prevalence of overweight increased steadily and stabilized at 45% at 45 y of age. The number of obese 1 and 2 individuals peaked at age 75 y, when 44% of women and 35% of men were obese. The incremental costs per person associated with obesity was highest in older ages and, when accumulated over the lifetime, higher among women (€12,118, €9,495-€15,047) than men (€6,646, €5,252-€10,900). On average, obesity shortened the life expectancy of women/men in the whole cohort by 1.31/1.08 y. The life expectancy for normal-weight women/men at age 30 was 83.31/80.31. The life expectancy was reduced by 1.05/0.65 y if the individual was overweight, obese (2.87/2.71 y), or obese 2 (4.06/4.83 y). CONCLUSION: The high expected prevalence of obesity in the future will lead to substantial health care costs and large losses in life-years. This underscores the need to implement interventions to reduce the burden of obesity; the MOON model will enable economic evaluations for a wide range of interventions.

Expected 10-year treatment cost of breast cancer detected within and outside a public screening program in Norway.

BACKGROUND: The shift towards earlier stages of disease advancement at diagnosis when introducing mammography screening is expected to affect the treatment costs of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected data on hospital resource use in Norway following a breast cancer diagnosis for the period 1 January, 2008 through 31 December, 2009 for women aged 50-69 years, diagnosed with breast cancer during the period 1 January, 1999 through 31 December, 2009. We estimated treatment costs using a function that included the probability of being at risk for receiving treatment, estimated by means of the Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: In total, 16,045 patients were included for the analyses among which 10.5 % died during the study period. The mean 10-year per-person treatment cost was €31,940 (95 % CI €31,030-32,880), and lower for cancers detected within the public screening program (€30,730) than for those detected elsewhere (€36,230). For ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and cancers in stages I thru IV, treatment costs were €15,740, €23,570, €46,550, €55,230 and €60,430, respectively. Interval cancers occurring within the screening program were generally more resource demanding than both cancers detected at screening or elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: Ten-year treatment costs increased by increasing stage at diagnosis. Patients whose cancer was detected within the public screening program had lower treatment costs than those detected elsewhere. Interval cancers had higher costs than others.