Cost benefit of sumatriptan to an employer.

Benefit and occupational health managers need information on whether new treatments, such as sumatriptan, for migraine headache improve organizational or individual performance. A work productivity outcomes assessment was conducted among sumatriptan-using employees of an Independent Practice Association-health maintenance organization population. Of the 164 sumatriptan users, 101 full-time employees were surveyed by telephone once in an open-label, before-after design. The results revealed that lost labor costs, a function of days missed from work and reduced productivity at work as a result of migraine, were decreased after sumatriptan treatment initiation. Incremental benefit of this reduction in lost productivity is valued at $435/month per employee. The sumatriptan cost associated with this benefit is $43.78/month. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 10:1. Other costs and benefits were excluded. In conclusion, the availability of sumatriptan for migraine headache treatments in this IPA-HMO resulted in improved work productivity and had a net benefit for the employer.

Cost-effectiveness of sumatriptan in a managed care population.

We conducted an open-labeled study to determine whether sumatriptan is more cost-effective than other therapies used to treat migraine headache. We contacted by phone 220 sumatriptan users enrolled in QualMed, a health maintenance organization (HMO) in Spokane, Washington. Of these, 203 met the inclusion criteria and 164 (81%) completed our telephone survey. The main outcome measures were healthcare costs to the HMO and number of days free of migraine-related disability before and after sumatriptan treatment. Before sumatriptan treatment, 89% of patients reported severe migraine, compared with 63% after sumatriptan treatment. The number of monthly migraine disability days decreased from 6.5 days per month before sumatriptan to 3.9 days per month after sumatriptan. Healthcare utilization rates (ie, number of hospitalizations, emergency department visits) and costs were lower after the patients began taking sumatriptan. The number of different over-the-counter medicines and prescription medications (other than sumatriptan) taken for migraine disabilities decreased. Although total drug expenditures per month increased, the total migraine healthcare expenditure was 41% lower after sumatriptan was initiated. The cost-effectiveness ratio was 47% more favorable after patients started taking sumatriptan. Overall, patients reported fewer migraine-related disabilities, had lower migraine severity scores, and used fewer healthcare resources when taking sumatriptan. These changes resulted in a better cost-effectiveness ratio for migraine treatment.

Dentists' response to financial incentives in a mail survey of malpractice liability experience.

This two-part methodologic research was designed to evaluate the effects of a financial incentive on questionnaire response rate and response bias for general dentists surveyed by mail. Subjects were 517 clinicians randomly selected from a two-state population of practitioners insured by a single malpractice liability carrier. Subjects received a check for either $5 or $10 in the original mailing. In Study 1, a single mailing and postcard follow-up resulted in a 57.8 percent (111/192) response rate. In Study 2, employing Dillman's Total Design Method, a 69.6 percent (208/299) response was obtained after a third mailing. Analysis of response rate by incentive level in each study revealed no significant differences. In contrast, early responders (first mailing and follow-up postcard) differed from late responders (second and third mailings) on age (41.4 vs 37.0 years; T = 2.17; P = .032), non-Caucasians (27.7% vs 63.9%; chi 2 = 17.3; df = 4; P < .002), females (13.9% vs 27.8%; chi 2 = 3.9; df = 1; P < .05), foreign-trained (7.0% vs 19.4%; chi 2 = 16.5; df = 2; P < .001), and dissatisfaction with practice (31% vs 51%; chi 2 = 7.8; df = 4; P = .10). Thus, the magnitude of the financial incentive in this experiment had no differential effect on response rate. But differences in responses from late responders (proxies for nonresponders) on demographic characteristics and key study variables suggest the persistence of response bias despite an acceptable response rate. Future dental health survey research should employ tests for response bias on both sets of variables.