Cost-effectiveness of DAA services Sample Clauses

Cost-effectiveness of DAA services. ‌ The Phase 2 Final Report (2004) concluded that “at present DAAs are not cost-effective in the community setting. This is largely because the provision of DAAs by pharmacy is a labour- intensive and costly exercise. Sensitivity analysis, however, suggests the potential for delivery of a cost-effective DAA service if the magnitude of the benefits and the efficiency of the service provision were greater. The collection of additional outcome and service use data, including follow-up of community patients who participated in the study may provide an alternative view on cost-effectiveness.” In the RCF setting the authors concluded that “the use of DAAs in the RCF setting is cost-effective. When the costs of providing medicines to residents using DAAs from the pharmacist and the RCF perspective are summed and compared with the costs for providing OPs, DAA are the lower cost alternative.” Subsequent to the 2004 Report, the Phase 3 work involved not only developing but implementing best practice models and tools to facilitate improvements in the way DAAs are used in the RCF and community settings and then undertaking a more sophisticated methodology to re-examine the cost-effectiveness of DAAs in the community setting. Table 4.2 shows the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) presented in the Phase 3 report, interpreted as the additional cost to prevent one adverse drug reaction (ADR) and to avoid one death using DAA, based on 30 community customers receiving DAA versus those receiving OPs over one year. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) using the first outcome measure was estimated to be $9,163. The ICER/life year gained was estimated to be $16,362. Of note, the rate of ADRs was lower in both Phase 2 and Phase 3 for the DAA sample compared to the OP group. In Phase 2, 48% and 33% of OP and DAA patients, respectively, suffered from an ADR (P =0.007). In Phase 3, the corresponding proportions were 32% and 22% (P =0.147). This apparent improvement is due in part to the greater proportion of ADR experienced by people who had exited the study by Phase 3.