 |
|
ONLINE FIRST
The Cost-effectiveness of Welcome to Medicare Visual Acuity Screening and a Possible Alternative Welcome to Medicare Eye Evaluation Among Persons Without Diagnosed Diabetes Mellitus
David B. Rein, PhD;
John S. Wittenborn, BS;
Xinzhi Zhang, MD, PhD;
Thomas J. Hoerger, PhD;
Ping Zhang, PhD;
Barbara Eden Kobrin Klein, MD, MPH;
Kris E. Lee, MS;
Ronald Klein, MD, MPH;
Jinan B. Saaddine, MD, MPH
Arch Ophthalmol. Published online January 9, 2012. doi:10.1001/archopthalmol.2011.1921
Objective To estimate the cost-effectiveness of visual acuity screening performed in primary care settings and of dilated eye evaluations performed by an eye care professional among new Medicare enrollees with no diagnosed eye disorders. Medicare currently reimburses visual acuity screening for new enrollees during their initial preventive primary care health check, but dilated eye evaluations may be a more cost-effective policy.
Design Monte Carlo cost-effectiveness simulation model with a total of 50 000 simulated patients with demographic characteristics matched to persons 65 years of age in the US population.
Results Compared with no screening policy, dilated eye evaluations increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by 0.008 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.005-0.011) and increased costs by $94 (95% CrI, –$35 to $222). A visual acuity screening increased QALYs in less than 95% of the simulations (0.001 [95% CrI, –0.002 to 0.004) and increased total costs by $32 (95% CrI, –$97 to $159) per person. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a visual acuity screening and an eye examination compared with no screening were $29 000 and $12 000 per QALY gained, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay value of $15 000 or more per QALY gained, a dilated eye evaluation was the policy option most likely to be cost-effective.
Conclusions The currently recommended visual acuity screening showed limited efficacy and cost-effectiveness compared with no screening. In contrast, a new policy of reimbursement for Welcome to Medicare dilated eye evaluations was highly cost-effective.
Author Affiliations: Public Health Research, NORC at the University of Chicago (Dr Rein), and National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Diabetes Translation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Drs X. Zhang, P. Zhang, and Saaddine), Atlanta, Georgia; RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Mr Wittenborn and Dr Hoerger); and School of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison (Drs B. E. K. Klein and R. Klein and Ms Lee).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Delicious  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
|
