Improving laboratory monitoring of medications: an economic analysis alongside a clinical trial.

View Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To test the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed at enhancing laboratory monitoring of medication.

STUDY DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS

Patients of a not-for-profit, group-model HMO were randomized to 1 of 4 interventions: an electronic medical record reminder to the clinician, an automated voice message to patients, pharmacy-led outreach, or usual care. Patients were followed for 25 days to determine completion of all recommended baseline laboratory monitoring tests. We measured the rate of laboratory test completion and the cost-effectiveness of each intervention. Direct medical care costs to the HMO (repeated testing, extra visits, and intervention costs) were determined using trial data and a mix of other data sources.

RESULTS

The average cost of patient contact was $5.45 in the pharmacy-led intervention, $7.00 in the electronic reminder intervention, and $4.64 in the automated voice message reminder intervention. The electronic medical record intervention was more costly and less effective than other methods. The automated voice message intervention had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $47 per additional completed case, and the pharmacy intervention had an ICER of $64 per additional completed case.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the data available to compare strategies to enhance baseline monitoring, direct clinician messaging was not an efficient use of resources. Depending on a decision maker's willingness to pay, automated voice messaging and pharmacy-led efforts can be efficient choices to prompt therapeutic baseline monitoring, but direct clinician messaging is probably a less efficient use of resources.

Investigators
Abbreviation
Am J Manag Care
Publication Date
2009-05-01
Volume
15
Issue
5
Page Numbers
281-9
Pubmed ID
19435396
Medium
Print
Full Title
Improving laboratory monitoring of medications: an economic analysis alongside a clinical trial.
Authors
Smith DH, Feldstein AC, Perrin NA, Yang X, Rix MM, Raebel MA, Magid DJ, Simon SR, Soumerai SB