Cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce tobacco smoking in the Netherlands. An application of the RIVM Chronic Disease Model
暂无分享,去创建一个
Introduction:Smoking is the most important single risk factor for
mortality in the Netherlands and has been related to 12% of the burden of
disease in Western Europe. Hence the Dutch Ministry of Health has asked
to assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions to enhance smoking
cessation in adults.
Objective:To evaluate eight interventions for smoking cessation, namely
increased tobacco taxes, mass media campaigns, minimal counseling, GP
support, telephone counseling, minimal counseling plus nicotine
replacement therapy, intensive counseling plus nicotine replacement
therapy and intensive counseling plus bupropion.
Methods: Costs per smoker were estimated based on bottom-up cost
analysis. Combined with effectiveness data from meta-analyses and Dutch
trials this gave us costs per quitter. To estimate costs per quality
adjusted life year (QALY) gained, scenarios for each intervention were
compared to current practice in the Netherlands. A dynamic population
model, the RIVM Chronic Disease Model, was used to project future health
gains and effects on health care costs. This model allows the repetitive
application of increased cessation rates to a population with a changing
demographic and risk factor mix, and accounts for risks of relapse and
incidence of smoking related diseases that depend on time since
cessation. Sensitivity analyses were performed for variations in costs,
effects, time horizon, program size and discount rates.
Results: A tax increase was the most efficient intervention with zero
intervention costs from the health care perspective. Additional tax
revenues resulting from a 20% tax increase were about 5 billion euro.
Costs per smoker for a mass media campaign were relatively low (3 euro)
and costs per QALY were below 10.000 euro.The effectiveness of these
two population measures was uncertain. Costs per smoker for individual
cessation support varied from 5 to almost 400 euro. Although all
individual interventions had proven effectiveness, the cheapest
intervention had an effect that did not differ significantly from current
practice cessation rates. Compared to current practice,
cost-effectiveness ratios varied between about 8,800 euro for structured
GP stop-advice (H-MIS) to 21,500 euro for telephone counseling for
implementation periods of 5 years.
Discussion and conclusions: All smoking cessation interventions were
cost-effective compared to current practice. Comparison of interventions
is difficult, especially for population and individual interventions,
because they are often applied in combination. Taking that into account,
taxes seem to provide most value for money, especially since additional
tax revenues outweigh the health care costs in life years
gained.