Related Experiment Videos
Cost-benefit analysis of non-pharmacological treatment of hypertension
M Johannesson1, H Aberg, L Agréus
1Department of Health and Society, Linköping University, Sweden.
Insights
This study compared non-pharmacological treatment (NPT) for hypertension against drug therapy. While NPT incurred higher initial costs, its long-term cost-benefit requires further investigation.
Area of Science:
- Health Economics
- Public Health
- Cardiovascular Disease Management
Background:
- Hypertension management often involves pharmacological interventions.
- Non-pharmacological treatments (NPT) offer an alternative or complementary approach.
- Cost-benefit analyses are crucial for evaluating healthcare interventions.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the cost-benefit of a non-pharmacological treatment (NPT) program versus conventional drug treatment for hypertension.
- To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness and patient willingness to pay for NPT.
Main Methods:
- A cost-benefit analysis comparing NPT and drug treatment for hypertension.
- NPT involved monthly nurse visits, semi-annual doctor visits, home blood pressure monitoring, and lifestyle advice.
- Study included 400 patients across 8 health centers (1984-1986) with a 2-year follow-up.
Main Results:
- The NPT program incurred approximately SEK 5300 higher treatment costs per patient.
- Identified benefits, including reduced treatment costs (1986-1988) and willingness to pay, amounted to about SEK 3200 per patient.
- The NPT program showed an initial net loss of approximately SEK 2100 per patient.
Conclusions:
- The NPT program for hypertension demonstrated higher initial costs compared to conventional drug treatment.
- Further extended follow-up is necessary to definitively conclude the long-term cost-benefit of NPT versus drug therapy.
- Patient willingness to pay suggests potential value, but economic viability requires longer-term data.
Abstract:
In this study a non-pharmacological treatment (NPT) programme and conventional drug treatment of hypertension was compared in a cost-benefit analysis. The NPT programme involved 400 patients and was conducted at 8 health centres during the period 1984-1986. It consisted of monthly visits by a nurse, visits by a doctor every 6 months, home blood pressure (BP) measurements, dietary advice, relaxation, physical activity, etc. The patients were also followed up for 2 years after the study to assess whether the programme still worked, and whether future treatment costs were affected. The treatment costs were about SEK 5300 higher per patient for the NPT programme. The benefits, in the form of reduced treatment costs for the period 1986-1988 and willingness to pay (WTP) for the NPT programme, were about SEK 3200. Thus the NPT programme resulted in a loss of about SEK 2100 per patient. However, a longer follow-up period is needed for any specific conclusions to be drawn about the costs and benefits of the NPT programme, as compared with conventional drug treatment.