Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research
Date Submitted: Dec 2, 2017
Open Peer Review Period: Dec 3, 2017 - Jan 10, 2018
Date Accepted: Jan 23, 2018
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Prenatal Remote Monitoring of Women With Gestational Hypertensive Diseases: Cost Analysis
Background:
Remote monitoring in obstetrics is relatively new; some studies have shown its effectiveness for both mother and child. However, few studies have evaluated the economic impact compared to conventional care, and no cost analysis of a remote monitoring prenatal follow-up program for women diagnosed with gestational hypertensive diseases (GHD) has been published.
Objective:
The aim of this study was to assess the costs of remote monitoring versus conventional care relative to reported benefits.
Methods:
Patient data from the Pregnancy Remote Monitoring (PREMOM) study were used. Health care costs were calculated from patient-specific hospital bills of Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg (Genk, Belgium) in 2015. Cost comparison was made from three perspectives: the Belgian national health care system (HCS), the National Institution for Insurance of Disease and Disability (RIZIV), and costs for individual patients. The calculations were made for four major domains: prenatal follow-up, prenatal admission to the hospital, maternal and neonatal care at and after delivery, and total amount of costs. A simulation exercise was made in which it was calculated how much could be demanded of RIZIV for funding the remote monitoring service.
Results:
A total of 140 pregnancies were included, of which 43 received remote monitoring (30.7%) and 97 received conventional care (69.2%). From the three perspectives, there were no differences in costs for prenatal follow-up. Compared to conventional care, remote monitoring patients had 34.51% less HCS and 41.72% less RIZIV costs for laboratory test results (HCS: mean €0.00 [SD €55.34] vs mean €38.28 [SD € 44.08], P<.001; RIZIV: mean €21.09 [SD €27.94] vs mean €36.19 [SD €41.36], P<.001) and a reduction of 47.16% in HCS and 48.19% in RIZIV costs for neonatal care (HCS: mean €989.66 [SD €3020.22] vs mean €1872.92 [SD €5058.31], P<.001; RIZIV: mean €872.97 [SD €2761.64] vs mean €1684.86 [SD €4702.20], P<.001). HCS costs for medication were 1.92% lower in remote monitoring than conventional care (mean €209.22 [SD €213.32] vs mean €231.32 [SD 67.09], P=.02), but were 0.69% higher for RIZIV (mean €122.60 [SD €92.02] vs mean €121.78 [SD €20.77], P<.001). Overall HCS costs for remote monitoring were mean €4233.31 (SD €3463.31) per person and mean €4973.69 (SD €5219.00) per person for conventional care (P=.82), a reduction of €740.38 (14.89%) per person, with savings mainly for RIZIV of €848.97 per person (23.18%; mean €2797.42 [SD €2905.18] vs mean €3646.39 [SD €4878.47], P=.19). When an additional fee of €525.07 per month per pregnant woman for funding remote monitoring costs is demanded, remote monitoring is acceptable in their costs for HCS, RIZIV, and individual patients.
Conclusions:
In the current organization of Belgian health care, a remote monitoring prenatal follow-up of women with GHD is cost saving for the global health care system, mainly via savings for the insurance institution RIZIV.
Citation
Per the author's request the PDF is not available.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.