Influence of body mass index on prescribing costs and potential cost savings of a weight management programme in primary care
Counterweight Project Team (Including: Kumar, Sudhesh). (2008) Influence of body mass index on prescribing costs and potential cost savings of a weight management programme in primary care. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, Vol.13 (No.3). pp. 158-166. ISSN 1355-8196Full text not available from this repository.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007140
Objectives: Prescribed medications represent a high and increasing proportion of UK health care funds. Our aim was to quantify the influence of body mass index (BMI) on prescribing costs, and then the potential savings attached to implementing a weight management intervention. Methods: Paper and computer-based medical records were reviewed for all drug prescriptions over an 18-month period for 3400 randomly selected adult patients (18–75 years) stratified by BMI, from 23 primary care practices in seven UK regions. Drug costs from the British National Formulary at the time of the review were used. Multivariate regression analysis was applied to estimate the cost for all drugs and the ‘top ten’ drugs at each BMI point. This allowed the total and attributable prescribing costs to be estimated at any BMI. Weight loss outcomes achieved in a weight management programme (Counterweight) were used to model potential effects of weight change on drug costs. Anticipated savings were then compared with the cost programme delivery. Analysis was carried out on patients with follow-up data at 12 and 24 months as well as on an intention-to-treat basis. Outcomes from Counterweight were based on the observed lost to follow-up rate of 50%, and the assumption that those patients would continue a generally observed weight gain of 1 kg per year from baseline. Results: The minimum annual cost of all drug prescriptions at BMI 20 kg/m2 was £50.71 for men and £62.59 for women. Costs were greater by £5.27 (men) and £4.20 (women) for each unit increase in BMI, to a BMI of 25 (men £77.04, women £78.91), then by £7.78 and £5.53, respectively, to BMI 30 (men £115.93 women £111.23), then by £8.27 and £4.95 to BMI 40 (men £198.66, women £160.73). The relationship between increasing BMI and costs for the top ten drugs was more pronounced. Minimum costs were at a BMI of 20 (men £8.45, women £7.80), substantially greater at BMI 30 (men £23.98, women £16.72) and highest at BMI 40 (men £63.59, women £27.16). Attributable cost of overweight and obesity accounted for 23% of spending on all drugs with 16% attributable to obesity. The cost of the programme was estimated to be approximately £60 per patient entered. Modelling weight reductions achieved by the Counterweight weight management programme would potentially reduce prescribing costs by £6.35 (men) and £3.75 (women) or around 8% of programme costs at one year, and by £12.58 and £8.70, respectively, or 18% of programme costs after two years of intervention. Potential savings would be increased to around 22% of the cost of the programme at year one with full patient retention and follow-up. Conclusion: Drug prescriptions rise from a minimum at BMI of 20 kg/m2 and steeply above BMI 30 kg/m2. An effective weight management programme in primary care could potentially reduce prescription costs and lead to substantial cost avoidance, such that at least 8% of the programme delivery cost would be recouped from prescribing savings alone in the first year.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Subjects:||R Medicine > R Medicine (General)|
|Divisions:||Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School|
|Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):||Body mass index, Drugs -- Prices, Reducing diets, Reducing exercises, Medical care -- Cost control|
|Journal or Publication Title:||Journal of Health Services Research & Policy|
|Publisher:||Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd.|
|Page Range:||pp. 158-166|
|Access rights to Published version:||Restricted or Subscription Access|
|Funder:||Roche Products Limited|
|References:||1 Must A, Spadano J, Coakley E, Field A, Colditz G, Dietz W. The disease burden associated with obesity. JAMA 1999;282:1523–9 2 Counterweight Project Team. The Counterweight Programme: Prevalence of CVD risk facotrs by body mass index and the impact of 10% weight change. Obes Res Clin Pract 2008;2:15–27 3 Lean MEJ, Han TS, Seidell JC. Impairment of health and quality of life using new US federal guidelines for the identification of obesity. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:837–43 4 National Audit Office. Tackling Obesity in England. London: National Audit Office, 2001 5 Department of Health. Health Survey for England 2004. London: Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2005 6 Scottish Health Survey – 2003 results. See http://www. scotland.gov.uk/publications/2005/11/25145024/50251 7 Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, McDowell MA, Tabak CJ, Flegal KM. Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 1999–2004. JAMA 2006;295:1549–55 8 Heitman BL, Garby L. Patterns of long-term weight changes in overweight developing Danish men and women aged between 30 and 60 years. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1999;23:1074–8 9 Counterweight Project Team. The influence of body mass index on number of visits to general practitioners in the UK. Obes Res 2005a;13:1442–9 10 Counterweight Project Team. Impact of obesity on drug prescribing in primary care. British J Gen Pract 2005b;55:743–9 11 Accounts Commission for Scotland. Supporting prescribing in general practice. Edinburgh: Accounts Commission for Scotland, 1999 12 Goldstein DJ. Beneficial health effects of modest weight loss. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1992;6:397–415 13 Van Gaal LF, Waunters MA, De Leeus IH. The beneficial effects of modest weight loss on cardiovascular risk factors. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1997;21:S5–9 14 Diabetes Prevention Programme Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. NEJM 2002;346:393–403 15 Tuomilehto J, Lindstrom J, Eriksson J, et al. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. NEJM 2001;344:1343–9 16 Hughes D, McGuire A, Elliot H, et al. The cost of obesity in the United Kingdom. J Drug Assess 1999;2:327–96 17 Wolf AM, Colditz GA. Current estimates of the economic cost of obesity in the United States. Obes Res 1998;6:97–106 18 Swinburn B, Ashton T, Gillespie J, et al. Health care costs of obesity in New Zealand. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1997;21:891–6 19 The Counterweight Project Team. A new evidence-based model for weight management in Primary Care: The Counterweight Programme. J Hum Nutr Diet 2004;17:191–208 20 England. See http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/06/13/ 55/04061355.xls 21 Wales. See http://www.wales.nhs.uk/documents/Wales_ Dispensing_Data_2001.xls 22 Scotland. See http://www.isdscotland.org/isd/files/final_ FO2%20CW.xls 23 Quality and outcomes framework guidance February 2006. See http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/qof06 24 NICE. See http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=296700 25 World Health Organization. Preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a consultation on obesity, Geneva, 3–5 June 1997. Geneva: WHO, 2000 26 Brown JB, Nichols GA, Bachman K, DeBar L, Moiel D, Perrin N. Medical care costs before and after Bariatric surgery. Obes Res 2004;12:A149 27 Moore H, Summerbell CD, Greenwood DC, et al. Improving the management of obesity in primary care: cluster randomised trial. BMJ 2003;327:1085–8|
Actions (login required)