The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Philips Motiva Telehealth System

Objectives
The clinical effectiveness of Motiva Monitor platform was established in the previous study (TEN-HMS). Patients randomly assigned to receive Usual Care had higher one year mortality (45%) than patients assigned to receive Nurse Telephone Support (27%) or Home Telemonitoring (29%) (p=0.032). Our intention is to provide insights in the cost-effectiveness of Motiva telehealth system by modeling the intervention and running the analysis on top of the reported data.

Methods
Effectiveness was established by mining the EuroQol-5D from the original database, while the information on costs came from the literature and the manufacturer of the equipment. Direct healthcare costs considered ER visits, GP, Specialist, Hospitalist and Nurse time and resources utilization. The induced (indirect) costs were not considered in the analysis. The approximation of the cost of medical consumption came from the Netherlands only, although the original study was run in three European countries. We assumed the payer perspective for our analysis.

Results
The results clearly show, within the parameters of our model, the increased effectiveness of Home Telemonitoring and Nurse Telephone Support in comparison to the Usual Care. The deterministic results show ICERs of € 14.842 and € 12.547 per QALY (discounted at 1.5% a year) for HTM and NTS respectfully. Probabilistic results show that NTS was the most effective strategy in health systems that pay more than €12.500 per QALY. In the subgroup analysis HTM dominated both NTS and UC at the threshold of €16.500 in NYHA IV group of Chronic Heart Failure patients.

Conclusions
Home telemonitoring by Motiva Monitor system reduces mortality and lowers the in-hospital length of stay. On the quality of life dimensions, Home Telemonitoring was similarly effective as the Nurse Telephone Support, but with more costs. The cost-effectiveness analysis shows that both NTS and HTM dominate the Usual Care at WTP of €15.000.