Key result
Better cardiovascular health score is linked to ~$4,160 lower annual healthcare costs per point.
Why the study?
Cardiovascular Health metrics are widely used in primary prevention, but their benefits in secondary prevention on total healthcare expenditures related to ACS are largely unknown.
Does improved non-dietary cardiovascular health reduce total healthcare expenditures in adults with and without acute coronary syndrome?
Cross-Sectional (n=90,732)
Does improved non-dietary cardiovascular health reduce total healthcare expenditures in adults with and without acute coronary syndrome?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Improving cardiovascular health scores is associated with significant reductions in annual healthcare expenditures, particularly among patients with a history of acute coronary syndrome.
Background Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) causes the most deaths in the United States and accounts for the highest amount of healthcare spending. Cardiovascular Health (CVH) metrics have been widely used in primary prevention, but their benefits in secondary prevention on total healthcare expenditures related to ACS are largely unknown. This study aims to quantify the potential significance of ideal CVH scores as a tool in secondary cardiovascular disease prevention. Methods In a cross-sectional analytical study, ten years of Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data from 2008 to 2018 were pooled, comparing ACS to non-ACS subgroups, utilizing a Two-part model with log link and gamma distribution, since our sample had both positive and zero costs. Conditional on positive expenditure, healthcare expenditure amounts were measured as a function of ACS status, socio-demographics, and CVH while controlling for relevant covariates. Finally, interactions of ACS with CVH metrics and other key variables were included to allow for variations in the effect of these variables on the two subgroups. Results Improvements in CVH scores tended to reduce annual expenditures to a greater degree percentage-wise among ACS subjects compared to non-ACS groups, even though subjects with an ACS diagnosis tended to have approximately twice as big expenditures as similar subjects without an ACS diagnosis. Meanwhile, the financial impact of an ACS event on total expenditure would be approximately $88,500 ([95% CI, $70,200–106,900; p < 0.001]), and a unit improvement in CVH management score would generate savings of approximately $4160 ([95% CI, $5390–2950; p < 0.001]) in total health expenditures. Conclusion Effective secondary preventive measures through targeted behavioral endeavors and improved health factors, especially the normalization of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, body mass index, and smoking cessation, have the potential to reduce medical spending for ACS subgroups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Enyeji et al. (2023) conducted a cross-sectional in Acute Coronary Syndrome (n=90,732). Cardiovascular Health (CVH) score vs. Lower CVH score was evaluated on Total annual healthcare expenditure (MD -$4160, 95% CI -5390 to -2950, p=<0.001). A unit improvement in cardiovascular health score was associated with a reduction in total annual healthcare expenditures of approximately $4,160.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: