The impact of different perspectives on the cost-effectiveness of remote patient monitoring for patients with heart failure in different European countries.

Background And Objective: Heart failure (HF) is a complex clinical syndrome with high mortality and hospitalization rates. Non-invasive remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions have the potential to prevent disease worsening. However, the long-term cost-effectiveness of RPM remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of RPM in the Netherlands (NL), the United Kingdom (UK), and Germany (DE) highlighting the differences between cost-effectiveness from a societal and healthcare perspective.

Methods: We developed a Markov model with a lifetime horizon to assess the cost-effectiveness of RPM compared with usual care. We included HF-related hospitalization and non-hospitalization costs, intervention costs, other medical costs, informal care costs, and costs of non-medical consumption. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were performed.

Results: RPM led to reductions in HF-related hospitalization costs, but total lifetime costs were higher in all three countries compared to usual care. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), from a societal perspective, were €27,921, €32,263, and €35,258 in NL, UK, and DE respectively. The lower ICER in the Netherlands was mainly explained by lower costs of non-medical consumption and HF-related costs outside of the hospital. ICERs, from a healthcare perspective, were €12,977, €11,432, and €11,546 in NL, the UK, and DE, respectively. The ICER was most sensitive to the effectiveness of RPM and utility values.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that RPM for HF can be cost-effective from both healthcare and societal perspective. Including costs of living longer, such as informal care and non-medical consumption during life years gained, increased the ICER.