Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018 May;39(5):516-524. doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.49. Epub 2018 Mar 19.

The Economic Value of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Toolkit.

Author information

1
1Public Health Computational and Operations Research (PHICOR),Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,Baltimore,Maryland.
2
2Division of Infectious Diseases and Health Policy Research Institute,University of California Irvine Health School of Medicine,Irvine,California.
3
3Infectious Disease Clinical Outcomes Research Unit (ID-CORE),Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute,Harbor-UCLA Medical Center,Torrance,California.
4
5Center for Research Computing,University of Pittsburgh,Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania.

Abstract

OBJECTIVEWhile previous work showed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention toolkit for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) can reduce spread regionally, these interventions are costly, and decisions makers want to know whether and when economic benefits occur.DESIGNEconomic analysisSETTINGOrange County, CaliforniaMETHODSUsing our Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst (RHEA)-generated agent-based model of all inpatient healthcare facilities, we simulated the implementation of the CRE toolkit (active screening of interfacility transfers) in different ways and estimated their economic impacts under various circumstances.RESULTSCompared to routine control measures, screening generated cost savings by year 1 when hospitals implemented screening after identifying ≤20 CRE cases (saving $2,000-$9,000) and by year 7 if all hospitals implemented in a regional coordinated manner after 1 hospital identified a CRE case (hospital perspective). Cost savings was achieved only if hospitals independently screened after identifying 10 cases (year 1, third-party payer perspective). Cost savings was achieved by year 1 if hospitals independently screened after identifying 1 CRE case and by year 3 if all hospitals coordinated and screened after 1 hospital identified 1 case (societal perspective). After a few years, all strategies cost less and have positive health effects compared to routine control measures; most strategies generate a positive cost-benefit each year.CONCLUSIONSActive screening of interfacility transfers garnered cost savings in year 1 of implementation when hospitals acted independently and by year 3 if all hospitals collectively implemented the toolkit in a coordinated manner. Despite taking longer to manifest, coordinated regional control resulted in greater savings over time.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:516-524.

PMID:
29552995
PMCID:
PMC6024255
DOI:
10.1017/ice.2018.49
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Cambridge University Press Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center