TY  - JOUR
AU  - Lanssens, Dorien
AU  - Vandenberk, Thijs
AU  - Smeets, Christophe JP
AU  - De Cannière, Hélène
AU  - Vonck, Sharona
AU  - Claessens, Jade
AU  - Heyrman, Yenthel
AU  - Vandijck, Dominique
AU  - Storms, Valerie
AU  - Thijs, Inge M
AU  - Grieten, Lars
AU  - Gyselaers, Wilfried
PY  - 2018
DA  - 2018/03/26
TI  - Prenatal Remote Monitoring of Women With Gestational Hypertensive Diseases: Cost Analysis
JO  - J Med Internet Res
SP  - e102
VL  - 20
IS  - 3
KW  - remote monitoring
KW  - gestational hypertensive diseases
KW  - reimbursement
KW  - cost-effectiveness
AB  - Background: Remote monitoring in obstetrics is relatively new; some studies have shown its effectiveness for both mother and child. However, few studies have evaluated the economic impact compared to conventional care, and no cost analysis of a remote monitoring prenatal follow-up program for women diagnosed with gestational hypertensive diseases (GHD) has been published. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the costs of remote monitoring versus conventional care relative to reported benefits. Methods: Patient data from the Pregnancy Remote Monitoring (PREMOM) study were used. Health care costs were calculated from patient-specific hospital bills of Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg (Genk, Belgium) in 2015. Cost comparison was made from three perspectives: the Belgian national health care system (HCS), the National Institution for Insurance of Disease and Disability (RIZIV), and costs for individual patients. The calculations were made for four major domains: prenatal follow-up, prenatal admission to the hospital, maternal and neonatal care at and after delivery, and total amount of costs. A simulation exercise was made in which it was calculated how much could be demanded of RIZIV for funding the remote monitoring service. Results: A total of 140 pregnancies were included, of which 43 received remote monitoring (30.7%) and 97 received conventional care (69.2%). From the three perspectives, there were no differences in costs for prenatal follow-up. Compared to conventional care, remote monitoring patients had 34.51% less HCS and 41.72% less RIZIV costs for laboratory test results (HCS: mean €0.00 [SD €55.34] vs mean €38.28 [SD € 44.08], P<.001; RIZIV: mean €21.09 [SD €27.94] vs mean €36.19 [SD €41.36], P<.001) and a reduction of 47.16% in HCS and 48.19% in RIZIV costs for neonatal care (HCS: mean €989.66 [SD €3020.22] vs mean €1872.92 [SD €5058.31], P<.001; RIZIV: mean €872.97 [SD €2761.64] vs mean €1684.86 [SD €4702.20], P<.001). HCS costs for medication were 1.92% lower in remote monitoring than conventional care (mean €209.22 [SD €213.32] vs mean €231.32 [SD 67.09], P=.02), but were 0.69% higher for RIZIV (mean €122.60 [SD €92.02] vs mean €121.78 [SD €20.77], P<.001). Overall HCS costs for remote monitoring were mean €4233.31 (SD €3463.31) per person and mean €4973.69 (SD €5219.00) per person for conventional care (P=.82), a reduction of €740.38 (14.89%) per person, with savings mainly for RIZIV of €848.97 per person (23.18%; mean €2797.42 [SD €2905.18] vs mean €3646.39 [SD €4878.47], P=.19). When an additional fee of €525.07 per month per pregnant woman for funding remote monitoring costs is demanded, remote monitoring is acceptable in their costs for HCS, RIZIV, and individual patients. Conclusions: In the current organization of Belgian health care, a remote monitoring prenatal follow-up of women with GHD is cost saving for the global health care system, mainly via savings for the insurance institution RIZIV. 
SN  - 1438-8871
UR  - http://www.jmir.org/2018/3/e102/
UR  - https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9552
UR  - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29581094
DO  - 10.2196/jmir.9552
ID  - info:doi/10.2196/jmir.9552
ER  -