The cost-effectiveness of population Health Checks: have the NHS Health Checks been unfairly maligned?

17Citations
Citations of this article
43Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Aim: The English NHS currently has a policy of providing Health Checks to all 40–74 year olds. Administered in primary care, they aim to identify patients at risk of a range of diseases, including diabetes and heart disease, and facilitate care. This study is the first to use observed data on the effectiveness of the Checks to consider whether they represent a cost-effective use of limited NHS resources. Subject and methods: Using a publicly available evaluation tool we conducted an analysis of the Checks to establish the long-term cost and health-related outcomes of a cohort of patients. The primary focus of the analysis was to establish whether the impact of the Checks on BMI was sufficient to justify their cost. Results: The Checks were associated with a reduction in mean BMI of 0.27 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.34) compared to no Check. When applied to the evaluative tool, a small but positive QALY gain of 0.05 per participant was observed, coupled with a reduction in disease-related care costs of £170 ($210 USD). When the estimated cost per Check (£179, $220 USD) is taken into account, we estimate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £900/QALY ($1109 USD/QALY). Conclusions: Much of the criticism of the Health Checks has focussed on the relatively small average change in risk factors such as BMI. However, this analysis suggests that the significant health and cost-saving benefits from even a modest reduction in mean BMI, coupled with the low costs of the Checks, combine to result in a potentially highly cost-effective policy.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hinde, S., Bojke, L., Richardson, G., Retat, L., & Webber, L. (2017). The cost-effectiveness of population Health Checks: have the NHS Health Checks been unfairly maligned? Journal of Public Health (Germany), 25(4), 425–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-017-0801-8

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free