Cost-effectiveness of an inpatient nurse practitioner in heart failure

Aims Heart failure (HF) nurse practitioners (NPs) are an important part of the HF specialist team, and their impact on the cost-effectiveness of their role is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a HF NP inpatient service compared with current practice of no HF NP service from a health system perspective at 12 months and 3 years. Methods and results We developed a Markov model to estimate costs, effects, and cost-effectiveness for hospitalized HF patients and seen by a HF NP service compared with usual care at 12 months and 3 years. Costs and effects were taken from a retrospective observational cohort study. Transition probabilities and utilities were derived from published studies. A total of 500 patients were included (250 patients in the HF NP service vs. 250 patients in usual care). Average age was 77.7 +/- 11 years, and 54% were male. At 12 months, the HF NP group was cheaper and more effective compared with no HF NP [$23 031 vs. $25 111 (AUD), respectively; quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.68 in HF NP group compared with 0.66 in usual care]. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed a savings of $109 474 per QALY gained at 12 months and a savings of $270 667 per QALY gained at 3 years in favour of the HF NP service. Conclusion The HF NP service was cost-effective with lower costs and higher QALYs compared with no HF NP service. Economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Automated summary

This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of heart failure nurse practitioner (NP) inpatient service with no NP service. The results showed that the NP service had lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to no NP service.