1 10 Health Economics Doctor's perspective Interview with Willem Van Mechelen audio domande

Summary

The economic costs and benefits of exercise in medicine can be assessed from various perspectives, such as society, insurance companies, patients, and the medical system. Key methods include cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses, each providing unique insights into value and impact. Evidence suggests that exercise-based healthcare initiatives, particularly for conditions like low back pain, can save public money. Future efforts should focus on indirect costs and societal perspectives, aligning with global health goals. While the initial investment in primary prevention may be high, the long-term benefits of exercise in medicine are expected to be significant.

Takeaways

• 😀 Exercise in medicine has economic costs and benefits that vary based on perspective (society, insurance, patient, medical system).
• 😀 Cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and cost-utility analysis are all valid methods for assessing the economic impact of exercise-based healthcare.
• 😀 Cost-benefit analysis focuses on financial costs versus benefits, while cost-effectiveness analysis looks at cost relative to specific effects (e.g., improving blood pressure).
• 😀 Cost-utility analysis compares costs with Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), which provides a measure of overall health benefit.
• 😀 There is scientific evidence supporting the cost-saving potential of exercise-based healthcare initiatives, particularly for conditions like low back pain.
• 😀 Indirect costs (such as lost productivity and long-term health outcomes) must be factored into economic evaluations to get a comprehensive view.
• 😀 A full economic evaluation from a societal perspective, including indirect costs, is needed for better decision-making in exercise-based healthcare.
• 😀 Policymakers need to be convinced that Exercise is Medicine (EIM) will pay off in the long run, especially in primary prevention, despite higher initial costs.
• 😀 Aligning Exercise is Medicine initiatives with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is essential for global health strategy.
• 😀 To make therapeutic exercise interventions economically sustainable, indirect costs must be considered in all economic analyses.

Q & A

How can the economic costs and benefits of exercise in medicine be assessed?

The economic costs and benefits of exercise in medicine can be assessed from multiple perspectives, such as societal, insurance companies, patients, and the medical system. Key methods include cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and cost-utility analysis, each evaluating different factors like financial costs, effects (e.g., improving blood pressure), and health outcomes (e.g., QALYs).

What are the differences between cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analysis?

Cost-benefit analysis compares costs to financial benefits. Cost-effectiveness analysis compares costs to health outcomes or effects, such as the cost of improving blood pressure by 1 mm Hg. Cost-utility analysis focuses on the cost relative to the quality of life, typically measured in QALYs (Quality-Adjusted Life Years), providing a more comprehensive view of healthcare interventions.

Is there scientific evidence that exercise-based healthcare initiatives save public money?

Yes, there is evidence suggesting that exercise-based initiatives can save public money, particularly in the treatment of conditions like low back pain, where graded exercise therapy has shown cost-effectiveness in reducing healthcare costs in the long term.

What role do indirect costs play in evaluating the economic impact of exercise in medicine?

Indirect costs, such as lost productivity, absenteeism, and long-term healthcare costs, are crucial to include in any economic evaluation of exercise in medicine. These factors can substantially influence the overall cost-effectiveness and financial sustainability of exercise-based interventions.

What are the future perspectives for exercise in medicine from an economic standpoint?

Future perspectives suggest a need for comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from a societal perspective, considering both direct and indirect costs. Additionally, incorporating exercise into primary prevention strategies may have higher initial costs but lead to substantial long-term savings in public health.

How can we convince policymakers to invest in exercise-based healthcare initiatives?

Convincing policymakers involves demonstrating the long-term economic benefits, especially in primary prevention, despite the higher initial costs. Aligning these initiatives with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the UN could also provide a compelling framework to gain policy support.

What are the challenges in making exercise-based interventions economically sustainable?

The main challenge in making therapeutic exercise interventions economically sustainable lies in the initial higher costs, particularly for primary prevention. These interventions need to demonstrate clear long-term cost savings, which can be more effectively assessed by factoring in indirect costs, such as reduced long-term healthcare needs.

Why is the inclusion of indirect costs important in economic evaluations of exercise in medicine?

Indirect costs are essential to consider because they capture broader economic effects, such as improved productivity and reduced absenteeism, which are not directly tied to healthcare spending but have significant implications for overall societal costs.

What is the potential return on investment (ROI) for exercise in medicine in the long term?

In the long term, exercise in medicine has the potential to provide a positive return on investment (ROI), particularly in primary prevention areas. While the initial costs may be high, the reduction in healthcare expenditures due to fewer chronic conditions and reduced healthcare utilization can lead to substantial savings.

How does exercise in medicine align with global health goals like the UN's SDGs?

Exercise in medicine aligns with the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by promoting healthier lifestyles, reducing healthcare costs, and improving quality of life. It supports global health initiatives focused on preventing chronic diseases and improving public health outcomes.