This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pul jul aug2020 cover 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

Independents' Day

Flagship telehealth scheme 'cost £92,000 per QALY'

The Government’s flagship telehealth strategy has suffered another blow as the DH-commissioned review revealed the pilot cost £92,000 per quality adjusted life year, almost three times the upper limit for cost effectiveness set by NICE.

The official evaluation of the Department of Health funded Whole Systems Demonstrator pilot showed the approach had just an 11% likelihood of proving cost-effective for the NHS at this threshold, when added to standard care.

The results put the DH’s policy to roll out telehealth to three million people by 2017 in doubt, and follow a stream of negative data from other trials that showed no effect on quality of life or psychological outcomes and that telecare had no effect on service use or costs.

It also comes weeks before GPs are offered a new DES to provide remote monitoring for patients with long-term conditions.

The London School of Economics researchers had reported preliminary figures last year that showed a cost per QALY of £88,000, but have revised this to £92,000 in the final results from their cost-effectiveness evaluation published online in the BMJ today.

The analysis was based on 965 patients out of the total of 3,230 patients in the telehealth arm of the WSD trial – 534 patients who received the telehealth intervention on top of standard care and 431 control patients who received standard care only.

The results showed that telehealth was associated with a small improvement in mean QALYs gained of 0.012 at 12 months. However, the net incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained by adding telehealth to usual care was £92,000.

Excluding management costs reduced the incremental cost per QALY gained to £79,000, in which case the probability of cost-effectiveness at a NICE willingness to pay threshold of £30,000 went up slightly to 17%. However, the probability would only exceed 50% at thresholds above £90,000 when management costs were included, and above £79,000 when excluding management costs.

If costs of equipment were reduced by 80%, the ICER fell to £52,000 per QALY, while the total annual costs of telehealth were estimated to be slightly lower assuming a service running at full capacity.

Assuming that reducing the unit costs and operating at the higher capacity would not change outcomes, combining these two aspects meant the cost of QALY dropped to just £12,000 per QALY. However, the authors report that even on this basis the total costs would not differ significantly between groups, so the probability of cost-effectiveness is still relatively low, at 61%.

Click here to read a timeline of the evidence for telehealth

The researchers conclude: ‘A community-based, telehealth intervention is unlikely to be cost effective, based on health and social care costs and outcomes after 12 months and the willingness to pay threshold of £30,000 per QALY recommended by NICE.’

Speaking to Pulse, Professor Martin Knapp said the government’s commitment to telehealth ‘is a gamble’ but that he believes the ‘future is telehealth – it’s just we’re not there yet’.

He said the government is likely ‘taking the long view that things in the economy will get worse before they get better and telehealth is probably an affordable way for us to try to assess and meet the needs of individuals’.

However, GPC member Dr Beth McCarron-Nash questioned the wisdom of continuing to expand the commissioning of telehealth services before further evaluation. 

She commented: ‘I think we have to be very careful that telehealth is not pushed as the answer to everything when on the contrary the evidence so far suggests we need to get much better at selecting the type of patients appropriate for managing in this way for it to be of real value.’ 

‘Best practice is to pilot and find out if something is effective – if as part of that you find it isn’t effective, the answer isn’t just to continue regardless and find out as you go along,’ she added.

Dr McCarron-Nash also warned of the potential risks of decommissioning other community services in order to fund telehealth. She said it was ‘madness’ to keep ploughing NHS money into telehealth ‘without evidence it can deliver at a time when we are facing massive cuts to frontline staff and services’.

‘We need to start questioning these political decisions - why services are being commissioned when there is no evidence that they are going to improve patient care’ said Dr McCarron-Nash.

The Department of Health maintained that its telehealth strategy would prove cost-effective. A spokesperson said: ‘This is only one part of a much wider study carried out between 2008 and 2010. The whole study showed that using telehealth reduces mortality by 45%, A&E attendances by 15% and emergency admissions by 20%.

‘This part of the study confirms that to introduce the technology in isolation, at high cost and in low numbers does not bring the cost reductions we believe are there to be made. That is why our approach, known as the 3millionlives initiative, is different. It is about bringing in telehealth at scale and will create improvements in services, care and costs.’


Readers' comments (7)

  • Pay expensive peanuts and still get monkeys

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "using telehealth reduces mortality by 45%"

    Reducing mortality by 45%? That's clever, I always thought the real mortality rate was 100%.

    As usual nothing but hot air and politics from the DoH.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • NYY have 1500 machines sitting in a warehouse somewhere unused that are now out of warranty....only £3.2m down the drain...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Peter Swinyard

    So who's responsibility is it to press the "STOP" button when something is piloted which is not cost effective?
    And will they do it?
    And do we believe in the tooth fairy??? (no actually, because the tooth fairies have left the NHS....)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    (1) While one should be open minded to any new advances in technology, you should also ask whether this is the right time , right place and the right settings ?
    (2)We are in the middle of the most critical time in the history of general practice of this country ,. It is all about survival of primary care and maintaining the last line of defence for our patients in the system.
    (3) The so called efficiency saving is really not about efficiency as people can see now.The common question is 'where has the money saved gone?' You really think telemedicine should be one of the answers ??
    (4) Good things can only happen in the right time , right place and the right conditions. There is always an order in sequence of events . One thing leads to another but not the other way round . I hope some of our academic colleagues can come out of the ivory tower and recognise the flesh and blood of this reality . And most importantly , do not fall into the trap of slavery to become the tool of propaganda of a government ........

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am by far the most geeky GP in our partnership but even I have concerns.

    1. How will we ensure the person on the other end is the genuine patient? Is there a fool proof method of ensuring security isn't breached? No security expert in the world have managed this yet.

    2. How will we ensure resources are no biased towards those who are able to use technology?

    3. How will we gate keep the request for clinical contact and not over burden the already stretched health system?

    4. Who will be responsible for maintaining the technology? NHS can't even afford to move away from the now expired Windows XP, never mind implementing a new tech.

    5. How will we ensure secure connection to servers running our patient record program doesn't slow down with the traffic?

    6. How will we ensure disabled clinicians are not discriminated?

    Too many unanswered question to waste money on Mr Hunt's "I have a cunning plan" moment.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Geeky GP" (quite what's so controversial that requires an anonymous post.......) puts at no 1 of concerns validating the punter. Like we do for telephone consultations or even face to face consultations? Same concerns hamstrung emails where as faxes, being an old and stablished method, were ok. I recall trying to offer Skype to some patients but NHS net blocked it (is that still the case?).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say