Cost effectiveness of the Oregon quitline "free patch initiative"

Jeffrey L Fellows, Terry Bush, Tim McAfee, John Dickerson, Jeffrey L Fellows, Terry Bush, Tim McAfee, John Dickerson

Abstract

Objective: We estimated the cost effectiveness of the Oregon tobacco quitline's "free patch initiative" compared to the pre-initiative programme.

Methods: Using quitline utilisation and cost data from the state, intervention providers and patients, we estimated annual programme use and costs for media promotions and intervention services. We also estimated annual quitline registration calls and the number of quitters and life years saved for the pre-initiative and free patch initiative programmes. Service utilisation and 30-day abstinence at six months were obtained from 959 quitline callers. We compared the cost effectiveness of the free patch initiative (media and intervention costs) to the pre-initiative service offered to insured and uninsured callers. We conducted sensitivity analyses on key programme costs and outcomes by estimating a best case and worst case scenario for each intervention strategy.

Results: Compared to the pre-intervention programme, the free patch initiative doubled registered calls, increased quitting fourfold and reduced total costs per quit by $2688. We estimated annual paid media costs were $215 per registered tobacco user for the pre-initiative programme and less than $4 per caller during the free patch initiative. Compared to the pre-initiative programme, incremental quitline promotion and intervention costs for the free patch initiative were $86 (range $22-$353) per life year saved.

Conclusions: Compared to the pre-initiative programme, the free patch initiative was a highly cost effective strategy for increasing quitting in the population.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: JLF and JD have no competing interests. TB and TMcA are with Free & Clear, Inc, which is a for‐profit company providing telephone counselling services.

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Annual smoking‐attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and economic costs—United States, 1995–1999. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 200251300–303.
    1. Fiore M C, Bailey W C, Cohen S alClinical practice guideline: treating tobacco use and dependence. Rockville, MD: Public Health Service, 2000
    1. Hopkins D P, Briss P A, Ricard C al Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(2 Suppl)16–66.
    1. Ossip‐Klein D J, McIntosh S. Quitlines in North America: evidence base and applications. Am J Med Sci 2003326201–205.
    1. Stead L F, Perera R, Lancaster T. A systematic review of interventions for smokers who contact quitlines. Tob Control 200716(Suppl I)i3–i8.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Telephone quitlines: a resource for development, implementation, and evaluation. Final ed. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2004
    1. Fiore M C, Croyle R T, Curry S al Preventing 3 million premature deaths and helping 5 million smokers quit: A national action plan for tobacco cessation. Am J Public Health 200494205–210.
    1. North American Quitline Consortium Quitlines of North America and Europe 2006. [updated 2007]. Phoenix, AZ: North American Quitline Consortium, Available at . Accessed 21 May 2007
    1. Miller N, Frieden T R, Liu S al Effectiveness of a large‐scale distribution programme of free nicotine patches: a prospective evaluation. Lancet 20053651849–1854.
    1. Swartz S H, Cowan T M, Klayman J al Use and effectiveness of tobacco telephone counseling and nicotine therapy in Maine. Am J Prev Med 200529288–294.
    1. An L C, Schillo B A, Kavanaugh A al Increasing reach and effectiveness of a statewide tobacco quitline after addition of access to free nicotine replacement therapy. Tob Control 200615286–293.
    1. Cummings K M, Fix B, Celestino al Reach, efficacy, and cost‐effectiveness of free nicotine mediation giveaway programs. J Public Health Management Practice 20061237–43.
    1. Oregon Department of Human Services 2003–2005 Tobacco prevention & education program report. Tobacco Prevention and Education Program. Oregon Department of Human Services, 2005. Available at: . Accessed 30 May 2007
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs—August 1999. Atlanta GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, August, 1999
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention State‐specific prevalences of cigarette smoking and quitting among adults—United States, 2004. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005541124–1127.
    1. Haddix A, Teutsch S M, Corso P S.Prevention effectiveness: a guide to decision analysis and economic evaluation. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003
    1. Free and Clear, Inc Oregon Tobacco Quitline—the Oregon “free patch initiative”: six‐month report on the insured, 2005. Seattle, WA: Free and Clear, Inc 2005
    1. Free and Clear, Inc Oregon tobacco quitline: results of the free patch initiative among the uninsured. A randomized control trial & cost effectiveness analysis, 2006. Seattle, WA: Free and Clear, Inc, 2006
    1. Mosbaek C, Austin D F, Stark M al The association between advertising and calls to a tobacco quitline. (unpublished)
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Media Campaign Resource Center, Office on Smoking and Health, Available at http:/ Accessed on 14 December 2005
    1. Arias E. United States life tables, 2003. National vital statistics reports; vol 54 no 14. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2006. Available at Accessed 10 May 2007
    1. Thun M J, Day‐Lally C, Myers D al Trends in tobacco smoking and mortality from cigarette use in Cancer Prevention Studies I (1959 through 1965) and II (1982 through 1988). In: Changes in cigarette‐related disease risks and their implication for prevention and control. Smoking and tobacco control monograph 8. Bethesda, Maryland: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Nation Cancer Institute, 1997:305–382, NIH publication no 97‐4213
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services The health consequences of smoking: A report of the surgeon general. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health 2004
    1. Prochaska, James O, DiClemente, Carlo C Stages and processes of self‐change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. J Consult Clin Psychol 198351390–395.
    1. Cromwell J, Bartosch W J, Fiore M al Cost‐effectiveness of the clinical practice recommendations in the AHCPR guideline for smoking cessation. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. JAMA 19972781759–1766.
    1. Warner K E. Cost effectiveness of smoking‐cessation therapies. Interpretation of the evidence‐and implications for coverage. Pharmacoeconomics 199711538–549.
    1. Patrick D L, Cheadle A, Thompson D al The validity of self‐reported smoking: A review and meta‐analysis. Am J Public Health 1994841086–1093.
    1. SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification Biochemical verification of tobacco use and cessation. Nicotine Tob Res 200212235–243.
    1. Zhu S ‐ H.Increasing Cessation in the population: quit attempts vs. uccessful quit attempts. Oral presentation for the World Conference on Tobacco or Health, Washington DC, July 2006
    1. Ossip‐Klein D al Effects of a smoker's hotline: results of a 10‐county self‐help trial. J Consult Clin Psychol 199159325–332.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren