Cost-effectiveness Analysis of the Elder-Friendly Approaches to the Surgical Environment (EASE) Intervention for Emergency Abdominal Surgical Care of Adults Aged 65 Years and Older.

Importance: The Elder-Friendly Approaches to the Surgical Environment (EASE) initiative is a novel approach to acute surgical care for elderly patients. Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of EASE. Design, Setting, and Participants: An economic evaluation from the perspective of the health care system was conducted as part of the controlled before-and-after EASE study at 2 tertiary care centers, the University of Alberta Hospital and Foothills Medical Centre. Participants included elderly adults (aged ≥65 years) admitted for emergency abdominal surgery between 2014 and 2017. Data were analyzed from April 2018 to February 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Data were captured at both control and intervention sites before and after implementation of the EASE intervention. Resource use was captured over 6 months of follow-up and was converted to costs. Utility was measured with the EuroQol Five-Dimensions Three-Levels instrument at 6 weeks and 6 months of follow-up. The differences-in-differences method was used to estimate the association of the intervention with cost and quality-adjusted life-years. For a subset of participants, self-reported out-of-pocket health care costs were collected using the Resource Use Inventory at 6 months. Results: A total of 675 participants were included (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [7.9] years; 333 women [49.3%]), 289 in the intervention group and 386 in the control group. The mean (SD) cost per control participant was $36 995 ($44 169) before EASE and $35 032 ($43 611) after EASE (all costs are shown in 2018 Canadian dollars). The mean (SD) cost per intervention participant was $56 143 ($74 039) before EASE and $39 001 ($59 854) after EASE. Controlling for age, sex, and Clinical Frailty Score, the EASE intervention was associated with a mean (SE) cost reduction of 23.5% (12.5%) (P = .02). The change in quality-adjusted life-years observed associated with the intervention was not statistically significant (mean [SE], 0.00001 [0.0001] quality-adjusted life-year; P = .72). The Resource Use Inventory was collected for 331 participants. The mean (SE) odds ratio for having 0 out-of-pocket expenses because of the intervention, compared with having expenses greater than 0, was 15.77 (3.37) (P = .02). Among participants with Resource Use Inventory costs greater than 0, EASE was not associated with a change in spending (mean [SE] reduction associated with EASE, 19.1% [45.2%]; P = .57). Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that the EASE intervention was associated with a reduction in costs and no change in quality-adjusted life-years. In locations that lack capacity to implement this intervention, costs to increase capacity should be weighed against the estimated costs avoided.