Question

In the textbook, Managerial Epidemiology on page 609 there is Capstone Case H: Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of type II Diabetes. I am trying to figure out how to answer questions 8 & 9. Question 8 ask to calculate the incremental cost of screening vs. not screening and question 9 ask you to calculate the Risk difference, cumlative incidence, as well as total cost and savings of screening and not screening.   

Looking for how to answer questions 8 & 9 for Capstone Case H: cost-effectiveness analysis of type II diabetes

Answer 1

8. It is done using Markove Model

Intervention - Diabetes screening targeted to people with hypertension and universal screening.

At all ages, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were more favorable for screening targeted to people with hypertension than for universal screening. For example, at age 55 years, the cost per QALY for targeted screening compared with no screening was $34 375, whereas the cost per QALY for universal screening compared with targeted screening was $360 966. Screening was more cost-effective for ages 55 to 75 years than for younger ages.

Cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Costs (in 1997 U.S. dollars) and QALYs discounted at a 3% annual rate.

9. When incidence is determined in this way, that is, by evaluating the presence of disease at the beginning and then dividing the number of known new cases by the number of people "at risk" at the beginning, it is referred to as a cumulative incidence and can also be thought of as the incidence proportion. While people commonly refer to this as a 'rate,' this is really a proportion. It is the proportion of the "at risk" group that developed disease over a stated block of time.