Are valve clinics a sound investment for the health service? A cost-effectiveness model and an automated tool for cost estimation

Background: Valve disease is using up an important, growing proportion of the resources allocated for healthcare. Clinical care is often suboptimal and while multidisciplinary clinics are the 'gold standard', their adoption has been patchy and inhomogeneous. Methods: We hypothesised that adoption of valve clinics can deliver financial savings and set out to estimate differences in cost between a standard model in which the cardiologist sees every case and a multidisciplinary model in which some cases are devolved to sonographer-led or nurse-led clinics, assuming usage of various tests in accordance with practice at our institutions and to published data. We developed a tool that allows the modelling of limitless permutations in order to assess costs. Results: Seeing 100 new patients in a valve clinic is more expensive than seeing them in the conventional set-up (excess cost 2700 pound, $4252). Follow-up of both patients with native valve disease (maximal savings/100 patients- pound 5166, $8135) and with operated valves (maximal savings/100 patients- pound 5090, $ 8015) is cheaper in a valve clinic than in a general cardiology clinic and the savings offset the increased cost of seeing new patients in the valve clinic. Conclusions: The costing implications of valve clinics need to be worked out carefully. Our analysis suggests that important savings in healthcare costs could be achieved by their adoption. Clarifying the economic implications of this new model of care should become one of the priorities for the 'heart valve community'.