Should Nicotine Replacement Therapy be Provided Free of Charge? A Cost-Utility Analysis in Sweden.

Abstract

Treatment with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) during an attempt to quit smoking increases the likelihood of success by about 55%. However, out-of-pocket payment for NRT can hinder its use. This study aims therefore to assess the cost-effectiveness of subsidizing NRT in Sweden. A homogeneous cohort-based Markov model was used to assess the lifetime costs and effects of subsidized NRT from a payer and societal perspective. Data to populate the model were retrieved from the literature, and selected parameters were varied in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess robustness of model outputs. Costs are presented in USD, year 2021. A 12-week treatment with NRT was estimated to cost USD 632 (474-790) per person. From a societal perspective, subsidized NRT was a cost-saving alternative in 98.5% of the simulations. NRT is cost-saving across all ages, but the health and economic gains are somewhat larger among younger smokers from a societal perspective. When a payer perspective was used, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at 14 480 (11 721-18 515) USD per QALY which was cost-effective at a willingness to pay of 50 000 USD per QALY in 100 % of the simulations. Results were robust with realistic changes in the inputs during scenario and sensitivity analyses. Subsidizing NRT is potentially a cost-saving smoking cessation strategy from a societal perspective and cost-effective from a payer perspective. This study found that subsidizing NRT is potentially a cost-saving smoking cessation policy alternative compared to current practice from a societal perspective. From a healthcare payer perspective, subsidizing NRT is estimated to cost USD 14 480 to gain an extra QALY. NRT is cost-saving across all ages, but the health and economic gains are somewhat larger among younger smokers from a societal perspective. Moreover, subsidizing NRT removes the financial barriers that are mostly faced by socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers which might reduce health inequalities. Thus, future economic evaluations should further investigate the health inequality impacts with methods that are more suitable for this.