Budget impact analyses of hemoglobin A1c and lipid panel point-of-care testing with Afinion™ 2 in Canada and Italy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Screening and monitoring of diabetes or dyslipidemia frequently involves a multi-step process requiring patients to obtain test requisitions from their primary care physician (PCP), followed by a laboratory visit and re-consultation. Point-of-care testing (POCT) for hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ) and lipid panel can streamline the patient care pathway. This study assessed the budget impact of introducing Afinion™ 2 POCT (Abbott Rapid Diagnostics) from the Canadian and Italian societal perspectives. Methods: Budget impact models were developed for Canada and Italy over a 5-year time horizon (2025 to 2029). The analyses considered the screening and monitoring of diabetes or dyslipidemia for patients utilizing the public healthcare system and attending primary care, and included direct costs (testing, consultations) and indirect costs (productivity loss, transportation) based on published sources. The budget impact (BI) was calculated by comparing scenarios with and without POCT. All costs were adjusted to Canadian dollars ($) or 2024 Euros (€). Scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of alternative assumptions. Results: The 5-year cumulative BI was -$758,006,692 (-$50,709,964 direct, -$707,296,728 indirect) for HbA 1c POCT and -$726,452,755 ($2,684,011 direct, -$729,136,766 indirect) for lipid panel POCT in Canada and -€1,380,658,764 (-€6,391,954 direct, -€1,374,266,809 indirect) for HbA 1c POCT and -€851,792,115 (€55,962,879 direct, -€907,754,993 indirect) for lipid panel POCT in Italy. In both countries, cost savings for both the healthcare payer and patients were observed for HbA 1c POCT, while costs savings were derived from patient indirect costs for lipid panel POCT. The analyses estimated that 1,558,062 and 1,501,260 PCP consultations in Canada, 4,962,338 and 1,951,026 PCP consultations in Italy were avoided with implementation of POCT for HbA 1c and lipid panel, respectively. Scenario analyses demonstrated potential further cost savings with implementation of POCT in pharmacies. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the adoption of Afinion 2 POCT for HbA 1c and lipid panel can provide efficiencies to different types of healthcare systems through reducing PCP consultations, saving time and money for patients and providing cost savings for payers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".