Abstract 15363: Equivalent Total Medical Costs Between Remote Cardiac Rehabilitation and Facility-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation

• Published in: Circulation (New York, N.Y.) Vol. 148; no. Suppl_1
• Main Authors: Oehler, Andrew, Holmstrand, Ericka, Zhou, Lulu, Harzand, Arash, Vathsangam, Harshvardhan, Kendall, Kellee, Gabriel, George, Murali, Srinivas
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 07.11.2023
• ISSN: 0009-7322; 1524-4539
• DOI: 10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.15363

Abstract only Purpose: Remote cardiac rehabilitation (RCR) represents a promising, non-inferior alternative to facility-based cardiac rehabilitation (FBCR). The comparable cost of RCR in US populations has not been previously studied. The purpose of this prospective, patient-selected study of traditional FBCR vs. a 3 rd party RCR platform was to assess whether RCR can be administered at comparable cost and clinical efficacy to FBCR. Methods: Adult insured patients were eligible for enrollment following an admission for a coronary event. Patients selected either FBCR or Movn RCR, a 12-week telehealth intervention using an app-based platform and internet-capable medical devices. Clinical demographics, intervention adherence, cost-effectiveness, and hospitalizations at 1-year post-enrollment were assessed from the Highmark claims database following propensity matching between groups. Results: A total of 260 patients were included, and 171 (65.8%) of those eligible received at least one cardiac rehab session, half of those choosing Movn RCR. Propensity matching produced a sample of 41 matched pairs between FBCR and RCR groups. Movn RCR led to quicker program initiation and higher completion rates (80% vs. 50%). Total medical costs were similar between Movn RCR and FBCR, though tended toward cost savings with Movn RCR ($10,574/patient). Cost of cardiac rehabilitation was lower in those enrolled in Movn RCR ($1377/patient, p=0.002). All-cause and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations or ED visits in the year following enrollment in both groups were similar. Conclusions: This pragmatic study of patients after a coronary event led to equivalent total medical costs and lower intervention costs for an RCR platform when compared to traditional FBCR while maintaining similar clinically important outcomes.