BACKGROUND:

Recognizing the importance of close follow-up after hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, many centers have initiated programs to support postpartum remote blood pressure management.

OBJECTIVE:

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of remote blood pressure management to determine the scalability of these programmatic interventions. STUDY

DESIGN:

This was a cost-effectiveness analysis of using remote blood pressure management vs usual care to manage postpartum hypertension. The modeled remote blood pressure management included provision of a home blood pressure monitor, guidance on warning symptoms, instructions on blood pressure self-monitoring twice daily, and clinical staff to manage population-level blood pressures as appropriate. Usual care was defined as guidance on warning symptoms and recommendations for 1 outpatient visit for blood pressure monitoring within a week after discharge. This study designed a Markov model that ran over fourteen 1-day cycles to reflect the initial 2 weeks after delivery when most emergency department visits and readmissions occur and remote blood pressure management is clinically anticipated to be most impactful. Parameter values for the base-case scenario were derived from both internal data and literature review. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated over the first year after delivery and reflected the short-term morbidities associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy that, for most birthing people, resolve by 2 weeks after delivery. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the strength and validity of the model. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which was defined as the cost needed to gain 1 quality-adjusted life-year. The secondary outcome was incremental cost per readmission averted. Analyses were performed from a societal perspective.

RESULTS:

In the base-case scenario, remote blood pressure management was the dominant strategy (ie, cost less, higher quality-adjusted life-years). In univariate sensitivity analyses, the most cost-effective strategy shifted to usual care when the cost of readmission fell below $2987.92 and the rate of reported severe range blood pressure with a response in remote blood pressure management was <1%. Assuming a willingness to pay of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, using remote blood pressure management was cost-effective in 99.28% of simulations in a Monte Carlo analysis. Using readmissions averted as a secondary effectiveness outcome, the incremental cost per readmission averted was $145.00.

CONCLUSION:

Remote blood pressure management for postpartum hypertension is cost saving and has better outcomes than usual care. Our data can be used to inform future dissemination of and support funding for remote blood pressure management programs.