Funding Health Promotion Activities to Reduce Avoidable Hospital Admissions in Frail Older Adults (HomeHealth): Further Challenges to the “Cost-Effective but Unaffordable” Paradox

Rachael Maree Hunter (), Rachael Frost, Sarah Kalwarowsky, Louise Marston, Shengning Pan, Cristina Avgerinou, Andrew Clegg, Claudia Cooper, Vari M. Drennan, Benjamin Gardner, Claire Goodman, Pip Logan, Dawn A. Skelton and Kate Walters
Additional contact information
Rachael Maree Hunter: University College London
Rachael Frost: Liverpool John Moores University
Sarah Kalwarowsky: University College London
Louise Marston: University College London
Shengning Pan: University College London
Cristina Avgerinou: University College London
Andrew Clegg: University of Leeds, Bradford Institute for Health Research
Claudia Cooper: Queen Mary University of London
Vari M. Drennan: Kingston University
Benjamin Gardner: University of Surrey
Claire Goodman: University of Hertfordshire
Pip Logan: University of Nottingham
Dawn A. Skelton: Glasgow Caledonian University
Kate Walters: University College London

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2025, vol. 23, issue 6, No 12, 1099-1113

Abstract: Abstract Introduction Health promotion initiatives are often promoted as being worth the investment given future cash-savings. This paper uses the findings of HomeHealth, a health promotion service for older adults with mild frailty, to examine how economic evaluation relates to local decision making in England. Methods The HomeHealth trial randomised 388 participants aged 65+ years with mild frailty to receive HomeHealth (195 participants) or treatment as usual (193 participants). Health and social care resource use and carer time were self-completed at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. Primary and secondary healthcare resource use and medications were collected from patient files at 12 months post recruitment, covering the past 18 months. Stakeholders including commissioners were consulted on the results of the trial and budget impact. Results Participants allocated to HomeHealth had a significant reduction in emergency hospital admissions at 12 months (incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45–0.92) and unpaid carer hours at 6 months (− 16 h (95% CI − 18 to − 14 h) or − £360 (95% CI − 369 to − 351) per patient). Although the intervention is cost saving overall due to fewer emergency admissions, at a cost of £457 per patient commissioners do not have the budget to fund it. Discussion This case study illustrates the problem with using standard economic evaluation methods to argue for implementation of health promotion initiatives in publicly financed healthcare systems. Although HomeHealth resulted in reduced emergency admissions and may be cost saving to the system as a whole, it is not locally cash releasing. Health promotion initiatives are unlikely to be funded from local budgets without significant system-wide changes.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-025-00987-4 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:6:d:10.1007_s40258-025-00987-4

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-025-00987-4

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().