Minimally invasive fixation versus conservative treatment of undisplaced scaphoid fractures: a cost-effectiveness study.

This study compares the direct and indirect costs of conservative and minimally invasive treatment for undisplaced scaphoid fractures. Costs data concerning groups of non-operated and operated patients were analysed. Direct costs were higher in operated patients. Although highly variable, indirect costs were significantly smaller in operated patients and the total costs were higher in non-operated patients. In conclusion, operative treatment of scaphoid fractures is initially more expensive than conservative treatment but markedly decreases the work compensation costs.

Cost-effectiveness of a new combined immunosuppressive and anti-infectious regimen in kidney transplantation.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to assess the 1-year cost-effectiveness of a new combined immunosuppressive and anti-infectious regimen in kidney transplantation to prevent both rejection and infectious complications. METHODS: Patients (pts) transplanted from January 2000 to March 2003 (Group A) and treated with a conventional protocol were compared with pts submitted to a combined regimen including universal cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis between April 2003 and July 2005 (Group B). Costs were computed from the hospital accounting system for hospital stays, and official tariffs for outpatient visits. Patients with incomplete costs data were excluded from analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were analyzed in Group A, and 60 in Group B. Baseline characteristics including CMV serostatus were not significantly different between the two groups. Over 12 months after transplantation, acute rejections decreased from 41.5 percent in Group A to 6.7 percent in Group B (p < .001), and CMV infections from 47 percent to 15 percent (p < .001). Overall, readmissions decreased from 68 percent to 55 percent (p = .160), and average hospital days from 28 +/- 19 to 20 +/- 11 days (p < .007). The average number of outpatient visits decreased from 49 +/- 10 to 39 +/- 8 (p < .001). Average 1-year immunosuppressive and CMV prophylaxis costs (per patient) increased from CHF20,402 +/- 7,273 to 27,375 +/- 6,063 (p < .001), graft rejection costs decreased from CHF4,595 +/- 10,182 to 650 +/- 3,167 (p = .005), CMV treatment costs from CHF2,270 +/- 6,161 to 101 +/- 326 (p = .008), and outpatient visits costs from CHF8,466 +/- 1'721 to 6,749 +/- 1,159 (p < .001). Altogether, 1-year treatment costs decreased from CHF39'957 +/- 16,573 to 36,204 +/- 6,901 (p = .115). CONCLUSIONS: The new combined regimen administered in Group B was significantly more effective, and its additional costs were more than offset by savings associated with complications avoidance.

An outcome and cost analysis of anal fistula plug insertion vs endorectal advancement flap for complex anal fistulae.

AIM: The study aimed to compare the rate of success and cost of anal fistula plug (AFP) insertion and endorectal advancement flap (ERAF) for anal fistula. METHOD: Patients receiving an AFP or ERAF for a complex single fistula tract, defined as involving more than a third of the longitudinal length of of the anal sphincter, were registered in a prospective database. A regression analysis was performed of factors predicting recurrence and contributing to cost. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients (AFP 31, ERAF 40) were analysed. Twelve (39%) recurrences occurred in the AFP and 17 (43%) in the ERAF group (P = 1.00). The median length of stay was 1.23 and 2.0 days (P < 0.001), respectively, and the mean cost of treatment was euro5439 ± euro2629 and euro7957 ± euro5905 (P = 0.021), respectively. On multivariable analysis, postoperative complications, underlying inflammatory bowel disease and fistula recurring after previous treatment were independent predictors of de novo recurrence. It also showed that length of hospital stay ≤ 1 day to be the most significant independent contributor to lower cost (P = 0.023). CONCLUSION: Anal fistula plug and ERAF were equally effective in treating fistula-in-ano, but AFP has a mean cost saving of euro2518 per procedure compared with ERAF. The higher cost for ERAF is due to a longer median length of stay.

Cost-benefit analysis of an enhanced recovery protocol for pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes have been shown to decrease complications and hospital stay. The cost-effectiveness of such programmes has been demonstrated for colorectal surgery. This study aimed to assess the economic outcomes of a standard ERAS programme for pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: ERAS for pancreaticoduodenectomy was implemented in October 2012. All consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy until October 2014 were recorded. This group was compared in terms of costs with a cohort of consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy between January 2010 and October 2012, before ERAS implementation. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative real costs were collected for each patient via the hospital administration. A bootstrap independent t test was used for comparison. ERAS-specific costs were integrated into the model. RESULTS: The groups were well matched in terms of demographic and surgical details. The overall complication rate was 68 per cent (50 of 74 patients) and 82 per cent (71 of 87 patients) in the ERAS and pre-ERAS groups respectively (P = 0·046). Median hospital stay was lower in the ERAS group (15 versus 19 days; P = 0·029). ERAS-specific costs were euro922 per patient. Mean total costs were euro56 083 per patient in the ERAS group and euro63 821 per patient in the pre-ERAS group (P = 0·273). The mean intensive care unit (ICU) and intermediate care costs were euro9139 and euro13 793 per patient for the ERAS and pre-ERAS groups respectively (P = 0·151). CONCLUSION: ERAS implementation for pancreaticoduodenectomy did not increase the costs in this cohort. Savings were noted in anaesthesia/operating room, medication and laboratory costs. Fewer patients in the ERAS group required an ICU stay.

What Transaction Costs are Acceptable in Life Insurance Products from the Policyholders' Viewpoint?

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze what transaction costs are acceptable for customers in different investments. In this study, two life insurance contracts, a mutual fund and a risk-free investment, as alternative investment forms are considered. The first two products under scrutiny are a life insurance investment with a point-to-point capital guarantee and a participating contract with an annual interest rate guarantee and participation in the insurer's surplus. The policyholder assesses the various investment opportunities using different utility measures. For selected types of risk profiles, the utility position and the investor's preference for the various investments are assessed. Based on this analysis, the authors study which cost levels can make all of the products equally rewarding for the investor. Design/methodology/approach - The paper notes the risk-neutral valuation calibration using empirical data utility and performance measurement dynamics underlying: geometric Brownian motion numerical examples via Monte Carlo simulation. Findings - In the first step, the financial performance of the various saving opportunities under different assumptions of the investor's utility measurement is studied. In the second step, the authors calculate the level of transaction costs that are allowed in the various products to make all of the investment opportunities equally rewarding from the investor's point of view. A comparison of these results with transaction costs that are common in the market shows that insurance companies must be careful with respect to the level of transaction costs that they pass on to their customers to provide attractive payoff distributions. Originality/value - To the best of the authors' knowledge, their research question - i.e. which transaction costs for life insurance products would be acceptable from the customer's point of view - has not been studied in the above described context so far.

Comparing impact and cost-effectiveness of primary prevention strategies for lipid-lowering.

BACKGROUND: Lipid-lowering therapy is costly but effective at reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and public health impact of Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) guidelines and compare with a range of risk- and age-based alternative strategies. DESIGN: The CHD Policy Model, a Markov-type cost-effectiveness model. DATA SOURCES: National surveys (1999 to 2004), vital statistics (2000), the Framingham Heart Study (1948 to 2000), other published data, and a direct survey of statin costs (2008). TARGET POPULATION: U.S. population age 35 to 85 years. Time Horizon: 2010 to 2040. PERSPECTIVE: Health care system. INTERVENTION: Lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins). OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Full adherence to ATP III primary prevention guidelines would require starting (9.7 million) or intensifying (1.4 million) statin therapy for 11.1 million adults and would prevent 20,000 myocardial infarctions and 10,000 CHD deaths per year at an annual net cost of $3.6 billion ($42,000/QALY) if low-intensity statins cost $2.11 per pill. The ATP III guidelines would be preferred over alternative strategies if society is willing to pay $50,000/QALY and statins cost $1.54 to $2.21 per pill. At higher statin costs, ATP III is not cost-effective; at lower costs, more liberal statin-prescribing strategies would be preferred; and at costs less than $0.10 per pill, treating all persons with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels greater than 3.4 mmol/L (>130 mg/dL) would yield net cost savings. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results are sensitive to the assumptions that LDL cholesterol becomes less important as a risk factor with increasing age and that little disutility results from taking a pill every day. LIMITATION: Randomized trial evidence for statin effectiveness is not available for all subgroups. CONCLUSION: The ATP III guidelines are relatively cost-effective and would have a large public health impact if implemented fully in the United States. Alternate strategies may be preferred, however, depending on the cost of statins and how much society is willing to pay for better health outcomes. FUNDING: Flight Attendants' Medical Research Institute and the Swanson Family Fund. The Framingham Heart Study and Framingham Offspring Study are conducted and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Which screening strategy using BMD measurements would be most cost effective for hip fracture prevention in elderly women? A decision analysis based on a Markov model.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures are responsible for excessive mortality, decreasing the 5-year survival rate by about 20%. From an economic perspective, they represent a major source of expense, with direct costs in hospitalization, rehabilitation, and institutionalization. The incidence rate sharply increases after the age of 70, but it can be reduced in women aged 70-80 years by therapeutic interventions. Recent analyses suggest that the most efficient strategy is to implement such interventions in women at the age of 70 years. As several guidelines recommend bone mineral density (BMD) screening of postmenopausal women with clinical risk factors, our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of two screening strategies applied to elderly women aged 70 years and older. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using decision-tree analysis and a Markov model. Two alternative strategies, one measuring BMD of all women, and one measuring BMD only of those having at least one risk factor, were compared with the reference strategy "no screening". Cost-effectiveness ratios were measured as cost per year gained without hip fracture. Most probabilities were based on data observed in EPIDOS, SEMOF and OFELY cohorts. RESULTS: In this model, which is mostly based on observed data, the strategy "screen all" was more cost effective than "screen women at risk." For one woman screened at the age of 70 and followed for 10 years, the incremental (additional) cost-effectiveness ratio of these two strategies compared with the reference was 4,235 euros and 8,290 euros, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of this model, under the assumptions described in the paper, suggest that in women aged 70-80 years, screening all women with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) would be more effective than no screening or screening only women with at least one risk factor. Cost-effectiveness studies based on decision-analysis trees maybe useful tools for helping decision makers, and further models based on different assumptions should be performed to improve the level of evidence on cost-effectiveness ratios of the usual screening strategies for osteoporosis.

Cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin for secondary prophylaxis of cancer-related venous thromboembolism.

Although extended secondary prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin was recently shown to be more effective than warfarin for cancer-related venous thromboembolism, its cost-effectiveness compared to traditional prophylaxis with warfarin is uncertain. We built a decision analytic model to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes of a 6-month course of low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin therapy in 65-year-old patients with cancer-related venous thromboembolism. We used probability estimates and utilities reported in the literature and published cost data. Using a US societal perspective, we compared strategies based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lifetime costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of low-molecular-weight heparin compared with warfarin was 149,865 dollars/QALY. Low-molecular-weight heparin yielded a quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.097 QALYs at the cost of 15,329 dollars. Overall, 46% (7108 dollars) of the total costs associated with low-molecular-weight heparin were attributable to pharmacy costs. Although the low-molecular-weigh heparin strategy achieved a higher incremental quality-adjusted life expectancy than the warfarin strategy (difference of 0.051 QALYs), this clinical benefit was offset by a substantial cost increment of 7,609 dollars. Cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to variation of the early mortality risks associated with low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin and the pharmacy costs for low-molecular-weight heparin. Based on the best available evidence, secondary prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin is more effective than warfarin for cancer-related venous thromboembolism. However, because of the substantial pharmacy costs of extended low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis in the US, this treatment is relatively expensive compared with warfarin.

Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) : A pedagogical guide for decision makers in the public sector

This guide introduces Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), a performance measurement technique, in such a way as to be appropriate to decision makers with little or no background in economics and operational research. The use of mathematics is kept to a minimum. This guide therefore adopts a strong practical approach in order to allow decision makers to conduct their own efficiency analysis and to easily interpret results. DEA helps decision makers for the following reasons: - By calculating an efficiency score, it indicates if a firm is efficient or has capacity for improvement. - By setting target values for input and output, it calculates how much input must be decreased or output increased in order to become efficient. - By identifying the nature of returns to scale, it indicates if a firm has to decrease or increase its scale (or size) in order to minimize the average cost. - By identifying a set of benchmarks, it specifies which other firms' processes need to be analysed in order to improve its own practices.

Comparative cost-effectiveness analyses of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and coronary angiography combined with fractional flow reserve for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: According to recent guidelines, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) should undergo revascularization if significant myocardial ischemia is present. Both, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) allow for a reliable ischemia assessment and in combination with anatomical information provided by invasive coronary angiography (CXA), such a work-up sets the basis for a decision to revascularize or not. The cost-effectiveness ratio of these two strategies is compared. METHODS: Strategy 1) CMR to assess ischemia followed by CXA in ischemia-positive patients (CMR + CXA), Strategy 2) CXA followed by FFR in angiographically positive stenoses (CXA + FFR). The costs, evaluated from the third party payer perspective in Switzerland, Germany, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US), included public prices of the different outpatient procedures and costs induced by procedural complications and by diagnostic errors. The effectiveness criterion was the correct identification of hemodynamically significant coronary lesion(s) (= significant CAD) complemented by full anatomical information. Test performances were derived from the published literature. Cost-effectiveness ratios for both strategies were compared for hypothetical cohorts with different pretest likelihood of significant CAD. RESULTS: CMR + CXA and CXA + FFR were equally cost-effective at a pretest likelihood of CAD of 62% in Switzerland, 65% in Germany, 83% in the UK, and 82% in the US with costs of CHF 5'794, euro 1'517, £ 2'680, and $ 2'179 per patient correctly diagnosed. Below these thresholds, CMR + CXA showed lower costs per patient correctly diagnosed than CXA + FFR. CONCLUSIONS: The CMR + CXA strategy is more cost-effective than CXA + FFR below a CAD prevalence of 62%, 65%, 83%, and 82% for the Swiss, the German, the UK, and the US health care systems, respectively. These findings may help to optimize resource utilization in the diagnosis of CAD.

Task force IV: Clinical use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Participants of the 1999 Consensus Conference on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

OBJECTIVE: To reach a consensus on the clinical use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). METHODS: A task force on the clinical use of ABPM wrote this overview in preparation for the Seventh International Consensus Conference (23-25 September 1999, Leuven, Belgium). This article was amended to account for opinions aired at the conference and to reflect the common ground reached in the discussions. POINTS OF CONSENSUS: The Riva Rocci/Korotkoff technique, although it is prone to error, is easy and cheap to perform and remains worldwide the standard procedure for measuring blood pressure. ABPM should be performed only with properly validated devices as an accessory to conventional measurement of blood pressure. Ambulatory recording of blood pressure requires considerable investment in equipment and training and its use for screening purposes cannot be recommended. ABPM is most useful for identifying patients with white-coat hypertension (WCH), also known as isolated clinic hypertension, which is arbitrarily defined as a clinic blood pressure of more than 140 mmHg systolic or 90 mmHg diastolic in a patient with daytime ambulatory blood pressure below 135 mmHg systolic and 85 mmHg diastolic. Some experts consider a daytime blood pressure below 130 mmHg systolic and 80 mmHg diastolic optimal. Whether WCH predisposes subjects to sustained hypertension remains debated. However, outcome is better correlated to the ambulatory blood pressure than it is to the conventional blood pressure. Antihypertensive drugs lower the clinic blood pressure in patients with WCH but not the ambulatory blood pressure, and also do not improve prognosis. Nevertheless, WCH should not be left unattended. If no previous cardiovascular complications are present, treatment could be limited to follow-up and hygienic measures, which should also account for risk factors other than hypertension. ABPM is superior to conventional measurement of blood pressure not only for selecting patients for antihypertensive drug treatment but also for assessing the effects both of non-pharmacological and of pharmacological therapy. The ambulatory blood pressure should be reduced by treatment to below the thresholds applied for diagnosing sustained hypertension. ABPM makes the diagnosis and treatment of nocturnal hypertension possible and is especially indicated for patients with borderline hypertension, the elderly, pregnant women, patients with treatment-resistant hypertension and patients with symptoms suggestive of hypotension. In centres with sufficient financial resources, ABPM could become part of the routine assessment of patients with clinic hypertension. For patients with WCH, it should be repeated at annual or 6-monthly intervals. Variation of blood pressure throughout the day can be monitored only by ABPM, but several advantages of the latter technique can also be obtained by self-measurement of blood pressure, a less expensive method that is probably better suited to primary practice and use in developing countries. CONCLUSIONS: ABPM or equivalent methods for tracing the white-coat effect should become part of the routine diagnostic and therapeutic procedures applied to treated and untreated patients with elevated clinic blood pressures. Results of long-term outcome trials should better establish the advantage of further integrating ABPM as an accessory to conventional sphygmomanometry into the routine care of hypertensive patients and should provide more definite information on the long-term cost-effectiveness. Because such trials are not likely to be funded by the pharmaceutical industry, governments and health insurance companies should take responsibility in this regard.

Cost evaluation of cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus coronary angiography for the diagnostic work-up of coronary artery disease: Application of the European Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance registry data to the German, United Kingdom, Swiss, and United States health care systems.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has favorable characteristics for diagnostic evaluation and risk stratification of patients with known or suspected CAD. CMR utilization in CAD detection is growing fast. However, data on its cost-effectiveness are scarce. The goal of this study is to compare the costs of two strategies for detection of significant coronary artery stenoses in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD): 1) Performing CMR first to assess myocardial ischemia and/or infarct scar before referring positive patients (defined as presence of ischemia and/or infarct scar to coronary angiography (CXA) versus 2) a hypothetical CXA performed in all patients as a single test to detect CAD. METHODS: A subgroup of the European CMR pilot registry was used including 2,717 consecutive patients who underwent stress-CMR. From these patients, 21% were positive for CAD (ischemia and/or infarct scar), 73% negative, and 6% uncertain and underwent additional testing. The diagnostic costs were evaluated using invoicing costs of each test performed. Costs analysis was performed from a health care payer perspective in German, United Kingdom, Swiss, and United States health care settings. RESULTS: In the public sectors of the German, United Kingdom, and Swiss health care systems, cost savings from the CMR-driven strategy were 50%, 25% and 23%, respectively, versus outpatient CXA. If CXA was carried out as an inpatient procedure, cost savings were 46%, 50% and 48%, respectively. In the United States context, cost savings were 51% when compared with inpatient CXA, but higher for CMR by 8% versus outpatient CXA. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that from an economic perspective, the use of CMR should be encouraged as a management option for patients with suspected CAD.