Longevity and Utilization Cost of Rechargeable and Non-Rechargeable Spinal Cord Stimulation Implants: A Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite major advancements in features and capabilities of the implantable pulse generator (IPG), real-life longevity and cost-effectiveness studies to guide pain specialists to make the appropriate choice between rechargeable and non-rechargeable IPG are limited. Our study aimed to compare the longevity and cost effectiveness of rechargeable vs. non-rechargeable IPG and SCS systems. METHODS: Data were collected for all SCS implantations performed between 1994 and 2018. The primary goal was to determine IPG longevity, defined as the time interval between IPG implantation and elective replacement due to IPG end of life (EOL). On the other hand, SCS system longevity was defined as the time between SCS implantation and its removal or revision for any reason other than IPG EOL. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to assess IPG and SCS system longevities. Cost analysis was performed for cost effectiveness. RESULTS: The median IPG longevity was significantly higher for rechargeable SCS devices than for non-rechargeable SCS devices (7.20 years and 3.68 years, respectively). The median cost per day was similar for both IPGs, $13.90 and $13.81 for non-rechargeable and rechargeable, respectively. The median cost for SCS systems was higher for the rechargeable group ($60.70) compared with the non-rechargeable group ($31.38). CONCLUSIONS: Rechargeable IPG had increased longevity compared to their non-rechargeable counterparts, yet there was no significant difference in the actual longevity due to premature revisions or explantations between both SCS systems. Furthermore, non-rechargeable SCS systems were found to be the more cost-effective option when compared with rechargeable SCS systems.

Resource utilization and costs of managing patients with advanced melanoma: a Canadian population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The use and detailed costs of services provided for people with advanced melanoma (amel) are not well known. We conducted an analysis to determine the use of health care services and the associated costs delineated by relevant attributable costs, which we defined for subjects in the province of Ontario. METHODS: Through the Ontario Cancer Data Linkage Project, a cohort of amel patients with diagnoses between 31 August 2005 and 2012 (follow-up to 2013) and with valid International Classification of Diseases (9th revision, Clinical Modification) 172 codes and histology codes was identified. A cohort of individuals with amel having a combination of at least 1 palliative, 1 medical oncology, and 1 hospitalization code was generated. The health system services used by this population were clustered into hospitalization, palliation, physician medical visits, medication, homecare, laboratory, diagnostics, and other resources. Overall rates of use and disaggregated costs were determined by phase of care for the entire cohort. RESULTS: The mean age for the 2748 individuals in the cohort was 67 years. The greater proportion of the patients were men (65.6%) and were more than 65 years of age (>50%). In this advanced cohort, fewer than 45% of patients were alive 3 years after the malignant melanoma diagnosis. The average annual cost per patient over the time horizon was $6,551. At $15,830, year 1 after diagnosis was the most expensive, followed by year 2, at $8,166. CONCLUSIONS: Our data provide a baseline for the costs associated with amel treatment. Future studies will include newer agents and comparative effectiveness research for personalized therapies.

The employment and mental health impact of integrated Improving Access to Psychological Therapies: Evidence on secondary health care utilization from a pragmatic trial in three English counties.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with a combination of long-term physical health problems can face barriers in obtaining appropriate treatment for co-existing mental health problems. This paper evaluates the impact of integrating the improving access to psychological therapies services (IAPT) model with services addressing physical health problems. We ask whether such services can reduce secondary health care utilization costs and improve the employment prospects of those so affected. METHODS: We used a stepped-wedge design of two cohorts of a total of 1,096 patients with depression and/or anxiety and comorbid long-term physical health conditions from three counties within the Thames Valley from March to August 2017. Panels were balanced. Difference-in-difference models were employed in an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: The new Integrated-IAPT was associated with a decrease of 6.15 (95% CI: -6.84 to -5.45) [4.83 (95% CI: -5.47 to -4.19]) points in the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [generalized anxiety disorder-7] and £360 (95% CI: -£559 to -£162) in terms of secondary health care utilization costs per person in the first three months of treatment. The Integrated-IAPT was also associated with an 8.44% (95% CI: 1.93% to 14.9%) increased probability that those who were unemployed transitioned to employment. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health treatment in care model with Integrated-IAPT seems to have significantly reduced secondary health care utilization costs among persons with long-term physical health conditions and increased their probability of employment.