Dedicated Perioperative Hip Fracture Comanagement Programs are Cost-effective in High-volume Centers: An Economic Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporotic hip fractures are common injuries typically occurring in patients who are older and medically frail. Studies have suggested that creation of a multidisciplinary team including orthopaedic surgeons, internal medicine physicians, social workers, and specialized physical therapists, to comanage these patients can decrease complication rates, improve time to surgery, and reduce hospital length of stay; however, they have yet to achieve widespread implementation, partly owing to concerns regarding resource requirements necessary for a comanagement program. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed an economic analysis to determine whether implementation of a comanagement model of care for geriatric patients with osteoporotic hip fractures would be a cost-effective intervention at hospitals with moderate volume. We also calculated what annual volume of cases would be needed for a comanagement program to "break even", and finally we evaluated whether universal or risk-stratified comanagement was more cost effective. METHODS: Decision analysis techniques were used to model the effect of implementing a systems-based strategy to improve inpatient perioperative care. Costs were obtained from best-available literature and included salary to support personnel and resources to expedite time to the operating room. The major economic benefit was decreased initial hospital length of stay, which was determined via literature review and meta-analysis, and a health benefit was improvement in perioperative mortality owing to expedited preoperative evaluation based on previously conducted meta-analyses. A break-even analysis was conducted to determine the annual case volume necessary for comanagement to be either (1) cost effective (improve health-related quality of life enough to be worth additional expenses) or (2) result in cost savings (actually result in decreased total expenses). This calculation assumed the scenario in which a hospital could hire only one hospitalist (and therapist and social worker) on a full-time basis. Additionally, we evaluated the scenario where the necessary staff was already employed at the hospital and could be dedicated to a comanagement service on a part-time basis, and explored the effect of triaging only patients considered high risk to a comanagement service versus comanaging all geriatric patients. Finally, probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted on all critical variables, with broad ranges used for values around which there was higher uncertainty. RESULTS: For the base case, universal comanagement was more cost effective than traditional care and risk-stratified comanagement (incremental cost effectiveness ratios of USD 41,100 per quality-adjusted life-year and USD 81,900 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). Comanagement was more cost effective than traditional management as long as the case volume was more than 54 patients annually (range, 41-68 patients based on sensitivity analysis) and resulted in cost savings when there were more than 318 patients annually (range, 238-397 patients). In a scenario where staff could be partially dedicated to a comanagement service, universal comanagement was more cost effective than risk-stratified comanagement (incremental cost effectiveness of USD 2300 per quality-adjusted life-year), and both comanagement programs had lower costs and better outcomes compared with traditional management. Sensitivity analysis was conducted and showed that the level of uncertainty in key variables was not high enough to change the core conclusions of the model. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a systems-based comanagement strategy using a dedicated team to improve perioperative medical care and expedite preoperative evaluation is cost effective in hospitals with moderate volume and can result in cost savings at higher-volume centers. The optimum patient population for a comanagement strategy is still being defined. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1, Economic and Decision Analysis.

Osteoporosis Knowledge Among Spine Surgery Patients.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the knowledge and attitudes on osteoporosis among first-time spine surgery patients. METHODS: An electronic survey consisting of demographics, prior experience with osteoporosis, and the Facts on Osteoporosis Quiz (FOOQ) was sent via email to first-time spine surgery patients. Patients were then randomized into 2 groups: 1 received a brief osteoporosis information packet prior to beginning the FOOQ, and 1 proceeded directly to the survey. RESULTS: A total of 63 patients who participated in this study, 29 in the information packet group and 34 in the non-information packet group, completed the survey. The mean FOOQ scores for the information packet patients was 16.37 (± 2.35) and for the non-information packet patients was 15.62 (± 2.87), with a P value of .12. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of patient demographics or prior experience with osteoporosis. The information packet group trended to higher interest with a P value of .068. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates high FOOQ scores among all first-time spine patients as compared to historical scores in general at-risk populations. No statistical differences between FOOQ scores were noted between the group that received the information packet and the control group. This study demonstrates that patients new to spine care have a good understanding of osteoporosis and are thus willing to participate in osteoporosis treatment as part of their spine care.

Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Hypertension Treatment in Non-Hispanic Blacks and Whites According to 2014 Guidelines: A Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: We compared the cost-effectiveness of hypertension treatment in non-Hispanic blacks and non-Hispanic whites according to 2014 US hypertension treatment guidelines. METHODS: The cardiovascular disease (CVD) policy model simulated CVD events, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and treatment costs in 35- to 74-year-old adults with untreated hypertension. CVD incidence, mortality, and risk factor levels were obtained from cohort studies, hospital registries, vital statistics, and national surveys. Stage 1 hypertension was defined as blood pressure 140-149/90-99mm Hg; stage 2 hypertension as ≥150/100mm Hg. Probabilistic input distribution sampling informed 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) < $50,000/QALY gained were considered cost-effective. RESULTS: Treating 0.7 million hypertensive non-Hispanic black adults would prevent about 8,000 CVD events annually; treating 3.4 million non-Hispanic whites would prevent about 35,000 events. Overall 2014 guideline implementation would be cost saving in both groups compared with no treatment. For stage 1 hypertension but without diabetes or chronic kidney disease, cost savings extended to non-Hispanic black males ages 35-44 but not same-aged non-Hispanic white males (ICER $57,000/QALY; 95% UI $15,000-$100,000) and cost-effectiveness extended to non-Hispanic black females ages 35-44 (ICER $46,000/QALY; $17,000-$76,000) but not same-aged non-Hispanic white females (ICER $181,000/QALY; $111,000-$235,000). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with non-Hispanic whites, cost-effectiveness of implementing hypertension guidelines would extend to a larger proportion of non-Hispanic black hypertensive patients.

The Value of Diagnostic Testing in Personalized Medicine.

Personalized medicine - the targeting of therapies to individuals on the basis of their biological, clinical, or genetic characteristics - is thought to have the potential to transform health care. While much emphasis has been placed on the value of personalized therapies, less attention has been paid to the value generated by the diagnostic tests that direct patients to those targeted treatments. This paper presents a framework derived from information economics for assessing the value of diagnostics. We demonstrate, via a case study, that the social value of such diagnostics can be very large, both by avoiding unnecessary treatment and by identifying patients who otherwise would not get treated. Despite the potential social benefits, diagnostic development has been discouraged by cost-based, rather than value-based, reimbursement.