Equivalence of a single saline nebulised dose of formoterol powder vs three doses of nebulised Albuterol every twenty minutes in acute asthma in children: a suitable cost effective approach for developing nations.

BACKGROUND: An increase in asthma prevalence is reported from developed as well as developing nations, with rising costs from acute asthma and great expenditures to health care systems. Venezuela's Ministry of Health ambulatory facilities care for 80 % or more of a mostly urban and impoverished population of 26 million inhabitants, registering close to a million acute asthma visits per year; a nebulised fixed fenoterol-ipratropium bromide combination (Bero-dual, Boehringer-Ingelheim) in repeated dosing is the standard treatment. OBJECTIVES: to simplify acute asthma care and management in a cost effective manner employing Formoterol Fumarate powder, a long acting beta agonist with immediate bronchodilator effects. METHODOLOGY: Fifty acute asthmatic children (5-12 years old) were randomly assigned (25 patients in each group) to receive either a nebulised single dose (US $1.35) of two 12 microg Formoterol Fumarate capsules (Foradil 12 microg/cap, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland) diluted in 2.5 ml of sterile saline solution; or 3 doses of Albuterol (US $ 6.73) every twenty minutes for one hour (Glaxo Smith Kline Albuterol ampoules, 2.5 mg/2.5 ml, at a dose of 0.15 mg/kg/dose, maximum dose 2.5 mg). Symptoms score, oxygen saturation and lung function testing were recorded before and one hour after commencing treatments. RESULTS: Both groups improved significantly on all parameters, except for FEV(1) in the Albuterol group. CONCLUSIONS: Single dose nebulised Formoterol Fumarate (dry powder) in sterile saline solution, as depicted in this trial, is equivalent to three doses of Albuterol every twenty minutes for one hour in acute asthma in children, simplifying acute care management and at one fifth of medication costs. A pursuit of simpler and more cost effective approaches is found wanting in developing nations with depressed economies and unique cultural and socio-medical contexts; also, in countries where pharmaco-economics orients quality of health policies, novel approaches like this are worth exploring.

The impact of longer-than-average anesthesia times on the billing of academic anesthesiology departments.

UNLABELLED: Academic anesthesiology departments provide clinical services for surgical procedures that have longer-than-average surgical times and correspondingly increased anesthesia times. We examined the financial impact of these longer times in three ways: 1) the estimated loss in revenue if billing were done on a flat-fee system by using industry-averaged anesthesia times; 2) the estimation of incremental operating room (OR) sites necessitated by longer anesthesia times; and 3) the estimated potential gain in billed units if the hours of productivity of current anesthesia time were applied to surgical cases of average duration. Health Care Financing Administration average times per anesthesia procedure code were used as industry averages. Billing data were collected from four academic anesthesiology departments for 1 yr. Each claim billed with ASA units was included except for obstetric anesthesia care. All clinical sites that do not bill with ASA units were excluded. Base units were determined for each anesthesia procedure code. The mean commercial conversion factor (US$45 per ASA unit) for reimbursement was used to estimate the impact in dollar amounts. In all four groups, anesthesia times exceeded the Health Care Financing Administration average. The loss per group in billed ASA units if a flat-fee billing system were used ranged from 18,194 to 31,079 units per group, representing a 5% to 15% decrease (estimated billing decrease of US$818,719 to US$1,398,536 per group). The number of excess OR sites necessitated by longer surgical and anesthesia times ranged from 1.95 to 4.57 OR sites per group. The potential gain in billed units if the hours of productivity of current anesthesia time were applied to surgical cases of average duration was estimated to be from 13,273 to 21,368 ASA units. Longer-than-average anesthesia and surgical times result in extra hours or additional OR sites to be staffed and loss of potential reimbursement for the four academic anesthesiology departments. A flat-fee system would adversely affect academic anesthesiology departments. IMPLICATIONS: We examined the economic impact of longer-than-average anesthesia times on four academic anesthesiology departments in three ways: the estimated loss in revenue under a flat-fee system, the excess operating room sites staffed, and the potential gain in revenue if the surgeries were of average length. These results should be considered both in productivity measurements and strategies for operating room management.

Measurement of individual clinical productivity in an academic anesthesiology department.

BACKGROUND: The ability to measure productivity, work performed, or contributions toward the clinical mission has become an important issue facing anesthesiology departments in private practice and academic settings. Unfortunately, the practice and billing of anesthesia services makes it difficult to quantify individual productivity. This study examines the following methods of measuring individual productivity: normalized clinical days per year (nCD/yr); time units per operating-room day worked (TU/OR day); normalized time units per year (nTU/yr); total American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) units per OR day (tASA/OR day); and normalized total ASA units per year (ntASA/yr). METHODS: Billing and scheduling data for clinical activities of faculty members of an anesthesiology department at a university medical center were collected and analyzed for the 1998 fiscal year. All clinical sites and all clinical faculty anesthesiologists were included unless they spent less than 20% of their time during the fiscal year providing clinical care, i.e., less than 0.2 clinical full-time equivalent. Outliers, defined as faculty who had productivity greater or less than 1 SD from the mean, were examined in detail. RESULTS: Mean and median values were reported for each measurement, and different groups of outliers were identified. nCD/yr identified faculty who worked more than their clinical full-time equivalent would have predicted. TU/OR day and tASA/OR day identified apparently low-productivity faculty as those who worked a large portion of their time in obstetric anesthesia or an ambulatory surgicenter. tASA/OR day identified specialty anesthesiologists as apparently high-productivity faculty. nTU/yr and ntASA/yr were products of the per-OR day measurement and nCD/yr. CONCLUSION: Each of the measurements studied values certain types of productivity more than others. By defining what type of service is most important to reward, the most appropriate measure or combination of measures of productivity can be chosen. In the authors' department, nCD/yr is the most useful measure of individual productivity because it measures an individual anesthesiologist's contribution to daily staffing, includes all clinical sites, is independent of nonanesthesia factors, and is easy to collect and determine.