Cost impact of intrathecal polyanalgesia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost impact of dose escalation with intrathecal drug therapy and polyanalgesic admixtures and determine if increased cost is justified by improved pain control. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 110 patients, 80 patients with chronic non-cancer pain (Group A) and 30 with spasticity (Group B). Mean follow-up period was 73 months (Group A) and 112 months (Group B). Parameters assessed were: demographics, drug usage, drug costs, and pain/spasticity control. Two models were developed: 1) price model--estimated drug price per refill; 2) cost model--predicts costs/day by therapy types and four common pathologies over 5 years. RESULTS: All patients started on monotherapy with 63 continuing (Group A: 39; Group B: 24), with 47 (Group A: 41; Group B: 6) requiring dual-drug therapy of which 11 (Group A: 10; Group B: 1) progressed to triple-drug admixtures. After starting polyanalgesic regimes, patients were able to recapture lost pain control. Cost escalation in Group A at 5 years, as demonstrated by cost modeling, was 191%, 107%, and 89% for mono-, dual-, or triple-drug therapy, respectively. For Group B, most patients stayed in monotherapy and the 5-year increase was 104%. The difference in cost between monotherapy and dual therapy for Group A was $1.97/day (baseline) to $3.28/day (5th year) and between dual and triple therapy from $2.55/day (baseline) to $4.30/day (5th year). CONCLUSIONS: Polyanalgesia, while more costly, is justified based on its effectiveness in restoring pain control. Superior results are achieved when polyanalgesia is initiated early. Cost modeling enabled price prediction for the purposes of developing program budgets.

Cost effectiveness of intrathecal drug therapy in management of chronic nonmalignant pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of intrathecal drug therapy (IDT) compared with conventional medical management (CMM) for patients with refractory chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of IDT versus CMM from the perspective of a Canadian provincial Ministry of Health using data from our pain clinic. The model followed costs and outcomes in 6-month cycles. Health effects were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Resources use included drugs, physician visits, laboratory tests, scans, and hospitalizations. Unit costs were gathered from public sources and were expressed in 2011 Canadian dollars. Costs and effects were evaluated over a time horizon of 10 years and discounted at 5% per annum after the first year. Cost effectiveness was identified by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (50,000 Monte Carlo iterations). RESULTS: Over 10 years, total costs were $61,442 for IDT and $48,408 for CMM. Thus, the incremental effectiveness of IDT was 1.1508 QALYs at an incremental cost of $13,034, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $11,326/QALY gained. The probability of IDT providing a cost-effective alternative to CMM was 50% and 84% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $14,200 and $20,000/QALY, respectively. The results were most sensitive to the cost of CMM, the probability of reaching an optimal health state with dual-drug IDT, and the effectiveness of CMM therapy. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were robust to plausible variations in model costs and effectiveness inputs. DISCUSSION: IDT is cost effective compared with CMM in the management of chronic noncancer pain.

Financial impact of spinal cord stimulation on the healthcare budget: a comparative analysis of costs in Canada and the United States.

OBJECT: Many institutions with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) programs fail to realize that besides the initial implantation cost, budgetary allocation must be made to address annual maintenance costs as well as complications as they arise. Complications remain the major contributing factor to the overall expense of SCS. The authors present a formula that, when applied, provides a realistic representation of the actual costs necessary to implant and maintain SCS systems in Canada and the US. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective analysis of 197 cases involving SCS (161 implanted and 36 failed trial stimulations) between 1995 and 2006. The cost of patient workup, initial implantation, annual maintenance, and resources necessary to resolve complications were assessed for each case and a unit cost applied. The total cost allocated for each case was determined by summing across healthcare resource headings. Using the same parameters, the unit cost was calculated in both Canadian (CAD) and US dollars (USD) at 2007 prices. RESULTS: The cost of implanting a SCS system in Canada is $21,595 (CAD), in US Medicare $32,882 (USD), and in US Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) $57,896 (USD). The annual maintenance cost of an uncomplicated case in Canada is $3539 (CAD), in US Medicare $5071 (USD), and in BCBS $7277 (USD). The mean cost of a complication was $5191 in Canada (range $136-18,837 [CAD]). In comparison, in the US the figures were $9649 (range $381-28,495) for Medicare and $21,390 (range $573-54,547) for BCBS (both USD). Using these calculations a formula was derived as follows: the annual maintenance cost (a) was added to the average annual cost per complication per patient implanted (b); the sum was then divided by the implantation cost (c); and the result was multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage (a + b / c x 100). To make this budgetary cap universally applicable, the results from the application of the formula were averaged, resulting in an 18% premium. CONCLUSIONS: For budgeting purposes the institution should first calculate the initial implantation costs that then can be "grossed up" by 18% per annum. This amount of 18% should be in addition to the implantation costs for the individual institution for new patients, as well as for each actively managed patient. This resulting amount will cover the costs associated with annual maintenance and complications for every actively managed patient. As the initial cost of implantation in any country reflects their current economics, the formula provided will be applicable to all implanters and policy makers alike.