Evaluation of Private Payer and Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs Associated With the Surgical Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the financial burden of various surgical interventions for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: We identified commercially insured men with a diagnosis of BPH who underwent a procedure of interest (simple prostatectomy (SP), transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), photovaporization of the prostate (PVP), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), or water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT)) between 2015 and 2021 with the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Primary outcome was total health care costs (THC) which included both patient out-of-pocket (OOP) and health plan paid costs for the index procedure and combined follow-up years 1-5. A generalized linear model was used to estimate adjusted costs controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics. Patients undergoing WVTT were excluded from extended follow-up analyses due to limited data. RESULTS: Among 25,407 patients with BPH, 10,117 (40%) underwent TURP, 6353 (25%) underwent PUL, 5411 (21%) underwent PVP, 1319 (5%) underwent SP, 1243 (5%) underwent WVTT, and 964 (4%) underwent HoLEP. Index procedure costs varied significantly with WVTT being the least costly [THC: $2637 (95% confidence interval (CI): $2513-$2761)], and SP being the costliest [THC: $14,423 (95% CI: $12,772-$16,075)]. For aggregate index and 5-year follow-up costs, HoLEP ($31,926 [95% CI: $29,704-$34,148]) was the least costly and PUL ($36,596 [95% CI: $35,369-37,823]) was the costliest. CONCLUSION: BPH surgical treatment is associated with significant system-level health care costs. The level of impact varies between procedures. Minimally invasive options, such as WVTT, may offer initial cost reductions; however, HoLEP and SP are associated with lower follow-up costs.

Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Surgical Treatment Options for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions for BPH. METHODS: Using a Markov model, a cost-utility analysis was performed comparing HoLEP, B-TURP, WVTT, and PUL for prostate size <80cc (index patient 1) and HoLEP and SP for prostate size >80cc (index patient 2). Model probabilities and utility values were drawn from the literature. Analysis was performed at a 5-year time horizon with extrapolation to a lifetime horizon. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), 2021 Medicare costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: At 5 years, costs per patient for index patient 1 were $3292 (WVTT), $6532 (HoLEP), $6670 (B-TURP), and $10,257 (PUL). HoLEP resulted in the highest QALYs (4.66), followed by B-TURP (4.60), PUL (4.38), and WVTT (4.38). This translated to HoLEP being most cost-effective (ICER $11,847). For index patient 2, HoLEP was less costly ($6,585 vs $15,404) and more effective (4.654 vs 4.650) relative to SP. On sensitivity analysis for index patient 1, B-TURP became most cost-effective if cost of HoLEP increased two-fold or chronic stress incontinence following HoLEP increased ten-fold. When follow-up time was varied, WVTT was preferred at very short follow up (<1 year), and HoLEP became more strongly preferred with longer follow up. CONCLUSION: At 5 years follow up, HoLEP is a cost-effective surgical treatment for BPH- independent of gland size.