Employer-perspective cost comparison of surgical treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding.

Aim: To estimate direct and indirect costs of surgical treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) from a self-insured employer's perspective. Methods: Employer-sponsored insurance claims data were analyzed to estimate costs owing to absence and short-term disability 1 year following global endometrial ablation (GEA), outpatient hysterectomy (OPH) and inpatient hysterectomy (IPH). Results: Costs for women who had GEA are substantially less than costs for women who had either OPH or IPH, with the difference ranging from approximately $7700 to approximately $10,000 for direct costs and approximately $4200 to approximately $4600 for indirect costs. Women who had GEA missed 21.8-24.0 fewer works days. Conclusion: Study results suggest lower healthcare costs associated with GEA versus OPH or IPH from a self-insured employer perspective.

Economic Evaluation of Global Endometrial Ablation Versus Inpatient and Outpatient Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives.

Every year, abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) exacts a heavy toll on women's health and leads to high costs for the US health care system. The literature shows that endometrial ablation results in fewer complications, shorter recovery and lower costs than more commonly performed hysterectomy procedures. The objective of this study was to model clinical-economic outcomes, budget impact, and cost-effectiveness of global endometrial ablation (GEA) versus outpatient hysterectomy (OPH) and inpatient hysterectomy (IPH) procedures. A decision tree, state-transition (semi-Markov) economic model was developed to simulate 3 hypothetical cohorts of women who received surgical treatment for AUB (GEA, OPH, and IPH) over 1, 2, and 3 years to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes for GEA vs. OPH and GEA vs. IPH. Two versions of the model were created to reflect both commercial health care payer and US Medicaid perspectives, and analyses were conducted for both payer types. Total health care costs in the first year after GEA were substantially lower compared with those for IPH and OPH. Budget impact analysis results showed that increasing GEA utilization yields total annual cost savings of about $906,000 for a million-member commercial health plan and about $152,000 in cost savings for a typical-sized state Medicaid plan with 1.4 million members. Cost-effectiveness analysis results for both perspectives showed GEA as economically dominant (conferring greater benefit at lower cost) over both OPH and IPH in the 1-year commercial scenario. This study demonstrates that, for some patients, GEA may prove to be a safe, uterus-sparing, cost-effective alternative to OPH and IPH for the surgical treatment of AUB.