Impact of health insurance status on surgical site infection incidence: A prospective cohort study.

Health insurance status may affect the risk for surgical site infection (SSI). A large prospective cohort study in a Swiss tertiary-care hospital did not find evidence of a difference in SSI risk in individuals with basic versus semiprivate or private insurance in a setting with universal health insurance coverage.

An early analysis of the cost-effectiveness of a diagnostic classifier for risk stratification of haematuria patients (DCRSHP) compared to flexible cystoscopy in the diagnosis of bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Urothelial bladder cancer (UBC) is the 5th most common cancer in Western societies. The most common symptom of UBC is haematuria. Cystoscopy the gold standard for UBC detection, allows direct observation of the bladder, but is expensive, invasive, and uncomfortable. This study examines whether an alternative new urine-based diagnostic test, the DCRSHP, is cost-effective as a triage diagnostic tool compared to flexible cystoscopy in the diagnosis of UBC in haematuria patients. METHODS: A model-based cost-utility analysis using cost per quality adjusted life year and life year gained, parameterised with secondary data sources. RESULTS: If the DCRSHP is targeted at haematuria patients at lower risk of having bladder cancer e.g. younger patients, non-smokers, then it can be priced as high as £620, and be both effective and cost-effective. Sensitivity analysis found that DCRSHP is approximately 80% likely to be cost-effective across all willingness to pay values (for a QALY) and prevalence estimates. CONCLUSION: This analysis shows the potential for a non-invasive test to be added to the diagnostic pathway for haematuria patients suspected of having UBC. If the DCRSHP is applied targeting haematuria patients at low risk of UBC, then it has the potential to be both effective and cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness and efficiency of shockwave lithotripsy vs flexible ureteroscopic holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole renal calculi.

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Stone management economics is a complex issue. FURS and SWL are recognised treatment option for lower pole kidney stones. There are paucity of data comparing cost implication and effectiveness of both treatment options. Both treatment modalities are equally efficacious. FURS incurred greater cost burden compared to SWL in the UK setting. In the present economic circumstance, clinicians should also consider cost-impact, patient's preference and specific clinical indication when counselling patients for treatment. OBJECTIVE: • To compare the cost-effectiveness and outcome efficiency of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) vs intracorporeal flexible ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (FURS) for lower pole renal calculi ≤20 mm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • Patients who had treatment for their radio-opaque lower pole renal calculi were categorized into SWL and FURS group. • The primary outcomes compared were: clinical success, stone-free, retreatment and additional procedure rate, and perceived and actual costs. • Clinical success was defined as stone-free status or asymptomatic insignificant residual fragments <3 mm. • Perceived cost was defined as the cost of procedure alone, and the actual cost included the cost of additional procedures as well as the overhead costs to result in clinical success. RESULTS: • The FURS (n= 37) and SWL (n= 51) group were comparable with respect to sex, age, stone size and the presence of ureteric stent. • The final treatment success rate (100% vs 100%), stone-free rate (64.9% vs 58.8%), retreatment rate (16.2% vs 21.6%) and auxillary procedure rate (21.6% vs 7.8%) did not differ significantly. • The mean perceived cost of each FURS and SWL procedure was similar (£249 vs £292, respectively); however, when all other costs were considered, the FURS group was significantly more costly (£2602 vs £426, P= 0.000; Mann-Whitney U-test). CONCLUSION: • SWL was efficacious and cost-effective for the treatment of lower pole renal calculi ≤20 mm.