A Health Economic Analysis Exploring the Cost Consequence of Using a Surgical Site Infection Prevention Bundle for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in Germany.

Background: According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, surgical site infections (SSIs) constitute over 50% of all hospital-acquired infections. Reducing SSIs can enhance healthcare efficiency. Objective: This study explores the cost consequences of implementing an SSI prevention bundle (SPB) in total hip and knee arthroplasty (THKA). Methods: A health-economic model followed a cohort of THKA patients from admission to 90 days postdischarge. The perioperative process was modeled using a decision tree, and postoperative recovery and potential SSI evaluated using a Markov model. The model reflects the hospital payers' perspective in Germany. The SPB includes antimicrobial incision drapes, patient warming, and negative pressure wound therapy in high-risk patients. SSI reduction associated with these interventions was sourced from published meta-analyses. An effectiveness factor of 70% was introduced to account for potential overlap of effectiveness when interventions are used in combination. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of model outcomes. Results: The cost with the SPB was €4274.32 per patient, €98.27, or 2.25%, lower than that of the standard of care (€4372.59). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings, indicating a median saving of 2.22% (95% credible interval: 1.00%-3.79%]). The SPB also reduced inpatient SSI incidence from 2.96% to 0.91%. The break-even point for the SPB was found when the standard of care had an SSI incidence of 0.938%. Major cost drivers were the cost of inpatient SSI care, general ward, and operating room, and the increased risk of an SSI associated with unintended, intraoperative hypothermia. Varying the effectiveness factor from 10% to 130% did not substantially impact model outcomes. Conclusions: Introducing the SPB is expected to reduce care costs if the inpatient SSI rate (superficial and deep combined) in THKA procedures exceeds 1%. Research into how bundles of measures perform together is required to further inform the results of this computational analysis.

An Economic Model to Establish the Costs Associated With Routes to Presentation for Patients With Multiple Myeloma in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with myeloma often face significant diagnostic delay, with up to one-third of UK patients diagnosed after an emergency presentation (EP). Compared with other routes, patients presenting as an emergency have more advanced disease, increased complications, and poorer prognosis. METHODS: An economic model was developed using a decision-tree framework and lifetime time horizon to estimate costs related to different presentation routes (EP, general practitioner [GP] 2-week wait, GP urgent, GP routine, and consultant to consultant) for UK patients diagnosed as having myeloma. After diagnosis, patients received one of 3 first-line management options (observation, active treatment, or end-of-life care). Inputs were derived from UK health technology assessments and targeted literature reviews, or based on authors' clinical experience where data were unavailable. Active treatment, complication, and end-of-life care costs were included. RESULTS: The average per-patient cost of treating myeloma (across all routes) was estimated at £146 261. The average per-patient cost associated with EP (£152 677) was the highest; differences were minimal compared with GP 2-week wait (£149 631) and consultant to consultant (£147 237). GP urgent (£140 025) and GP routine (£130 212) were associated with marginally lower costs. Complication (£42 252) and end-of-life care (£11 273) costs were numerically higher for EP than other routes (£25 021-£38 170 and £9772-£10 458, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: An economic benefit may be associated with earlier diagnosis, gained via reduced complication and end-of-life care costs. Strategies to expedite myeloma diagnosis and minimize EPs have the potential to improve patient outcomes and may result in long-term savings that could offset any upfront costs associated with their implementation.

Economic and clinical impact of a novel, light-based, at-home antiviral treatment on mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Antiviral treatments for early intervention in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 are needed as a complement to vaccination. We sought to estimate the impact on COVID-19 cases, deaths, and direct healthcare costs over 12 months following introduction of a novel, antiviral treatment, RD-X19, a light-based, at-home intervention designed for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection. METHODS: A time-dependent, state transition (semi-Markov) cohort model was developed to simulate infection progression in individuals with COVID-19 in 3 US states with varying levels of vaccine uptake (Alabama, North Carolina, and Massachusetts) and at the national level between 1 June 2020 and 31 May 2021. The hypothetical cohort of patients entering the model progressed through subsequent health states after infection. Costs were assigned to each health state. Number of infections/vaccinations per day were incorporated into the model. Simulations were run to estimate outcomes (cases by severity, deaths, and direct healthcare costs) at various levels of adoption of RD-X19 (5%, 10%, 25%) in eligible infected individuals at the state and national levels and across three levels of clinical benefit based on the results from an early feasibility study of RD-X19. The clinical benefit reflects a decline in the duration of symptomatic disease by 1.2, 2.4 (base case), and 3.6 days. RESULTS: In the base case analysis with 10% adoption, simulated infections/deaths/direct healthcare costs were reduced by 10,059/275/$69 million in Alabama, 21,092/545/$135 million in North Carolina, and 16,670/415/$102 million in Massachusetts over 12 months. At the national level, 10% adoption reduced total infections/deaths/direct healthcare costs by 686,722/17,748/$4.41 billion. CONCLUSION: At-home, antiviral treatment with RD-X19 or other interventions with similar efficacy that decrease both symptomatic days and transmission probabilities can be used in concert with vaccines to reduce COVID-19 cases, deaths, and direct healthcare costs.

Perspective: follow the money: the implications of medical schools' funds flow models.

Medical schools conduct research, provide clinical care, and educate future physicians and scientists. Each school has its own unique mix of revenue sources and expense sharing among the medical school, faculty practice plan(s), parent university, and affiliated hospital(s). Despite these differences, revenues from clinical care subsidize the money-losing research and education missions at every medical school.In this perspective, the authors discuss the flow of funds among a medical school, its faculty practice plan(s), parent university, and affiliated hospital(s). They summarize where medical school revenues come from, how revenues and expenses flow within a medical school and between a medical school and its partners, and why understanding this process is crucial to leading and managing such an enterprise. They conclude with recommendations for medical schools to consider in developing funds flow models that meet their individual needs and circumstances: (1) understand economic drivers, (2) reward desired behaviors, (3) enable every unit to generate a positive margin, (4) communicate budget priorities, financial performance, and the use of institutional resources, and (5) establish principles for sharing resources and allocating expenses among entities within the institution.Medical schools should develop funds flow models that are transparent, aligned with their strategic priorities, and reward the behaviors necessary to produce effective collaboration within and across mission areas.

Exploring emergency physician-hospitalist handoff interactions: development of the Handoff Communication Assessment.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We develop and evaluate the Handoff Communication Assessment, using actual handoffs of patient transfers from emergency department to inpatient care. METHODS: This was an observational qualitative study. We derived a Handoff Communication Assessment tool, using categories from discourse coding described in physician-patient communication, previous handoff research in medicine, health communication, and health systems engineering and pilot data from 3 physician-hospitalist handoffs. The resulting tool consists of 2 typologies, content and language form. We applied the tool to a convenience sample of 15 emergency physician-to-hospitalist handoffs occurring at a community teaching hospital. Using discourse analysis, we assigned utterances into categories and determined the frequency of utterances in each category and by physician role. RESULTS: The tool contains 11 content categories reflecting topics of patient presentation, assessment, and professional environment and 11 language form categories representing information-seeking, information-giving, and information-verifying behaviors. The Handoff Communication Assessment showed good interrater reliability for content (kappa=0.71) and language form (kappa=0.84). We analyzed 742 utterances, which provided the following preliminary findings: emergency physicians talked more during handoffs (67.7% of all utterances) compared with hospitalists (32.3% of all utterances). Content focused on patient presentation (43.6%), professional environment (36%), and assessment (20.3%). Form was mostly information-giving (90.7%) with periodic information-seeking utterances (8.8%) and rarely information-verifying utterances (0.4%). Questions accounted for less than 10% of all utterances. CONCLUSION: We were able to develop and use the Handoff Communication Assessment to analyze content and structure of handoff communication between emergency physicians and hospitalists at a single center. In this preliminary application of the tool, we found that emergency physician-to-hospitalist handoffs primarily consist of information giving and are not geared toward question-and-answer events. This critical exchange may benefit from ongoing analysis and reformulation.