Cost-Effectiveness of Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy and Physical Therapy for Degenerative Meniscal Tear.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for concomitant meniscal tear and knee osteoarthritis (OA) involving arthroscopic partial meniscectomy surgery and physical therapy (PT). METHODS: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model, a validated Monte Carlo microsimulation, to compare three strategies, 1) PT-only, 2) immediate surgery, and 3) PT + optional surgery, for participants whose pain persists following initial PT. We modeled a cohort with baseline meniscal tear, OA, and demographics from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus PT. We estimated risks and costs of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy complications and accounted for heightened OA progression post surgery using published data. We estimated surgery use rates and treatment efficacies using MeTeOR data. We considered a 5-year time horizon, discounted costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) 3% per year and conducted sensitivity analyses. We report incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Relative to PT-only, PT + optional surgery added 0.0651 QALY and $2,010 over 5 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $30,900 per QALY). Relative to PT + optional surgery, immediate surgery added 0.0065 QALY and $3080 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $473,800 per QALY). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were sensitive to optional surgery efficacy in the PT + optional surgery strategy. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, PT + optional surgery was cost-effective in 51% of simulations at willingness-to-pay thresholds of both $50,000 per QALY and $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: First-line arthroscopic partial meniscectomy has a prohibitively high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Under base case assumptions, second-line arthroscopic partial meniscectomy offered to participants with persistent pain following initial PT is cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds between $31,000 and $473,000 per QALY. Our analyses suggest that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy can be a high-value treatment option for patients with meniscal tear and OA when performed following an initial PT course and should remain a covered treatment option.

Defining the Value of Future Research to Identify the Preferred Treatment of Meniscal Tear in the Presence of Knee Osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is extensively used to relieve pain in patients with symptomatic meniscal tear (MT) and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Recent studies have failed to show the superiority of APM compared to other treatments. We aim to examine whether existing evidence is sufficient to reject use of APM as a cost-effective treatment for MT+OA. METHODS: We built a patient-level microsimulation using Monte Carlo methods and evaluated three strategies: Physical therapy ('PT') alone; PT followed by APM if subjects continued to experience pain ('Delayed APM'); and 'Immediate APM'. Our subject population was US adults with symptomatic MT and knee OA over a 10 year time horizon. We assessed treatment outcomes using societal costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incorporating productivity costs as a sensitivity analysis. We also conducted a value-of-information analysis using probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Calculated ICERs were estimated to be $12,900/QALY for Delayed APM as compared to PT and $103,200/QALY for Immediate APM as compared to Delayed APM. In sensitivity analyses, inclusion of time costs made Delayed APM cost-saving as compared to PT. Improving efficacy of Delayed APM led to higher incremental costs and lower incremental effectiveness of Immediate APM in comparison to Delayed APM. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that PT had 3.0% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY. Delayed APM was cost effective 57.7% of the time at WTP = $50,000/QALY and 50.2% at WTP = $100,000/QALY. The probability of Immediate APM being cost-effective did not exceed 50% unless WTP exceeded $103,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that current cost-effectiveness evidence does not support unqualified rejection of either Immediate or Delayed APM for the treatment of MT+OA. The amount to which society would be willing to pay for additional information on treatment outcomes greatly exceeds the cost of conducting another randomized controlled trial on APM.

Home health and home care in Massachusetts after the Balanced Budget Act of 1997: implications of cost containment pressures for service authorizations.

This paper explores the response of the Massachusetts state-funded home care program for the elderly when its clients encountered barriers to the receipt of home health services because of HMO enrollment and the implementation of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Clients of three regional case management agencies serving the Massachusetts state home care program whose home care services were interrupted because of hospitalization between January 1 and April 30, 1999 and whose services were resumed after they returned home were studied. Detailed data are reported that show how the long-term personal assistance services provided through the state program were often complemented by temporary home health services after elders returned home. The multivariate analysis revealed that the authorization of state-funded personal care services was keyed to the status of home health aide services. After hospitalization, the presence of a home health aide reduced the likelihood of authorization of personal care. At final assessment, the situation was reversed, that is, the withdrawal of a home health aide increased the likelihood of authorization of personal care. The findings suggest that more restrictive Medicare reimbursement policies for home health services led to greater state expenditures for personal care services. In other words, less generous Medicare financing shifted a greater portion of the burden of financing home care to the state of Massachusetts. These findings raise important policy questions about the balance of responsibility between the federal government and states to provide financing of home care services for the elderly.