Cost effectiveness of bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy.

BACKGROUND: Growing demand for risk-reducing surgery in individuals with inherited susceptibility to cancer leads to the question whether these procedures are cost effective for the executing hospitals. This study compared the clinical costs for bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) with and without different types of reconstruction, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), and their combinations with corresponding reimbursements in the statutory health-care system in Germany. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Real total costs of care for BRRM with and without reconstruction, RRSO, and their combinations were calculated as the sum of all personnel and technical costs. These costs calculated in a German University hospital were compared with the sum of all reimbursements in the German DRG-based health-care system. RESULTS: While sole RRSO, BRRM without reconstruction, and BRRM with secondary DIEP (deep inferior epigastric perforator)-reconstruction still result in a small benefit, we even found shortfalls for the hospital with all other prophylactic operations under consideration. The calculated deficits were especially high for BRRM with implant-based breast reconstruction and for combined operations when the risk reduction is achieved with a minimum of separate operations. CONCLUSIONS: Risk-reducing surgery in BRCA-mutation carriers is frequently not cost-covering for the executing hospitals in the German health-care system. Thus, appropriate concepts are required to ensure a nationwide care.

Should Breast Cancer Surgery Be Done in an Outpatient Setting?: Health Economics From the Perspective of Service Providers.

INTRODUCTION: The care of patients with breast cancer is extremely complex and requires interdisciplinary care in certified facilities. These specialized facilities provide numerous services without being correspondingly remunerated. The question whether breast cancer surgery should be performed in an outpatient setting to reduce costs is increasingly being debated. This study compares inpatient surgical treatment with a model of the same surgery performed on an outpatient basis to examine the potential financial impact. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A theoretical model was developed and the DRG fees for surgical interventions to treat primary breast cancer were calculated. A theoretical 1-day DRG was then calculated to permit comparisons with outpatient procedures. The costs of outpatient surgery were calculated based on the remuneration rates of the AOP (Outpatient Surgery) Contract and the EBM (Uniform Assessment Scale) and compared to the costs of the 1-day DRG. RESULTS: The DRG fee for both breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy is higher than the fee paid in the context of the EBM system, although the same procedures were carried out in both systems. If a hospital were to carry out breast-conserving surgery as an outpatient procedure, the fee would be € 1313.81; depending on the type of surgery, the hospital would therefore only receive between 39.20% and 52.82% of the DRG fee. This was the case even for a 1-day treatment. Compared to the real DRG fees the difference would be even more striking. CONCLUSION: Carrying out breast cancer surgery as an outpatient procedure would result in a significant shortfall of revenues. Additional services from certified centers, such as the interdisciplinary planning of treatment, psycho-oncological and social-medical care with the involvement of relatives, detailed documentation, etc., which are currently provided without surcharge or adequate remuneration, could no longer be maintained. The quality of processes and excellent results which have been achieved and ultimately the care given by certified facilities would be significantly at risk.

Cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing surgeries in preventing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Risk-reducing surgeries are a feasible option for mitigating the risk in individuals with inherited susceptibility to cancer, but are the procedures cost-effective in the current health-care system in Germany? This study compared the health-care costs for bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) and risk-reducing (bilateral) salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) with cancer treatment costs that could potentially be prevented. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The analysis is based on interdisciplinary consultations with individuals with a high familial risk for breast and ovarian cancer at the University Breast Center for Franconia (Germany) between 2009 and 2013 (370 consultations; 44 patients with BRCA1 mutations and 26 with BRCA2 mutations). Health-care costs for risk-reducing surgeries in BRCA mutation carriers were calculated as reimbursements in the German diagnosis-related groups (DRG) hospital pricing system. These costs for the health-care system were compared with the potential cancer treatment costs that could possibly be prevented by risk-reducing surgeries. RESULTS: Long-term health-care costs can be reduced by risk-reducing surgeries after genetic testing in BRCA mutation carriers. The health-care system in Germany would have saved € 136,295 if BRRM had been performed and € 791,653 if RRSO had been performed before the development of cancer in only 50% of the 70 mutation carriers seen in our center. Moreover, in patients with combined RRSO and BRRM (without breast reconstruction), one further life-year for a 40-year-old BRCA mutation carrier would cost € 2,183. CONCLUSION: Intensive care, including risk-reducing surgeries in BRCA mutation carriers, is cost-effective from the point of view of the health-care system in Germany.

Health utilities in gynecological oncology and mastology in Germany.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cost increases in the healthcare system are leading to a need to distribute financial resources in accordance with the value of each service performed. Health-economic decision-making models can support these decisions. Due to the previous unavailability of health utilities in Germany (scored states of health as a basis for calculating quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) for women undergoing treatment, international data are often used for such models. However, these may widely deviate from the values for a woman actually living in Germany. It is, therefore, necessary to collect and analyze health utilities in Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a questionnaire survey, health utilities were collected, along with data for a healthy control group, for 580 female patients receiving treatment in the fields of mastology and gynecological oncology using a German version of the EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D) and a visual analogue scale (VAS). Data were also collected for the patients' medical history, tumor disease, and treatment. RESULTS: Significant differences with regard to quality of life were measured in relation to the individual tumor entities and in comparison to the controls. Apart from the healthy control group, patients with breast or cervical carcinoma had the best quality of life. In patients with recurrent and metastatic disease, those with breast carcinoma experienced the greatest impairment of their quality of life. According to current treatment, the most important impairment of life quality occurred in patients under radiotherapy and after surgical treatment. There are significant differences from the health utilities recorded for other countries - for example, the state of health declines much more markedly in patients with metastatic disease among American women with breast carcinoma than among German women, in whom recurrent disease and a first diagnosis of metastasis were comparable. Overall, the VAS was able to distinguish more adequately than the EQ-5D questionnaire between the different situations and impairments resulting from diagnosis and therapy. CONCLUSION: Health utilities are now, for the first time, available for further health-economics analyses in the field of gynecological oncology and mastology for women living in Germany. Important differences in these utilities from those of other countries are evident.

Financing of certified centers: a willingness-to-pay analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Although care in certified breast centers is now established throughout Germany, numerous services are still not being reimbursed. This also affects other centers involved in the specialty of gynecology such as gynecological cancer centers, perinatal centers, and endometriosis centers. Although a certified center is entitled to charge additional fees, these are in most cases not reimbursed. Calculation of additional costs is limited by the fact that data from the Institute for the Hospital Reimbursement System (Institut für das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus, InEK) do not reflect interdisciplinary services and procedures. For decision-makers, society's willingness to pay is an important factor in guiding decisions on the basis of social priorities. A hypothetical maximum willingness to pay can be calculated using a willingness-to-pay analysis, making it possible to identify deficiencies in the arbitrary setting of health budgets at the macro-level. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicenter study conducted between November 2009 and December 2010, 2,469 patients at a university hospital and at a non-university hospital were asked about the extent of their awareness of certified centers, the influence of centers on hospital presentation, and about personal attitudes toward quality-oriented reimbursement. A subjective assessment of possible additional charges was calculated using a willingness-to-pay analysis. RESULTS: In the overall group, 53.4 % of the patients were aware of what a certified center is and 27.4 % had specific information (obstetrics 40.0/32.3 %; mastology 66.8/23.2 %; gynecological oncology 54.7/27.3 %; P < 0.001). For 43.8 %, a certified center was one reason or the major reason for presentation (obstetrics 26.2 %; mastology 66.8 %; gynecological oncology 46.6 %; P < 0.001). A total of 72.6 % were in favor of quality-oriented reimbursement and 69.7 % were in favor of an additional charge for a certified center amounting to €538.56 (mastology €643.65, obstetrics €474.67, gynecological oncology €532.47). In all, 33.9 % would accept an increase in health-insurance fees (averaging 0.3865 %), and 28.3 % were in favor of reduced remuneration for non-certified centers. CONCLUSIONS: The existence of certified centers is being increasingly recognized by patients. Additional charges for certified centers are generally supported. There is therefore a clear demand for them-from patients as well. This may be useful when negotiations are being conducted.

Assessment of mammographic density before and after first full-term pregnancy.

Mammographic density (MD) has consistently been found as one of the strongest breast cancer risk factors. In our study, both qualitative and quantitative density measurements were performed in a hospital-based group of premenopausal women before and after first full-term pregnancy providing an opportunity for direct evaluation of the effects of one pregnancy on MD. Mammograms were obtained from 23 women before and after first full-term pregnancy and from 28 nulliparous controls. MD was determined by a standard qualitative assessment method using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, and a quantitative computer-based threshold method (0-100%). The mean age at mammography before and after pregnancy was 31 and 34 years, respectively, with a mean difference of 40 months between mammographies. The quantitative density assessment showed a significant reduction in relative MD after pregnancy of 12 percentage points (8.6-15.4), compared with 3.1 (0.0-6.2) in the nulliparous control group (P<0.001). A reduction in MD of more than 10% was seen in 52% of the patients, compared with 18% of the controls. The qualitative density assessment confirmed a reduction in MD after pregnancy by one Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category (P=0.02). This longitudinal study showed that MD can be influenced by one full-term pregnancy. This effect was seen with both quantitative and qualitative assessment methods. It may be hypothesized that breast cancer risk reduction associated with pregnancy is mediated through a direct reduction of MD, and MD assessment might be incorporated in individualizing risk assessment and prevention.

Are Certified Breast Centers Cost-Effective?

The German health care system has entered an era of specialist centers and certification. Hospitals are required to introduce quality management with external monitoring, refining and improving their quality of treatment. These statutory requirements can only be met through specialization, centralization, and establishing centers and networks with internal and external interdisciplinary collaboration. The breast centers certified according to the criteria of the German Cancer Society (DKG) and German Society for Mastology (DGS) are pioneers here. Simultaneously, there are increasing demands for more cost-effective medical services despite limited resources - making economic analysis of health care provision necessary. Few economic studies of the centers and certification system have been conducted, however. General long-term quality data, particularly for results, are not yet available from certified breast centers. At present, a certified breast center is not itself a proven independent prognostic parameter for treatment results. However, the individual criteria required for breast center certification show a significant positive influence on clinical efficacy. Certified breast centers involve substantial extra costs that are not reimbursed by funding bodies, so the slightest potential benefit for patients from certified centers already appears cost-effective. When the actual costs, currently usually subsidized by other departments, are considered, it is unclear whether certified breast centers remain cost-effective.