Costs and Budget Impact of Collagen-Based Vascular Closure Device Versus Manual Compression Following Peripheral Endovascular Procedures.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the annual costs and budget impact of using a vascular closure device to achieve hemostasis following femoral access endovascular procedures in England, compared with manual compression. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed in Microsoft® Excel, based on the estimated number of peripheral endovascular procedures eligible for day-case management performed annually by the National Health Service in England. The clinical effectiveness of vascular closure devices was captured based on the requirement for inpatient stays and the incidence of complications. Data for endovascular procedures, time to hemostasis, length of hospital stay, and complications were collected from public sources and the published literature. There were no patients involved in this study. Model outcomes are reported as estimated number of bed days and annual costs to the National Health Service for all peripheral endovascular procedures in England, and the average cost per procedure. The robustness of the model was tested in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The model estimated savings for the National Health Service of up to £4.5 million annually if vascular closure devices were used in every procedure instead of manual compression. The model estimated an average cost saving of £176 per procedure for vascular closure devices over manual compression, primarily due to fewer inpatient stays. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the proportion of day-case procedures for vascular closure devices and manual compression was a key driver of costs and savings. CONCLUSIONS: The use of vascular closure devices for achieving hemostasis after peripheral endovascular procedures may be associated with lower resource use and cost burden, compared with manual compression, based on shorter time to hemostasis and ambulation and an increased likelihood of a day-case procedure.

Early decision-analytic modeling - a case study on vascular closure devices.

BACKGROUND: As economic considerations become more important in healthcare reimbursement, decisions about the further development of medical innovations need to take into account not only medical need and potential clinical effectiveness, but also cost-effectiveness. Already early in the innovation process economic evaluations can support decisions on development in specific indications or patient groups by anticipating future reimbursement and implementation decisions. One potential concept for early assessment is value-based pricing. METHODS: The objective is to assess the feasibility of value-based pricing and product design for a hypothetical vascular closure device in the pre-clinical stage which aims at decreasing bleeding events. A deterministic decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of established vascular closure devices from the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance system. To identify early benchmarks for pricing and product design, three strategies of determining the product's value are explored: 1) savings from complications avoided by the new device; 2) valuation of the avoided complications based on an assumed willingness-to-pay-threshold (the efficiency frontier approach); 3) value associated with modifying the care pathways within which the device would be applied. RESULTS: Use of established vascular closure devices is dominated by manual compression. The hypothetical vascular closure device reduces overall complication rates at higher costs than manual compression. Maximum cost savings of only about €4 per catheterization could be realized by applying the hypothetical device. Extrapolation of an efficiency frontier is only possible for one subgroup where vascular closure devices are not a dominated strategy. Modifying care in terms of same-day discharge of patients treated with vascular closure devices could result in cost savings of €400-600 per catheterization. CONCLUSIONS: It was partially feasible to calculate value-based prices for the novel closure device which can be used to inform product design. However, modifying the care pathway may generate much more value from the payers' perspective than modifying the device per se. Manufacturers should thus explore the feasibility of combining reimbursement of their product with arrangements that make same-day discharge attractive also for hospitals. Due to the early nature of the product, the results are afflicted with substantial uncertainty.