What Is the Inpatient Cost of Hip Replacement? A Time-Driven Activity Based Costing Pilot Study in an Italian Public Hospital.

The emphasis on value-based payment models for primary total hip replacement (THA) results in a greater need for orthopaedic surgeons and hospitals to better understand actual costs and resource use. Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) is an innovative approach to measure expenses more accurately and address cost challenges. It estimates the quantity of time and the cost per unit of time of each resource (e.g., equipment and personnel) used across an episode of care. Our goal is to understand the true cost of a THA using the TDABC in an Italian public hospital and to comprehend how the adoption of this method might enhance the process of providing healthcare from an organizational and financial standpoint. During 2019, the main activities required for total hip replacement surgery, the operators involved, and the intraoperative consumables were identified. A process map was produced to identify the patient's concrete path during hospitalization and the length of stay was also recorded. The total inpatient cost of THA, net of all indirect costs normally included in a DRG-based reimbursement, was about EUR 6000. The observation of a total of 90 patients identified 2 main expense items: the prosthetic device alone represents 50.4% of the total cost, followed by the hospitalization, which constitutes 41.5%. TDABC has proven to be a precise method for determining the cost of the healthcare delivery process for THA, considering facilities, equipment, and staff employed. The process map made it possible to identify waste and redundancies. Surgeons should be aware that the choice of prosthetic device and that a lack of pre-planning for discharge can exponentially alter the hospital expenditure for a patient undergoing primary THA.

Mobile-Health based physical activities co-production policies towards cardiovascular diseases prevention: findings from a mixed-method systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the first cause of death globally, with huge costs worldwide. Most cases of CVD could be prevented by addressing behavioural risk factors. Among these factors, there is physical and amateur sports activity (PASA), which has a linear negative correlation with the risk of CVD. Nevertheless, attempts to encourage PASA, as exercise prescription programmes, achieved little impact at the community-wide level. A new frontier to promote PASA is represented by mobile health tools, such as exergaming, mobile device apps, health wearables, GPS/GIS and virtual reality. Nevertheless, there has not yet been any evident turnabout in patient active involvement towards CVD prevention, and inactivity rates are even increasing. This study aims at framing the state of the art of the literature about the use of m-health in supporting PASA, as a user-centric innovation strategy, to promote co-production health policies aiming at CVD prevention. METHODS: A mixed-method systematic literature review was conducted in the fields of health and healthcare management to highlight the intersections between PASA promotion and m-health tools in fostering co-produced services focused on CVD prevention. The literature has been extracted by the PRISMA logic application. The resulting sample has been first statistically described by a bibliometric approach and then further investigated with a conceptual analysis of the most relevant contributions, which have been qualitatively analysed. RESULTS: We identified 2,295 studies, on which we ran the bibliometric analysis. After narrowing the research around the co-production field, we found 10 papers relevant for the concept analysis of contents. The interest about the theme has increased in the last two decades, with a high prevalence of contributions from higher income countries and those with higher CVD incidence. The field of research is highly multi-disciplinary; most of documents belong to the medical field, with only a few interconnections with the technology and health policy spheres. Although the involvement of patients is recognized as fundamental for CVD prevention through PASA, co-design schemes are still lacking at the public management level. CONCLUSIONS: While the link between the subjects of motor activity, medicine and technology is clear, the involvement of citizens in the service delivery process is still underinvestigated, especially the issue concerning how "value co-creation" could effectively be applied by public agencies. In synthesis, the analysis of the role of co-production as a system coordination method, which is so important in designing and implementing preventive care, is still lacking.

Economic impact of remote monitoring on ordinary follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators as compared with conventional in-hospital visits. A single-center prospective and randomized study.

INTRODUCTION: Few data are available on actual follow-up costs of remote monitoring (RM) of implantable defibrillators (ICD). Our study aimed at assessing current direct costs of 1-year ICD follow-up based on RM compared with conventional quarterly in-hospital follow-ups. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (N = 233) with indications for ICD were consecutively recruited and randomized at implant to be followed up for 1 year with standard quarterly in-hospital visits or by RM with one in-hospital visit at 12 months, unless additional in-hospital visits were required due to specific patient conditions or RM alarms. Costs were calculated distinguishing between provider and patient costs, excluding RM device and service cost. The frequency of scheduled in-hospital visits was lower in the RM group than in the control arm. Follow-up required 47 min per patient/year in the RM arm versus 86 min in the control arm (p = 0.03) for involved physicians, generating cost estimates for the provider of USD 45 and USD 83 per patient/year, respectively. Costs for nurses were comparable. Overall, the costs associated with RM and standard follow-up were USD 103 ± 27 and 154 ± 21 per patient/year, respectively (p = 0.01). RM was cost-saving for the patients: USD 97 ± 121 per patient/year in the RM group versus 287 ± 160 per patient/year (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The time spent by the hospital staff was significantly reduced in the RM group. If the costs for the device and service are not charged to patients or the provider, patients could save about USD 190 per patient/year while the hospital could save USD 51 per patient/year.