Assessment of costs and benefits of management of gestational diabetes mellitus.

The purpose of this pilot study was to perform a cost-identification analysis of care for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) by determining the direct costs of the diagnostic procedures and treatment used for the outpatient management of GDM (program input costs) and the direct costs of maternal hospitalization after diagnosis of GDM, delivery of the baby, and newborn care (outcome costs). Reimbursed average charges in the Northern California (NoCal) managed care market in 1996 were used to establish the direct costs, and the direct costs were then applied to the elements of care and pregnancy outcomes of three GDM management programs in NoCal, Southern California (SoCal), and New England (NewEng), using prospectively collected data. Reimbursed amounts for the detailed elements of GDM management (program input costs) are presented in the categories of diagnosis of GDM, diabetes treatment supplies, doctor's office visits, office visits to ancillary providers, and fetal surveillance. Program input costs per patient were $817 for diet-treated and $1,838 for insulin-treated women in NoCal, and were estimated to be $882 for diet-treated and $1,425 for insulin-treated women in NewEng. Program input costs for women requiring insulin treatment who were randomized to premeal or postprandial blood glucose testing (N Engl J Med 333:1237, 1995) in SoCal were estimated to be $3,596 per patient for the premeal group and $3,770 per patient for the postprandial group. Reimbursed amounts for health care expenditures related to pregnancy outcomes are detailed in the categories of hospital and physician charges for maternal antepartum hospitalization ($1,864 for 2 days), vaginal delivery with 50% use of epidural anesthesia ($4,050), cesarean section ($5,932), and neonatal intensive care ($9,130 for 4 days). Outcome costs per patient were $5,792 for diet-treated and $6,462 for insulin-treated women in NoCal. Outcome costs per patient were estimated to be $6,096 for diet-treated and $11,216 for insulin-treated women in NewEng, and $8,013 for the premeal blood glucose group and $7,495 for the postprandial blood glucose group in SoCal (both groups required insulin treatment). Incremental cost-effectiveness of postprandial monitoring in the SoCal controlled trial was $35 per patient in input costs per cesarean section averted and $25 per patient in input costs per neonatal intensive care unit day prevented. The benefit-to-cost ratio of the difference in input and outcome costs was 2.98 in favor of postprandial monitoring in the SoCal study. Cost analysis should be included in clinical trials of the management of GDM.

Recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor after autologous bone marrow transplantation for lymphoid cancer: an economic analysis of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

In a blinded retrospective economic evaluation of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial, total utilisation and charges for lymphoid cancer patients who received recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (rhGM-CSF) or placebo were compared following autologous bone marrow transplantation. The 40 patients enrolled (22 rhGM-CSF, 18 placebo) could have acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma or Hodgkin's disease, be of any age, and were undergoing autologous bone marrow transplantation in a metropolitan cancer research centre. Main outcome measures consisted of initial hospital lengths of stay (LOS), total and department charges, rehospitalisation rates and charges, and outpatient charges, all inclusive of the first 100 days following bone marrow infusion. The perspective of the study is that of the third party payer. Initial hospitalisation charges were $US54 100 for patients who received rhGM-CSF and $US68 600 for patients who received placebo (p = 0.05). The difference of $US14 500 was 21% less in patients who received rhGM-CSF, mainly due to lower average LOS with rhGM-CSF (24.2 days) compared with placebo (30.8 days). Outpatient charges were $US9500 (rhGM-CSF) and $US6800 (placebo) {p = 0.18}. Total charges, including readmission (10 per group) were $US12 200 lower in the rhGM-CSF group ($US70 300 vs $US82 500, p = 0.19). The use of rhGM-CSF after autologous bone marrow transplantation was shown to result in substantial cost savings during the initial hospitalisation. When comparing total inpatient and outpatient medical charges within the first 100 days following bone marrow infusion, we found no evidence that these savings were negated.

Cost analysis of imipenem-cilastatin versus clindamycin with tobramycin in the treatment of acute intra-abdominal infection.

Clinical effectiveness of imipenem/cilastatin (I/C) versus tobramycin with clindamycin (T + C) in treatment of patients presenting with suspected acute intra-abdominal infection was assessed in a multicentre randomised clinical trial conducted during 1985 to 1986. The principal finding was a lower incidence of treatment failure among patients in the I/C arm (p = 0.043). We now report results of retrospective analysis of hospital treatment costs during an episode of infection incurred by patients enrolled in the trial. Treatment costs (in 1989 US dollars) were calculated from a hospital perspective, using an intention-to-treat analysis. Among 161 patients with low illness severity (APACHE II less than or equal to 14) the mean cost for the episode of care was $US7038 in the I/C arm versus $US8404 for the T + C regimen; the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.40). For 93 more severely ill patients (APACHE II score greater than 14) the mean cost for the I/C arm was $US19 985 versus $US16 582 for the T + C regimen; the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.36). Multiple regression analysis, controlling for patient demographics and study site, showed that the cost of the episode was positively associated with the severity of illness (p less than 0.01) and presence of malnutrition (p < 0.01), but that the total cost of the episode of infection was not statistically different for the 2 drug regimens (p = 0.45).

Cost-benefit analysis of preconception care for women with established diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the additional costs of preconception care are balanced by the savings from averted complications. Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of preconception care in reducing congenital anomalies in infants born of mothers with pre-existing diabetes mellitus. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study used literature review, consensus development among an expert panel of physicians, and surveys of medical care personnel to obtain information about the costs and consequences of preconception plus prenatal care compared with prenatal care only for women with established diabetes. Preconception care involves close interaction between the patient and an interdisciplinary health-care team as well as intensified evaluation, follow-up, testing, and monitoring. The outcome measures assessed in this study are the medical costs of preconception care versus prenatal care only and the benefit-cost ratio. RESULTS: The costs of preconception plus prenatal care are $17,519/delivery, whereas the costs of prenatal care only are $13,843/delivery. Taking into account maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes, the net savings of preconception care are $1720/enrollee over prenatal care only and the benefit-cost ratio is 1.86. The preconception care program remained cost saving across a wide range of assumptions regarding incidence of adverse outcomes and program cost components. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significantly higher per delivery costs for participants in a hypothetical preconception care program, intensive medical care before conception resulted in cost savings compared with prenatal care only. Third-party payers can expect to realize cost savings by reimbursing preconception care in this high-risk population.

Financial implications of implementing standards of care for diabetes and pregnancy.

This article examines the financial implications of implementing standards of care for pregnancy among women with diabetes, including both the costs of enhanced treatment and the savings of avoided adverse outcomes. Numerous studies have demonstrated the harmful effects of poor blood glucose control for both mother and fetus. Standards set forth by the American Diabetes Association aim to reduce maternal complications and fetal adverse outcomes, such as congenital malformations. Because the precise configuration of resources required to meet these standards was not outlined in the American Diabetes Association statement, a panel of physicians (all specialists in pregnancy care for women with diabetes) was convened to develop a model program. Implementing such a program during the preconception and prenatal periods will represent an intensification of resource use in the outpatient setting. However, through these preventive measures, medical care costs for maternal and fetal complications can be avoided.

Physician payment reform: anesthesiology as a case study.

We examined the effects of Resource-based Relative Value Scale (RBRVS)- and physician diagnosis-related groups (MDDRG)-based payment for anesthesiology services related to surgery by simulating these physician payment reform options. We merged Medicare Part A (hospital) and Part B (anesthesiology) payment data for 7,770 patients for the MDDRG analysis and examined 10,431 surgical procedures for the RBRVS analysis within 27 diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) during the second half of 1986 in 16 hospitals representing different geographic regions, bed size, and teaching status. Assuming budget neutrality (i.e., constant total expenditure for anesthesiology services) and using the proposed methodologies, we simulated RBRVS and MDDRG payments and compared them to current payments for anesthesiology services. Individual surgical procedures demonstrated a two- to more than four-fold variation in duration, accompanied by a similar variation in anesthesiology payments. Within DRGs, there was a three- to ten-fold variation in duration, and a two- to seven-fold variation in anesthesiology payments. Anesthesiology time was highly correlated with surgical time (r = 0.86-0.96). Compared to the current system, RBRVS and MDDRG systems were associated with systematic variations in payments, such that on average, on each case, anesthesiologists practicing in rural and nonteaching hospitals would gain, whereas those in urban or suburban and teaching facilities would lose. After adjusting for complexity of procedure, the distribution of payment gains and losses was a function of duration of surgery, which is not influenced by the anethesiologist. Longer cases of a given surgical procedure result in payment decreases. The results document the importance of retaining a time factor in the payment methodology for anesthesiology services to maintain equitable payment across practice settings--an objective of physician payment reform.

[Reoperation in colorectal surgery]. / Reoperace v kolorektální chirurgii.

Because of unsatisfactory results of surgical therapy in rectal carcinoma the authors have re-evaluated their attitudes and elaborated resection methods of the rectum with retaining the system of sphincters trough atypical approaches: abdominotransvaginal in female and anterior abdominoperineal in male patients. They have also worked out the methods of coloanal anastomosis with passing through by trans-sphincter approach from posterior colpotomy or transperineally. These new access ways have been used in reconstructive operations after rectal resections performed previously according to Hartmann with terminal sigmoideostomy. Physiological passage through the rectum was restored till 3 weeks. 55 patients underwent the reoperation, 47 of them with excellent and good results (i.e. 85.5%) and the patients have returned to the normal social and working process.