An Analysis of a Commercial Database on the Use of Erectile Dysfunction Treatments for Men With Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the annual erectile dysfunction (ED) prevalence among men enrolled in an employer-sponsored health insurance (ESHI) plan and evaluate ED treatment profiles among those with an ED diagnosis. METHODS: A cross-sectional claims analysis was conducted using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, a nationally representative sample of US workers enrolled in ESHI plans. Patients aged 18-64 with at least one ED medical diagnosis claim and continuous enrollment in a given year between 2009 and 2017 were included. Among those with an ED diagnosis, utilization rates of the following ED treatments were determined: phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5I), penile prosthesis implantation, other ED treatments (eg, vacuum pump, intraurethral suppositories), combination treatment, and no insurer-paid treatments. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2017, the annual prevalence of men with ESHI suffering from ED increased by 116%. However, in 2017, only 23% of men with an ED diagnosis received an ED therapy paid for by their ESHI plans. The proportion of men taking PDE5Is ranged from 18% in 2012 to 26% in 2015. The proportion of men with ED undergoing penile prosthesis implantation has declined in recent years (0.23% in 2009 to 0.11% in 2017). Similarly, the rate of men who received other ED treatments or combination treatment has decreased from 2009 to 2017 (0.94%-0.30% and 0.65%-0.19%, respectively). CONCLUSION: ED prevalence among men insured by an ESHI plan has notably increased, yet approximately three-quarters of these men had no claims for ED treatments, indicating substantial access gaps to treatment.

Impact of Index Surgical Care Setting on Perioperative Outcomes and Cost Following Penile Prosthesis Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Penile prosthesis surgery has witnessed a migration from the inpatient to ambulatory surgical care setting. However, little is known about the cost savings afforded by this change in care setting and whether or not these savings come at the expense of worse perioperative outcomes. AIM: The aim of this study was to identify predictors of index penile prosthesis (PP) surgery care setting, and whether ambulatory vs inpatient surgery is associated with comparable perioperative outcomes and costs. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using all-payer claims data from the 2014 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Databases from Florida and New York. Patient demographics, regional data, total charges (converted to costs), and 30-day revisit rates were abstracted for all patients undergoing index placement of an inflatable or malleable PP. Multivariable logistic and linear regression adjusted for facility clustering was utilized. OUTCOMES: The outcomes were index surgical and 30-day postoperative costs, as well as 30-day revisit rates. RESULTS: Of the 1,790 patients undergoing an index surgery, 394 (22.0%) received care in the inpatient setting compared to 1,396 (78.0%) in the ambulatory setting. Adjusted index procedural ($9,319.66 vs $ 10,191.35; P < .001) and 30-day acute care costs ($9,461.74 vs $10,159.42; P < .001) were lower in the ambulatory setting. The underinsured experienced lower odds of receiving surgery in the ambulatory setting (Medicaid vs private: odds ratio [OR] 0.19; 95% CI 0.06-0.55; P < .001). There was no difference in risk-adjusted odds of experiencing a 30-day revisit between patients undergoing surgery in the ambulatory vs inpatient settings (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.78-2.21; P = .3). CLINICAL TRANSLATION: Ambulatory PP surgery confers significant cost savings and is associated with comparable perioperative outcomes relative to inpatient-based surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Both clinical and nonclinical factors predict the care setting of index PP surgery. Notably, underinsured patients experienced lower odds of undergoing ambulatory surgery. Ambulatory surgery was less costly with similar 30-day revisit rates relative to inpatient-based care. Berger A, Friedlander DF, Herzog P, et al. Impact of Index Surgical Care Setting on Perioperative Outcomes and Cost Following Penile Prosthesis Surgery. J Sex Med 2019;16:1451-1458.

Outcomes of simultaneous placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis and a male urethral sling through a single perineal incision.

INTRODUCTION: Synchronous implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) and a bulbourethral sling single via a single perineal is a unique approach in managing erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence. AIM: This article describes our surgical approach and reviews the operative time, length of hospital stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), and cost of synchronous dual prosthetic implantation compared with the implants performed individually. Additionally, we review the short-term outcomes in patients with dual sling and penile prosthesis synchronous implants. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with IPP, 53 slings, and eight simultaneous dual implantations between January 2000 and July 2008 were retrospectively reviewed. Operative times, EBL, length of stay, cost, and complications were compared in three groups (group 1, IPP; group 2, slings; group 3, dual implants). Additionally, we reviewed pre- and postoperative Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) scores and pad use in group 3. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Review of operative times, EBL, LOS, cost, and complications. RESULTS: Dual implantation had similar operative times compared with the total time for the individual procedures (98 +/- 24 minutes for IPP; 86 +/- 24 minutes for sling; 177 +/- 17 minutes for dual implant, P > 0.05). EBL was reduced (57 +/- 30 mL for IPP; 48 +/- 59 mL for sling; 49 +/- 5 mL for group 3). LOS was also reduced (1.2 +/- 0.45 days for IPP, 0.7 +/- 0.48 days for sling; and 1.1 +/- 0.50 days for dual implant). Dual implantation was associated with approximately $9,000 in savings. With a mean follow-up of 13.6 months, group 3 reported SHIM increase from 1.3 +/- 0.5 to 23.5 +/- 0.6 and a decrease in pad use from three pads per day (range 2-6) down to a mean of one pad per day (range 0-2). One sling erosion and one sling infection occurred in group 2. One patient in group 3 had acute urinary retention resolved with 5 days of catheter drainage. CONCLUSION: Dual penile prosthesis and bulbourethral sling implantation through a single perineal incision is safe, efficient, and cost-effective.

The costs of caring for erectile dysfunction in a managed care setting: evidence from a large national claims database.

PURPOSE: We examined the direct costs of erectile dysfunction (ED) empirically. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A naturalistic cohort study was done in 285,436 patients with ED and 51 health plans that covered 28 million lives nationwide from 1999 through 2001. Based on claims that had an ED related diagnosis code, procedure code or medication code we categorized the cost structure of ED care and calculated the annual costs of ED care per patient with ED, per user and per member monthly for individual and for all categories of ED care. RESULTS: A patient with ED in a health plan spent about an average of 83.91 dollars in 1999, 95.41 dollars in 2000 and 119.26 dollars in 2001 for ED care. In 2001, 37.08% of ED care costs per patient with ED were spent on phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5) inhibitor therapy, 14.36% were spent on physician office visits, 10.19% were spent on diagnosis procedures, 8.45% were spent on testosterone hormone therapy, 3.85% were spent on penile prosthesis implantation, 4.41% were spent on intracavernous injection, 2.68% were spent on alprostadil pellet insertion and 0.81% was spent on vacuum erection devices. Of the 7 commonly used ED treatments PDE-5 inhibitor therapy has the lowest annual cost per user. CONCLUSIONS: In 2001 ED imposed a 122,669 dollars annual burden to a health plan with 100,000 members, that is or 0.108 dollars per member monthly. Each patient with ED spent 119.26 dollars annually for all ED related services or treatments. Of the 7 commonly used treatments PDE-5 inhibitor therapy had the lowest annual cost per user.

The role of penile prosthetic surgery in the modern management of erectile dysfunction.

The management of erectile dysfunction looks set to be revolutionised with the introduction of effective oral therapies. There will remain, however, some men who do not respond to conservative measures. This article reviews the important role of penile prosthetic surgery as a treatment option in these patients.

Penile prosthesis implantation surgery: a statewide population based analysis of 2354 patients.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: Minimally invasive therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED) has changed the frequency of penile prosthesis surgery. The purpose of this study is to describe the changes in frequency, hospital stay, hospital charges and penile prosthesis type in North Carolina. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data source was a statewide hospital discharge database which includes data on hospitalized patients for all 151 hospitals in North Carolina. RESULTS: From 1988-1993, 2354 patients underwent implantation of penile prostheses. The total number of penile prostheses implanted has declined over this six year period. Similarly, hospital stay has declined from an average of 4.03-2.96 d with a 46.6% decrease in total hospital days. Despite this change in hospital stay, hospital charges rose significantly from an average of $7252.48 to $12,842.18 driving total charges from $2973,516.80 to $3,826,969.60 (1993) representing a 28.7% increase. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive therapy and changes in reimbursement have had a major impact on the number of patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation for ED. This downward trend may continue as more treatment options develop from the marked increase in research in this field. However, this may result in an increase of patients seeking treatment overall.