Browsing by Subject "Insurance, Health, Reimbursement"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Bundled Payment and Care of Acute Stroke: What Does it Take to Make it Work?
    (Stroke, 2015-05) Matchar, David Bruce; Nguyen, Hai V; Tian, Yuan
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Economic evaluation of access to musculoskeletal care: the case of waiting for total knee arthroplasty.
    (BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2014-01-18) Mather, Richard C; Hug, Kevin T; Orlando, Lori A; Watters, Tyler Steven; Koenig, Lane; Nunley, Ryan M; Bolognesi, Michael P
    BACKGROUND: The projected demand for total knee arthroplasty is staggering. At its root, the solution involves increasing supply or decreasing demand. Other developed nations have used rationing and wait times to distribute this service. However, economic impact and cost-effectiveness of waiting for TKA is unknown. METHODS: A Markov decision model was constructed for a cost-utility analysis of three treatment strategies for end-stage knee osteoarthritis: 1) TKA without delay, 2) a waiting period with no non-operative treatment and 3) a non-operative treatment bridge during that waiting period in a cohort of 60 year-old patients. Outcome probabilities and effectiveness were derived from the literature. Costs were estimated from the societal perspective with national average Medicare reimbursement. Effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Principal outcome measures were average incremental costs, effectiveness, and quality-adjusted life years; and net health benefits. RESULTS: In the base case, a 2-year wait-time both with and without a non-operative treatment bridge resulted in a lower number of average QALYs gained (11.57 (no bridge) and 11.95 (bridge) vs. 12.14 (no delay). The average cost was $1,660 higher for TKA without delay than wait-time with no bridge, but $1,810 less than wait-time with non-operative bridge. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing wait-time with no bridge to TKA without delay was $2,901/QALY. When comparing TKA without delay to waiting with non-operative bridge, TKA without delay produced greater utility at a lower cost to society. CONCLUSIONS: TKA without delay is the preferred cost-effective treatment strategy when compared to a waiting for TKA without non-operative bridge. TKA without delay is cost saving when a non-operative bridge is used during the waiting period. As it is unlikely that patients waiting for TKA would not receive non-operative treatment, TKA without delay may be an overall cost-saving health care delivery strategy. Policies aimed at increasing the supply of TKA should be considered as savings exist that could indirectly fund those strategies.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Evaluation of Industrial Compensation to Cardiologists in 2015.
    (Am J Cardiol, 2017-12-15) Khan, Muhammad Shahzeb; Siddiqi, Tariq Jamal; Fatima, Kaneez; Riaz, Haris; Khosa, Faisal; Manning, Warren J; Krasuski, Richard
    The categorization and characterization of pharmaceutical and device manufacturers or group purchasing organization payments to clinicians is an important step toward assessing conflicts of interest and the potential impact of these payments on practice patterns. Payments have not previously been compared among the subspecialties of cardiology. This is a retrospective analysis of the Open Payments database, including all installments and payments made to doctors in the calendar year 2015 by pharmaceutical and device manufacturers or group purchasing organization. Total payments to individual physicians were then aggregated based on specialty, geographic region, and payment type. The Gini Index was further employed to calculate within each specialty to measure income disparity. In 2015, a total of $166,089,335 was paid in 943,744 payments (average $175.00 per payment) to cardiologists, including 23,372 general cardiologists, 7,530 interventional cardiologists, and 2,293 cardiac electro-physiologists. Payments were mal-distributed across the 3 subspecialties of cardiology (p <0.01), with general cardiology receiving the largest number (73.5%) and total payments (62.6%) and cardiac electrophysiologists receiving significantly higher median payments ($1,662 vs $361 for all cardiologists; p <0.01). The Medtronic Company was the largest single payer for all 3 subspecialties. In conclusion, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers or group purchasing organizations continue to make substantial payments to cardiac practitioners with a significant variation in payments made to different cardiology subspecialists. The largest number and total payments are to general cardiologists, whereas the highest median payments are made to cardiac electrophysiologists. The impact of these payments on practice patterns remains to be examined.