The underreporting of cost perspective in cost-analysis research: A systematic review of the plastic surgery literature

Cost minimization in breast conserving surgery: a comparative study of radiofrequency spectroscopy and full cavity shave margins

BACKGROUND

In an effort to minimize positive margins and subsequent re-excision after breast conserving surgery (BCS), many providers and facilities have implemented either a Full Cavity Shave (FCS) approach or adding the MarginProbe Radiofrequency Spectroscopy System.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to create a functioning Pro-Forma for use by facilities and payers to evaluate and compare the cost savings of implementing FCS or MarginProbe based on personalized variable inputs.

METHODS

A decision tree demonstrating three possible surgical pathways, BCS, BCS + FCS, and BCS + MarginProbe was developed with clinical inputs for re-excision rate, mastectomy as 2nd surgery, rate of reconstruction, and rate of 3rd surgery derived by a literature review. A surgical pathway cost formula was created using the decision tree and financial inputs derived by utilizing the nation's largest database of privately billed health insurance claims and Medicare claims data (fairhealth.org). Using the surgical pathway formula and financial inputs, a customizable Pro-Forma was created for immediate cost savings analysis of BCS + FCS and BCS + Marginprobe using variable inputs. Costs are from the perspective of third-party payers.

RESULTS

Utilizing MarginProbe to reduce re-excisions for positive margins can be associated with better cost-savings than FCS due to the increased pathology processing costs by using an FCS approach. The reduction in re-excision provided by both FCS and MarginProbe offset their increased expense to various degrees with cost savings of each method improving as baseline re-excisions rates increase, until ultimately each may become cost-neutral or cost-prohibitive when compared to BCS alone. Our data suggest that in the privately insured population, MarginProbe provides a cost-savings over BCS alone when baseline re-excision rates are over 20% and that FCS becomes cost-saving when baseline re-excision rates are over 29%. For Medicare patients, MarginProbe provides a cost-savings when baseline re-excision rates exceed 34%, and FCS becomes cost-saving for re-excision rates over 52%. Our Pro-Forma allows an individual provider or institution to evaluate the cost savings of the FCS approach and/or utilization of the MarginProbe device such that the additional cost or cost-savings of utilizing one or both of these methods can be quickly calculated based on their facility's volume and baseline re-excision rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that utilizing either an FCS approach or the MarginProbe radiofrequency spectroscopy system may be a cost-saving solution to reducing the rate of re-excisions depending on a facility or practice's surgical volume and baseline re-excision rate. The degree to which each of these interventions provides an added cost or cost-savings to healthcare payers can be evaluated by utilizing the Pro-Forma outlined herein with customizable variable inputs.

Post-Mastectomy Tissue Expander Placement Followed by Radiation Therapy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Staged Autologous Versus Implant-Based Unilateral Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

There is no preferred approach to breast reconstruction for patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) who require post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). Staged implant and autologous reconstruction both have unique risks and benefits. No previous study has compared their cost-effectiveness with utility scores.

METHODS

A literature review determined the probabilities and outcomes for mastectomy and staged implant or autologous reconstruction. Utility scores were used to calculate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with successful surgery and postoperative complications. Medicare billing codes were used to assess costs. A decision analysis tree was constructed with rollback and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to validate results and account for uncertainty.

RESULTS

Mastectomy with staged deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction is costlier ($14,104.80 vs $3216.93), but more effective (QALYs, 29.96 vs 24.87). This resulted in an ICER of 2141.00, favoring autologous reconstruction. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that autologous reconstruction was more cost-effective if less than $257,444.13. Monte Carlo analysis showed a confidence of 99.99% that DIEP flap reconstruction is more cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with LABC who require PMRT, staged autologous reconstruction is significantly more cost-effective than reconstruction with implants. Despite the decreased morbidity, staged implant reconstruction has greater rates of complication.

Harmonization issues in unit costing of service use for multi-country, multi-sectoral health economic evaluations: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Valuation is a critical part of the costing process in health economic evaluations. However, an overview of specific issues relevant to the European context on harmonizing methodological requirements for the valuation of costs to be used in health economic evaluation is lacking. We aimed to inform the development of an international, harmonized and multi-sectoral costing framework, as sought in the European PECUNIA (ProgrammE in Costing, resource use measurement and outcome valuation for Use in multi-sectoral National and International health economic evaluAtions) project.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review (information extraction 2008-2021) to a) to demonstrate the degree of heterogeneity that currently exists in the literature regarding central terminology, b) to generate an overview of the most relevant areas for harmonization in multi-sectoral and multi-national costing processes for health economic evaluations, and c) to provide insights into country level variation regarding economic evaluation guidance. A complex search strategy was applied covering key publications on costing methods, glossaries, and international costing recommendations augmented by a targeted author and reference search as well as snowballing. Six European countries served as case studies to describe country-specific harmonization issues. Identified information was qualitatively synthesized and cross-checked using a newly developed, pilot-tested data extraction form.

RESULTS

Costing methods for services were found to be heterogeneous between sectors and country guidelines and may, in practice, be often driven by data availability and reimbursement systems in place. The lack of detailed guidance regarding specific costing methods, recommended data sources, double-counting of costs between sectors, adjustment of unit costs for inflation, transparent handling of overhead costs as well as the unavailability of standardized unit costing estimates in most countries were identified as main drivers of country specific differences in costing methods with a major impact on valuation and cost-effectiveness evidence.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a basic summary of existing costing practices for evaluative purposes across sectors and countries and highlights several common methodological factors influencing divergence in cost valuation methods that would need to be systematically incorporated and addressed in future costing practices to achieve more comparable, harmonized health economic evaluation evidence.

A Cost-Utility Analysis of the Use of Closed-Incision Negative Pressure System in Vascular Surgery Groin Incisions

OBJECTIVE

Closed-incision negative pressure therapy (CINPT) with the Prevena system has been used and clinically evaluated in high-risk groin incisions to reduce the risk of postoperative complications. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating CINPT in femoral-popliteal bypass with prosthetic graft.

METHODS

A literature review looking at prospective randomized trials determined the probabilities and outcomes for femoral-popliteal bypass with and without CINPT. Reported utility scores were used to estimate the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with a successful procedure and postoperative complications. Medicare current procedure terminology and diagnosis-related group codes were used to assess the costs for a successful surgery and associated complications. A decision analysis tree was constructed with rollback analysis to highlight the more cost-effective strategy. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) analysis was performed with a willingness to pay at $50,000. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the results, and to accommodate for the uncertainty in the literature.

RESULTS

Femoral-popliteal bypass with CINPT is less costly ($40,138 vs $41,774) and more effective (6.14 vs 6.13) compared to without CINPT. This resulted in a negative ICER of -234,764.03, which favored CINPT, indicating a dominant strategy. In one-way sensitivity analysis, surgery without CINPT was more cost-effective if the probability of successful surgery falls below 84.9% or if the cost of CINPT exceeds $3139. Monte Carlo analysis showed a confidence of 99.07% that CINPT is more cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the added device cost of CINPT, it is cost-effective in vascular surgical operations using groin incisions.

Are "Free Flaps" "Free" Flaps?

BACKGROUND

 Even standard microvascular tissue transfers are time consuming, require great skill and intensity, and can be stressful. Not surprisingly, work-related relative value units are considered by many microsurgeons to be suboptimal. Some might even say that "free flaps" indeed really are "free" flaps.

METHODS

 A retrospective review of related finances was undertaken for all free flaps performed in a single surgeon private practice during the latest possible year (2014) that included a complete 5-year follow-up to insure receipt of all expected reimbursements from accounts receivable. There were 61 free flaps available; but arbitrarily 12 free flaps were excluded since postmastectomy breast reconstruction always received mandatory insurance payment, as were additional two cases done pro bono as part of an international educational service. This left 47 free flaps to permit determination of gross payments, if any.

RESULTS

 Compensation summated for three distinct time intervals for all free flaps was preoperative: $10,855.92 (mean: $230.98/flap); intraoperative: $117,015.46 (mean: $2,489.69/flap); and postoperative: $45,296.28 (mean: $963.75/flap). Range of gross payment for the free flap portion only was 529.65 to $4,503.71. Total overall revenue received was $173,167.66 (mean: $3,684.42/flap).

CONCLUSION

 A true benefit cost-analysis even if microsurgery specific expenses could be estimated would be inaccurate, so that mean net income for each free flap could not be determined. Albeit a minimal gross payment was obtained for some free flap procedures, in no instance was there zero reimbursement. Based on that fact, there were no truly "free" free flaps in this private practice experience, which should encourage the younger surgeon to realize that economic viability is possible so that their enthusiasm for reconstructive microsurgery can be sustained.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Lymph Node Transfer vs Lymphovenous Bypass for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema

BACKGROUND

Lymph node transfer (LNT) and lymphovenous bypass (LVB) have been described as 2 major surgical options for patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) who have failed conservative therapy. The objective of our study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing LNT and LVB for the treatment of BCRL.

STUDY DESIGN

Rates of infection, lymph leak, and failure of LNT and LVB were obtained from a previously published meta-analysis. Failure of surgery was defined as the inability to cease compression therapy postoperatively. Procedural costs were calculated from Medicare reimbursement rates. Cost of conservative management of postoperative surgical site infection, lymph leak, and continued decongestive physiotherapy after failed surgery were obtained from literature review. Average utility scores for each health state were calculated using a visual analog scale survey, then converted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A decision tree was constructed, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was assessed at $50,000/QALY. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of our findings.

RESULTS

LNT was less costly ($22,492 vs $31,927) and more effective (31.82 QALY vs 29.24 QALY) than LVB. One-way (deterministic) sensitivity analysis demonstrated that LNT became cost-ineffective when its failure rate was more than 43.8%. LVB became more cost-effective than LNT when its failure rate was less than 21.4%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte-Carlo simulation indicated that even with uncertainty present in the variables analyzed, the majority of simulations (97%) favored LNT as the more cost-effective strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

LNT is a dominant, cost-effective strategy compared to LVB for the treatment of BCRL.

Bilaminate Synthetic Dermal Matrix versus Free Fascial Flaps: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Full-Thickness Hand Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

 Full-thickness injuries to the hand require durable soft tissue coverage to preserve tendon gliding and hand motion. We aim to investigate the cost effectiveness of hand resurfacing comparing free fascial flap reconstruction versus bilaminate synthetic dermal matrices.

METHODS

 Cost effectiveness was modeled using decision tree analysis with the rollback method. Total active range of motion was modeled as the common outcome variable based on systematic literature review. Costing was performed from a payer perspective using national Medicare reimbursements. The willingness to pay threshold was determined by average worker's compensation for hand disability. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted for range of motion outcomes and the costs using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations.

RESULTS

 The average cost of free fascial flap reconstruction was $14,201.24 compared with $13,674.20 for Integra, yielding an incremental cost difference of $527.04. Incremental range of motion improvement was 18.0 degrees with free fascial flaps, yielding an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $29.30/degree of motion. Assuming willingness to pay thresholds of $557.00/degree of motion, free-fascial flaps were highly cost effective. On probabilistic sensitivity analysis, free fascial flaps were dominant in 25.5% of simulations and cost effective in 32.1% of simulations. Thus, microsurgical reconstruction was the economically sound technique in 57.5% of scenarios.

CONCLUSION

 Free fascial flap reconstruction of complex hand wounds was marginally more expensive than synthetic dermal matrix and yielded incrementally better outcomes. Both dermal matrix and microsurgical techniques were cost effective in the base case and in sensitivity analysis. In choosing between dermal matrix and microsurgical reconstruction of complex hand wounds, neither technique has a clear economic advantage.

Outpatient Reduction Mammaplasty Offers Significantly Lower Costs with Comparable Outcomes: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of 18,780 Cases

BACKGROUND

Breast reduction mammaplasty is a common plastic surgery operation. Although many contemporary surgeons provide breast reduction mammaplasty as an outpatient procedure, roughly 15 percent of patients are still observed postoperatively. The authors hypothesize that observation confers no safety benefit but engenders significant cost.

METHODS

The authors reviewed cases of breast reduction mammaplasty in a commercial database and formulated three propensity score-matched cohorts: inpatient, 23-hour observation, and outpatient. Comparisons were made between inpatients and outpatients and between 23-hour observation patients and outpatients. The primary outcome variable was 14-day re-presentation rate to the emergency department or readmission. Financial data were also collected.

RESULTS

Comparison of inpatients and outpatients included 1237 patients each (n = 2474 total patients). The 23-hour observation-outpatient comparison included 8153 patients each (n = 16,306 total patients). For inpatients versus outpatients, the 14-day re-presentation rate was 1.4 percent for inpatients and 0.3 percent for outpatients (p < 0.01). The overall surgical complication rate was higher for inpatients (7.8 percent) than for outpatients (4.9 percent) (p < 0.01). Comparing outpatients to 23-hour observation patients, the 14-day re-presentation rate was similar (0.5 percent observation versus 0.3 percent outpatient; p = 0.10). The complication rate was higher for 23-hour observation patients (4.8 percent) than for outpatients (3.2 percent) (p < 0.01). When compared with outpatients (median, $9077), inpatients (median, $19,975) generated $10,898 more in costs. Similarly, 23-hour observation patients (median, $12,451) generated $4050 more in costs than outpatients (median, $8401) (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient breast reduction mammaplasty is equally safe when compared to observation or admission. Non-outpatient breast reduction mammaplasty had median costs of 148 to 220 percent that of outpatient breast reduction mammaplasty. In an era of cost consciousness, ambulatory reduction mammaplasty may offer a relatively simple method of decreasing expenditures.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Is Immediate Lymphatic Reconstruction Cost-effective?

OBJECTIVE

This manuscript is the first to employ rigorous methodological criteria to critically appraise a surgical preventative technique for breast cancer-related lymphedema from a cost-utility standpoint.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Breast cancer-related lymphedema is a well-documented complication of breast cancer survivors in the US. In this study, we conduct a cost-utility analysis to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the LYMPHA.

METHODS

Lymphedema rates after each of the following surgical options: (1) ALND, (2) ALND + LYMPHA, (3) ALND + RLNR, (4) ALND + RLNR + LYMPHA were extracted from a recently published meta-analysis. Procedural costs were calculated using Medicare reimbursement rates. Average utility scores were obtained for each health state using a visual analog scale, then converted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A decision tree was generated and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were calculated. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate our findings.

RESULTS

ALND with LYMPHA was more cost-effective with an ICUR of $1587.73/QALY. In the decision tree rollback analysis, a clinical effectiveness gain of 1.35 QALY justified an increased incremental cost of $2140. Similarly, the addition of LYMPHA to ALND with RLNR was more cost-effective with an ICUR of $699.84/QALY. In the decision tree rollback analysis, a clinical effectiveness gain of 2.98 QALY justified a higher incremental cost of $2085.00.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study supports that the addition of LYMPHA to both ALND or ALND with RLNR is the more cost-effective treatment option.

A cost-utility analysis comparing large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery to mastectomy with free flap reconstruction in the treatment of breast cancer

PURPOSE

Breast cancer surgical treatment may include large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery (LVOS) or mastectomy with free flap reconstruction (MFFR). We investigated the cost-utility between LVOS versus MFFR to determine which approach was most cost-effective.

METHODS

A literature review was performed to calculate probabilities for clinical outcomes for each surgical option (LVOS versus MFFR), and to obtain utility scores that were converted into quality adjusted life years (QALYs) as measures for clinical effectiveness. Average Medicare payments were surrogates for cost. A decision tree was constructed and an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was used to calculate cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The decision tree demonstrates associated QALYs and costs with probabilities used to calculate the ICUR of $3699/QALY with gain of 2.7 QALY at an additional cost of $9987 proving that LVOS is a cost-effective surgical option. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that LVOS became cost-ineffective when its clinical effectiveness had a QALY of less than 30.187. Tornado Diagram Analysis and Monte-Carlo simulation supported our conclusion.

CONCLUSION

LVOS is cost-effective when compared to MFFR for the appropriate breast cancer patient.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

A Systematic Review of Utility Score Assessments in the Breast Surgery Cost-Analysis Literature

BACKGROUND

Surgery for breast cancer can have significant impact on patient quality-of-life. Cost-utility analysis provides a way to analyze the economic impact of a surgical procedure with the change in a patient's quality of life. Utility scores are used in these analyses to quantify the impact on quality of life. We undertook a systematic review of the literature on breast cancer surgical procedures to compile a repository of utility scores and to assess gaps in the current literature.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was performed for studies reporting utility scores for breast surgery and breast reconstruction. The health states and utility scores were extracted and grouped into seven procedural categories based on oncologic and reconstructive methods. Mean utility score and ranges were calculated and reported for each procedural category.

RESULTS

Nineteen articles met the inclusion criteria assessing 118 health states. Most utility scores were obtained from healthcare professionals. Breast-conserving therapy yielded the highest mean utility score at 0.79, whereas mastectomy yielded a mean utility score of 0.75. Among reconstruction health states, implant reconstruction had a lower score than autologous reconstruction (0.64 implant vs. latissimus dorsi 0.69 and TRAM/DIEP 0.71). No utility scores were found associated with oncoplasty or nipple-sparing mastectomy procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

A reliable body of utility scores is important in enabling future cost-utility and value-based analysis comparisons for breast surgical oncology. Additional work is needed to obtain health state assessments from the patient perspective, as well as assessment of more modern surgical and reconstructive approaches.