Innovating in Your Practice: Overcoming Barriers to Create New Opportunities

Valuing innovative endoscopic techniques: prophylactic clip closure after endoscopic resection of large colon polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Clip closure of the mucosal defect after resecting large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps reduces postprocedure bleeding and is cost saving for payers. Clip costs are not reimbursed by payers, posing a major barrier to adoption of this technique in the community. We aimed to determine appropriate clip costs to support broader use of this procedure in practice.

METHODS

We performed budget impact analysis using our recent decision analytic model, comparing prophylactic clip closure with no clip closure on national cost and outcomes data, to determine the maximum feasible clip price while maintaining cost savings in practice. Sensitivity analyses were performed on important clinical factors.

RESULTS

In the original model, the baseline postprocedure bleeding risk was 6.8%, increasing cost of care by $614.11 averaged among all patients undergoing large polyp resection without clip closure. Prophylactic clip closure of only large right-sided polyps reduced postprocedure bleeding risk by 70.7% but resulted in cost saving only if the price of clips was $100 or less. Comparatively, prophylactic clip closure of large left-sided polyps had no clinical benefit and was not cost saving. Clip closure strategies focused only on extra-large polyps (≥40 mm), or patients taking antithrombotics regardless of polyp characteristics, were only minimally cost saving. Cost savings and maximum tolerated clip prices depended on medical comorbidity, which directly influences the costs of care to manage postprocedure bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clip closure after endoscopic resection of large colon polyps, particularly those in the right colon segment, is cost saving but requires clip costs less than $100. Translating these findings into practice requires gastroenterology practices to obtain reimbursement from payers for improved clinical outcomes and to align commercial clip prices with this clinical indication.

Valuing innovative endoscopic techniques: endoscopic suturing to prevent stent migration for benign esophageal disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Reimbursement often presents a significant barrier to widespread adoption of innovative endoscopic devices. We aimed to determine the value (defined as cost savings to a payer) of endoscopic suturing devices in preventing the migration of esophageal stents placed for benign esophageal diseases.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from a payer perspective evaluating fully covered metal stent placement for benign esophageal diseases (fistula, leak, perforation, or stricture) in a hospital outpatient setting. The model compared 2 strategies: endoscopic suturing to anchor the stent or no suture. Health care outcomes and costs were derived from published systematic reviews and national databases (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience [MAUDE] for safety data; 2018 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and Provider Utilization and Payment Data databases for reimbursement data).

RESULTS

From a payer perspective, reimbursement for care increased by US$1487.98 without endoscopic suturing per patient, compared with US$621.06 with endoscopic suturing, to cover the risk of stent migration in addition to usual professional and facility reimbursement for stent placement. Thus, an average cost saving of US$866.92 per patient was achieved with endoscopic suturing to reduce stent migration risks. Cost savings associated with suturing ranged from US$147.48 to US$1586.36 per patient, based on the indication for the procedure in sensitivity analysis. Cost savings increased with higher rates of technical success in suture placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Creating a defined reimbursement pathway for endoscopic suture fixation of a stent for the treatment of benign esophageal diseases appears to be justified from a payer perspective.