Cost-effectiveness of timely versus delayed primary total hip replacement in Germany: A social health insurance perspective

Without clinical guideline on the optimal timing for primary total hip replacement (THR), patients often receive the operation with delay. Delaying THR may negatively affect long-term health-related quality of life, but its economic effects are unclear. We evaluated the costs and health benefits of timely primary THR for functionally independent adult patients with end-stage osteoarthritis (OA) compared to non-surgical therapy followed by THR after progression to functional dependence (delayed THR), and non-surgical therapy alone (Medical Therapy), from a German Social Health Insurance (SHI) perspective. Data from hip arthroplasty registers and a systematic review of the published literature were used to populate a tunnel-state modified Markov lifetime model of OA treatment in Germany. A 5% annual discount rate was applied to costs (2013 prices) and health outcomes (Quality Adjusted Life Years, QALY). The expected future average cost of timely THR, delayed THR and medical therapy in women at age 55 were €27,474, €27,083 and €28,263, and QALYs were 20.7, 16.7, and 10.3, respectively. QALY differences were entirely due to health-related quality of life differences. The discounted cost per QALY gained by timely over delayed (median delay of 11 years) THR was €1270 and €1338 in women treated at age 55 and age 65, respectively, and slightly higher than this for men. Timely THR is cost-effective, generating large quality of life benefits for patients at low additional cost to the SHI. With declining healthcare budgets, research is needed to identify the characteristics of those able to benefit the most from timely THR.

Elective hospital admissions: secondary data analysis and modelling with an emphasis on policies to moderate growth

Background

The English NHS faces financial pressures that may render the growth rates of elective admissions seen between 2001/2 and 2011/12 unsustainable. A better understanding of admissions growth, and the influence of policy, are needed to minimise the impact on health gain for patients.

Objectives

This project had several objectives: (1) to better understand the determinants of elective activity and policy to moderate growth at minimum health loss for patients; (2) to build a rich data set integrating health, practice and local area data to study general practitioner (GP) referrals and resulting admissions; (3) to predict patients whose treatment is unlikely to be cost-effective using patient-reported outcomes and to examine variation in provider performance; and (4) to study how policies that aim to reduce elective admissions may change demand for emergency care. The main drivers of elective admissions growth have increased either supply of or demand for care, and could include, for example, technical innovations or increased awareness of treatment benefits. Of the factors studied, neither system reform nor population ageing appears to be a key driver. The introduction of the prospective payment tariff ‘Payment by Results’ appears to have led to primary care trusts (PCTs) having increasingly similar lengths of stay. In deprived areas, increasing GP supply appears to moderate elective admissions. Reducing the incidence of single-handed practices tends to reduce referrals and admissions. Policies to reduce referrals are likely to reduce admissions but treatments may be particularly reduced in the lowest referring practices, in which resulting health loss may be greatest. In this model, per full-time equivalent, female and highly experienced GPs identify more patients admitted by specialists.

Results

It appears from our studies that some patient characteristics are associated with not achieving sufficient patient gain to warrant cost-effective treatment. The introduction of independent sector treatment centres is estimated to have caused an increase in emergency activity rates at local PCTs. The explanations offered for increasing elective admissions indicate that they are manageable by health policy.

Conclusions

Further work is required to understand some of the results identified, such as whether or not high-volume Clinical Commissioning Groups are fulfilling unmet need; why some practices refer at low rates relative to admissions; why the period effect, which results from factors that equally affect all in the study at a point in time, dominates in the age–period–cohort analysis; and exactly how the emergency and elective sections of hospital treatment interact. This project relies on the analysis of secondary data. This type of research does not easily facilitate the important input of clinical experts or service users. It would be beneficial if other methods, including surveys and consultation with key stakeholders, could be incorporated into future research now that we have uncovered important questions.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Perspectives of orthopaedic surgeons on patients' appropriateness for total joint arthroplasty: a qualitative study

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

As total joint arthroplasty (TJA) rates rise, there is need to ensure appropriate use. Our objective was to elucidate surgeons' perspectives on appropriateness for TJA.

METHODS

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted in a sample of orthopaedic surgeons that perform TJA in three Canadian Provinces. Surgeons were asked to discuss their criteria for TJA appropriateness for osteoarthritis; potential value of a decision-support tool to select appropriate candidates; and the role of other stakeholders in assessing appropriateness.

RESULTS

Of 17 surgeons approached for participation, 14 completed interviews (12 males; 7 aged <50 years; 5 academic; 8 in urban practices). Surgeons agreed that pain and pain impact on patients' quality of life and function were the key criteria to assess appropriateness for TJA, but that these concepts were difficult to assess and not always congruent with structural changes on joint radiography. Some used a wider range of criteria, including their assessments of patient expectations, ability to cope and readiness for surgery. While patient age was not identified as a criterion itself, surgeons did acknowledge that appropriateness criteria may differ for younger versus older patients. Most agreed that a decision-support tool would help ensure that all elements of appropriateness are assessed in a standardized manner, albeit the ultimate decision to offer surgery must be left to the discretion of surgeons, within the context of the doctor-patient relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons recognized the need for a tool to support decision making for TJA, particularly in the context of increasing surgical demand in younger patients with less severe arthritis. The work to develop and test such a decision-support tool is underway.

Patient-reported outcomes: pathways to better health, better services, and better societies

While the use of PROs in research is well established, many challenges lie ahead as their use is extended to other applications. There is consensus that health outcome evaluations that include PROs along with clinician-reported outcomes and administrative data are necessary to inform clinical and policy decisions. The initiatives presented in this paper underline evolving recognition that PROs play a unique role in adding the patient perspective alongside clinical (e.g., blood pressure) and organizational (e.g., admission rates) indicators for evaluating the effects of new products, selecting treatments, evaluating quality of care, and monitoring the health of the population. In this paper, we first explore the use of PRO measures to support drug approval and labeling claims. We critically evaluate the evidence and challenges associated with using PRO measures to improve healthcare delivery at individual and population levels. We further discuss the challenges associated with selecting from the abundance of measures available, opportunities afforded by agreeing on common metrics for constructs of interest, and the importance of establishing an evidence base that supports integrating PRO measures across the healthcare system to improve outcomes. We conclude that the integration of PROs as a key end point within individual patient care, healthcare organization and program performance evaluations, and population surveillance will be essential for evaluating whether increased healthcare expenditure is translating into better health outcomes.