Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2021
Cost Efficiency Analysis for Spasticity Management Based on Physician Botulinum Toxin Prescribing Habits.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kazerooni Rashid, Howard Ileana, Li Xiaomeng, Verduzco-Gutierrez Monica
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To estimate differences in botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) treatment costs per patient for spasticity-injecting physicians, with a focus on physicians' use of alternative BoNT-A agents other than onabotulinumtoxinA.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: National Medicare data for fee-for-service beneficiaries in 2017.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 116 physicians, 6829 BoNT-A procedures, and 3051 patients were included in this analysis. Most physicians were physiatrists (84%) and used only onabotulinumtoxinA (82%).
INTERVENTIONS: Type of BoNT-A selected by physicians was the independent variable of interest. Included physicians were separated into 2 groups: (1) onabotulinumtoxinA only injectors and (2) abobotulinumtoxinA and/or incobotulinumtoxinA injectors (may still use onabotulinumtoxinA).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Average cost per patient per year.
RESULTS: The total average BoNT-A cost per patient per year was significantly less for physicians who used abobotulinumtoxinA and/or incobotulinumtoxinA vs those who used only onabotulinumtoxinA ($3684 vs $4739; P=.01). Patients' average annual out-of-pocket costs also reflected a similar difference ($855 vs $1082; P=.02) between the groups. Doses used and numbers of injections per patient per year were not significantly different between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis demonstrated lower cost per patient for both the payer and patient when physicians used types of BoNT-A other than onabotulinumtoxinA for spasticity. Nevertheless, most physicians in this spasticity-focused study used exclusively onabotulinumtoxinA, the most expensive BoNT-A available. Reasons for this are complex and include history on the market and approved indications beyond those associated with spasticity. However, future research should continue to identify such issues with a goal of finding solutions to improve cost inefficiencies.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: National Medicare data for fee-for-service beneficiaries in 2017.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 116 physicians, 6829 BoNT-A procedures, and 3051 patients were included in this analysis. Most physicians were physiatrists (84%) and used only onabotulinumtoxinA (82%).
INTERVENTIONS: Type of BoNT-A selected by physicians was the independent variable of interest. Included physicians were separated into 2 groups: (1) onabotulinumtoxinA only injectors and (2) abobotulinumtoxinA and/or incobotulinumtoxinA injectors (may still use onabotulinumtoxinA).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Average cost per patient per year.
RESULTS: The total average BoNT-A cost per patient per year was significantly less for physicians who used abobotulinumtoxinA and/or incobotulinumtoxinA vs those who used only onabotulinumtoxinA ($3684 vs $4739; P=.01). Patients' average annual out-of-pocket costs also reflected a similar difference ($855 vs $1082; P=.02) between the groups. Doses used and numbers of injections per patient per year were not significantly different between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis demonstrated lower cost per patient for both the payer and patient when physicians used types of BoNT-A other than onabotulinumtoxinA for spasticity. Nevertheless, most physicians in this spasticity-focused study used exclusively onabotulinumtoxinA, the most expensive BoNT-A available. Reasons for this are complex and include history on the market and approved indications beyond those associated with spasticity. However, future research should continue to identify such issues with a goal of finding solutions to improve cost inefficiencies.