The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
Expensive today but cheaper tomorrow: lifetime costs of an active middle ear implant compared to alternative treatment options.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Krohn Markus, Kiesewetter Klaas, Buchholz Annika, Schlick Bettina, Busch Susan, Lenarz Thomas, Lesinski-Schiedat Anke, Maier Hannes, Batsoulis Cornelia, Urban Michael, Flessa Steffen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: When choosing between different treatment options, implants often appear too costly. However, this perspective does not take future costs into account. This article evaluates lifetime costs for different surgical interventions to treat hearing loss.
METHODS: The analysis focused on three groups from the perspective of health insurers. Group 1 comprises patients who have only been implanted with a middle ear implant. Patients in Group 2 had already undergone middle ear surgery to improve hearing prior to the implantation of a middle ear implant. Group 3 consists of patients who were treated exclusively with hearing-improvement surgeries (no implant). The lifetime costs were calculated using the Monte Carlo simulation. The inputs were based on medical data from a maximum-care hospital and data from the German healthcare system.
RESULTS: Based on an average observation period of 26.73 years, the lifetime costs amounted to 28,325€ for group 1, 32,187€ for group 2 and 28,381€ for group 3. While the mean values between groups 1 and 3 appear comparable, group 1 has a significantly lower standard deviation (G1 vs. G3: 6120€ vs. 10,327€).
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Choosing a treatment option can be a complex medical decision and impose a substantial economic burden for the statutory health insurance. Hence, treatment decisions should be patient-centred at first but also including a shared-decision making on economic feasibility, whether proposed treatment alternatives are likely to be successful and economically reasonable.
METHODS: The analysis focused on three groups from the perspective of health insurers. Group 1 comprises patients who have only been implanted with a middle ear implant. Patients in Group 2 had already undergone middle ear surgery to improve hearing prior to the implantation of a middle ear implant. Group 3 consists of patients who were treated exclusively with hearing-improvement surgeries (no implant). The lifetime costs were calculated using the Monte Carlo simulation. The inputs were based on medical data from a maximum-care hospital and data from the German healthcare system.
RESULTS: Based on an average observation period of 26.73 years, the lifetime costs amounted to 28,325€ for group 1, 32,187€ for group 2 and 28,381€ for group 3. While the mean values between groups 1 and 3 appear comparable, group 1 has a significantly lower standard deviation (G1 vs. G3: 6120€ vs. 10,327€).
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Choosing a treatment option can be a complex medical decision and impose a substantial economic burden for the statutory health insurance. Hence, treatment decisions should be patient-centred at first but also including a shared-decision making on economic feasibility, whether proposed treatment alternatives are likely to be successful and economically reasonable.