American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation · 2020
Impact of Time to Receipt of Prosthesis on Total Healthcare Costs 12 Months Postamputation.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Miller Taavy A, Paul Rajib, Forthofer Melinda, Wurdeman Shane R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the impact of a prosthesis and the timing of prosthesis receipt on total direct healthcare costs in the 12-mo postamputation period.
DESIGN: Data on patients with lower limb amputation (n = 510) were obtained from a commercial claims database for retrospective cohort analysis. Generalized linear multivariate modeling was used to determine differences in cost between groups according to timing of prosthesis receipt compared with a control group with no prosthesis.
RESULTS: Receipt of a prosthesis between 0 and 3 mos post lower limb amputation yielded a reduced total cost by approximately 0.23 in log scale within 12 mos after amputation when compared with the no-prosthesis group. Despite the included costs of a prosthesis, individuals who received a prosthesis either at 4-6 mos postamputation or 7-9 mos postamputation incurred costs similar to the no-prosthesis group.
CONCLUSION: Earlier receipt of a prosthesis is associated with reduced spending in the 12 mos postamputation of approximately $25,000 compared with not receiving a prosthesis. The results of this study suggest that not providing or delaying the provision of a prosthesis increases costs by about 25%.
DESIGN: Data on patients with lower limb amputation (n = 510) were obtained from a commercial claims database for retrospective cohort analysis. Generalized linear multivariate modeling was used to determine differences in cost between groups according to timing of prosthesis receipt compared with a control group with no prosthesis.
RESULTS: Receipt of a prosthesis between 0 and 3 mos post lower limb amputation yielded a reduced total cost by approximately 0.23 in log scale within 12 mos after amputation when compared with the no-prosthesis group. Despite the included costs of a prosthesis, individuals who received a prosthesis either at 4-6 mos postamputation or 7-9 mos postamputation incurred costs similar to the no-prosthesis group.
CONCLUSION: Earlier receipt of a prosthesis is associated with reduced spending in the 12 mos postamputation of approximately $25,000 compared with not receiving a prosthesis. The results of this study suggest that not providing or delaying the provision of a prosthesis increases costs by about 25%.