Journal of dentistry · 2024
Cost-effectiveness of expanding national health insurance coverage for composite resin restorations in cancer patients in South Korea.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Han Areum, Park Eun-Gee, Yoon Jeong-Hwa, Choi Ji-Yeob, Park Hee-Kyung, Hahn Seokyung
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Cancer patients often have compromised oral health, making them vulnerable to severe dental caries and restoration failures. Due to the nature of cervical or anterior caries in cancer patients, the use of adequate restorative materials is important. However, public dental insurance coverage for composite treatments varies among countries and only glass ionomer cements (GICs) are covered in all age groups in South Korea. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of expanding national health insurance coverage to include resin composite (RC) restorations as compared with GIC in cancer patients.
METHODS: Data from cancer patients who received direct restoration using GIC were identified from the National Health Screening Cohort. The relative effect of RC compared to GIC was determined through a meta-analysis, which was then utilized in calculating corresponding transition probabilities within a multi-state model. A Markov-chain Monte Carlo microsimulation was performed to estimate useful life-years and total treatment costs at the tooth level. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of RC versus GIC was calculated, considering scenarios with and without expanded national health insurance coverage. The robustness of the results was confirmed through various sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: Between the two materials, RC resulted in a 0.4-year longer useful life. From a limited societal perspective, it cost $9.6 less with expanded coverage but $24.3 more without expansion, resulting in an ICER of -$25.2 and $63.9 per tooth-year, respectively. From a patient's perspective, the ICER values were -$72.7 versus $138.8 per tooth-year, respectively, translating into $200 more in savings with the expansion. Various sensitivity analyses consistently demonstrated a smaller ICER when insurance coverage was expanded.
CONCLUSIONS: The expansion of national health insurance coverage to include RC restorations for cancer patients appears to be clearly cost-effective. This emphasizes the need for further policy considerations to ensure access to dental care for cancer patients.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Timely management of dental caries is crucial for cancer patients, as untreated caries can escalate into severe oral conditions, negatively impacting treatment outcomes and increasing care costs. Expanding a national health insurance coverage for cancer patients in the treatment of early dental lesions is necessary to prevent advanced dental diseases.
METHODS: Data from cancer patients who received direct restoration using GIC were identified from the National Health Screening Cohort. The relative effect of RC compared to GIC was determined through a meta-analysis, which was then utilized in calculating corresponding transition probabilities within a multi-state model. A Markov-chain Monte Carlo microsimulation was performed to estimate useful life-years and total treatment costs at the tooth level. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of RC versus GIC was calculated, considering scenarios with and without expanded national health insurance coverage. The robustness of the results was confirmed through various sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: Between the two materials, RC resulted in a 0.4-year longer useful life. From a limited societal perspective, it cost $9.6 less with expanded coverage but $24.3 more without expansion, resulting in an ICER of -$25.2 and $63.9 per tooth-year, respectively. From a patient's perspective, the ICER values were -$72.7 versus $138.8 per tooth-year, respectively, translating into $200 more in savings with the expansion. Various sensitivity analyses consistently demonstrated a smaller ICER when insurance coverage was expanded.
CONCLUSIONS: The expansion of national health insurance coverage to include RC restorations for cancer patients appears to be clearly cost-effective. This emphasizes the need for further policy considerations to ensure access to dental care for cancer patients.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Timely management of dental caries is crucial for cancer patients, as untreated caries can escalate into severe oral conditions, negatively impacting treatment outcomes and increasing care costs. Expanding a national health insurance coverage for cancer patients in the treatment of early dental lesions is necessary to prevent advanced dental diseases.