Markus Krohn, Klaas Kiesewetter, Annika Buchholz, Bettina Schlick, Susan Busch, Thomas Lenarz, Anke Lesinski-Schiedat, Hannes Maier, Cornelia Batsoulis, Michael Urban, Steffen Flessa
{"title":"Expensive today but cheaper tomorrow: lifetime costs of an active middle ear implant compared to alternative treatment options.","authors":"Markus Krohn, Klaas Kiesewetter, Annika Buchholz, Bettina Schlick, Susan Busch, Thomas Lenarz, Anke Lesinski-Schiedat, Hannes Maier, Cornelia Batsoulis, Michael Urban, Steffen Flessa","doi":"10.1007/s10198-024-01743-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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€).</p><p><strong>Discussion/conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":51416,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-024-01743-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
背景:在选择不同的治疗方案时,种植体往往显得过于昂贵。然而,这种观点并没有考虑到未来的成本。本文评估了不同手术干预治疗听力损失的终生成本。方法:从健康保险公司的角度对三组人群进行分析。第一组包括只植入了中耳的患者。第2组患者在植入中耳植入物之前已经接受了中耳手术以改善听力。第三组患者仅接受听力改善手术(无植入物)。使用蒙特卡罗模拟计算了寿命成本。输入的数据基于一家最高护理医院的医疗数据和德国医疗保健系统的数据。结果:基于26.73年的平均观察期,第1组的终生成本为28,325欧元,第2组为32187欧元,第3组为28,381欧元。虽然第1组和第3组之间的平均值具有可比性,但第1组的标准差明显较低(G1 vs G3: 6120欧元vs 10327欧元)。讨论/结论:选择一种治疗方案可能是一个复杂的医疗决定,并对法定健康保险造成巨大的经济负担。因此,治疗决策首先应以患者为中心,但也应包括对经济可行性的共同决策,即所提出的治疗方案是否可能成功,在经济上是否合理。
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Health Economics is a journal of Health Economics and associated disciplines. The growing demand for health economics and the introduction of new guidelines in various European countries were the motivation to generate a highly scientific and at the same time practice oriented journal considering the requirements of various health care systems in Europe. The international scientific board of opinion leaders guarantees high-quality, peer-reviewed publications as well as articles for pragmatic approaches in the field of health economics. We intend to cover all aspects of health economics:
• Basics of health economic approaches and methods
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Health Care Systems
• Pricing and Reimbursement Systems
• Quality-of-Life-Studies The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. The author will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill the above-mentioned requirements.
Officially cited as: Eur J Health Econ