The cost analysis of varicose vein treatment techniques in Turkey: a benefit or profit problem?

Abstract

DOI: 10.4328/JCAM.5930 Received: 11.06.2018 Accepted: 29.06.2018 Published Online: 03.07.2018 Printed: 01.11.2018 J Clin Anal Med 2018;9(6): 525-9 Corresponding Author: Omer Tanyeli, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Meram Medicine Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42080, Meram, Konya, Turkey. GSM: +905327678909 E-Mail: otanyeli@gmail.com ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6275-7744 Abstract Aim: Varicose veins are common healthcare problem in Turkey and worldwide. In this study, we compared the economic parameters of commonly used varicose treatment techniques, particularly classical surgical techniques, endovenous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and glue (cyanoacrylate) techniques’ costs, hospital bills, and profits. Material and Method: A total of 100 patients who had varicose vein operations, were evaluated retrospectively between April 2017 and November 2017. These patients were divided into subgroups depending on the methods used such as classical surgical treatment or catheter-based techniques. Demographic data including age, gender, hospitalization period, cost of the patient, amounts billed to SGK, and the patient-based profit/loss was analyzed for groups of varicose vein treatments described above. Results: Twenty-nine patients (29%) were treated by surgery and 71 patients (71%) received catheterbased treatments. Thirty-four patients (34%) were treated by glue injection, and 37 patients (37%) were treated by RFA. There was no difference between the groups for the length of hospital stay (p > 0.05). The glue group had the highest cost (2093.8 ± 148.9 TL) while the surgery group had the lowest cost (618.2 ± 365.4 TL), with the RF group in between (1453.1 ± 130.3) (p < 0.001). The RF group had the highest profit for the hospital (209.9 ± 261.3 TL), while the glue group had the lowest profit (-66.3 ± 126.2 TL) (p<0.001). Discussion: The most suitable strategy seems to be RFA when profit is a concern. But the patient’s wishes, anatomical properties, activity/working conditions and the physician’s choice for the welfare of the patient should be determinative.