Literature DB >> 11465307

Cost considerations in the use of anaesthetic drugs.

I Smith1.   

Abstract

Anaesthetic drugs typically comprise approximately 5% or less of a hospital pharmacy budget, yet they are a common target for cost reduction measures. In particular, there is considerable pressure to use less costly products where alternatives exist and to limit the introduction of expensive new items. In considering strategies to reduce a departmental drug budget, or in defending against restrictions imposed from outside, it is important to consider all of the costs associated with anaesthetic drug delivery. These costs comprise not only the expense of the anaesthetic drugs themselves, but also fixed and variable costs associated with their delivery and related to their effects. Elimination of drug waste will always be beneficial, since it has no direct effect on the patient yet clearly reduces cost. Waste is by no means confined to anaesthetic drugs, however. Using less expensive drugs may appear an attractive option and can reduce costs, provided that patient outcome is in no way affected. Rarely is this the case. Once patient care is modified, through changes in recovery times or complication rates, determining the true cost of the intervention becomes essential; there may be increases in indirect costs which dwarf the apparent savings. Sometimes indirect costs will rise by a lesser amount than savings in direct costs, such that there is still an overall benefit but less than that originally anticipated. Exactly how indirect effects result in indirect costs is highly variable. The requirement for additional drugs or supplies to treat an adverse event, such as emesis, will always have an associated cost. Delayed recovery or prolonged hospital stay will waste operating room time or increase the amount of time that a patient requires nursing care, but whether this carries an associated cost depends on what the staff would otherwise have been doing. Depending on the employment method, staff may have been sent home early (with less pay) or employed at identical cost but with less to do. Many studies which purport to consider all costs either ignore such issues, or make invalid assumptions. These issues are complex, but anyone involved with decisions concerning anaesthetic costs should be familiar with the underlying principles and be able to make a rational assessment of the likely indirect costs in their own institution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11465307     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200119050-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  47 in total

1.  Cost effectiveness of general anaesthesia: inhalation vs i.v.

Authors:  T A Crozier; D Kettler
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 9.166

2.  A comparison of costs and efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol as prophylactic antiemetic therapy for elective outpatient gynecologic procedures.

Authors:  J Tang; M F Watcha; P F White
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 5.108

3.  Meaningful cost reduction. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Authors:  F K Orkin
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 7.892

Review 4.  Low-flow anaesthesia. Does it have potential pharmacoeconomic consequences?

Authors:  S Suttner; J Boldt
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  A multicentre comparison of the costs of anaesthesia with sevoflurane or propofol.

Authors:  I Smith; P A Terhoeve; D Hennart; P Feiss; M Harmer; J L Pourriat; I A Johnson
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 9.166

6.  The effect of timing of ondansetron administration on its efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit as a prophylactic antiemetic in the ambulatory setting.

Authors:  J Tang; B Wang; P F White; M F Watcha; J Qi; R H Wender
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 5.108

7.  Target-controlled propofol vs. sevoflurane: a double-blind, randomised comparison in day-case anaesthesia.

Authors:  I Smith; A J Thwaites
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 6.955

8.  Recovery characteristics using isoflurane or propofol for maintenance of anaesthesia: a double-blind controlled trial.

Authors:  C A Marshall; R M Jones; P K Bajorek; J N Cashman
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 6.955

9.  Antiemetic prophylaxis does not improve outcomes after outpatient surgery when compared to symptomatic treatment.

Authors:  P E Scuderi; R L James; L Harris; G R Mims
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 7.892

10.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of antiemetic therapy for ambulatory surgery.

Authors:  M F Watcha; I Smith
Journal:  J Clin Anesth       Date:  1994 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 9.452

View more
  1 in total

1.  Total intravenous anaesthesia: is it worth the cost?

Authors:  Ian Smith
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 5.749

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.