Literature DB >> 17216180

Reimbursement for chest-pain CT: estimates based on current imaging strategies.

Hansel J Otero1, Frank J Rybicki.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to estimate reimbursement for chest pain CT, assuming no cost increase for current emergent chest pain imaging. Using reported imaging test characteristics, prevalence and risk of coronary heart disease, and Medicare reimbursement schedules, 10,000 simulated patients were evaluated with three chest pain imaging algorithms. The main difference among the algorithms was the initial imaging tool: stress echocardiography, single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and chest pain CT. Outcome analysis included deaths, intra- and extra-hospital myocardial infraction, number of tests performed, time utilization, and the cost per patient. The chest pain CT algorithm was assessed with its reimbursement as an unknown to determine a maximum reimbursement that would not increase overall healthcare costs. Stress echocardiography costs $856.5 per patient with 8.4 observation hours and 646 (27%) negative catheterizations. When SPECT replaces stress echocardiography, the cost increases to $1,413.7 with average observation of 9.05 hours and 1,060 (36%) negative catheterizations. Chest pain CT minimizes observation (by 8.4 and 9.1 compared to echocardiography and SPECT, respectively); negative catheterizations drop to 266 (12%). Solving for chest pain CT reimbursement as an unkown yields $433.1 and $990.3 when compared to echocardiography and SPECT, respectively. Under the assumption that new technology should not increase overall imaging costs, reimbursement for chest pain CT is compatible with current reimbursement for pulmonary embolism and aortic dissection CTA. Reimbursements must be weighed against the complexity and patient benefits of the examination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17216180     DOI: 10.1007/s10140-006-0529-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Radiol        ISSN: 1070-3004


  18 in total

1.  1999 update: ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Executive Summary and Recommendations: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction).

Authors:  T J Ryan; E M Antman; N H Brooks; R M Califf; L D Hillis; L F Hiratzka; E Rapaport; B Riegel; R O Russell; E E Smith; W D Weaver; R J Gibbons; J S Alpert; K A Eagle; T J Gardner; A Garson; G Gregoratos; S C Smith
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1999-08-31       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 2.  Evaluation of the patient with acute chest pain.

Authors:  T H Lee; L Goldman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-04-20       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Expert Consensus Document on electron-beam computed tomography for the diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease.

Authors:  R A O'Rourke; B H Brundage; V F Froelicher; P Greenland; S M Grundy; R Hachamovitch; G M Pohost; L J Shaw; W S Weintraub; W L Winters
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 24.094

4.  Cost-effectiveness of thrombolysis--a randomized study of intravenous rt-PA in suspected myocardial infarction.

Authors:  L A Levin; B Jönsson
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 29.983

5.  Medicare and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Peter J Neumann; Allison B Rosen; Milton C Weinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-10-06       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Universal use of nonionic iodinated contrast medium for CT: evaluation of safety in a large urban teaching hospital.

Authors:  Koenraad J Mortelé; Maria-Raquel Oliva; Silvia Ondategui; Pablo R Ros; Stuart G Silverman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Cardiac-catheterization and cardiac-surgical facilities: use, trends, and future requirements.

Authors:  R H Kennedy; M A Kennedy; R L Frye; E R Giuliani; D C McGoon; J R Pluth; H C Smith; D G Ritter; F T Nobrega; L T Kurland
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1982-10-14       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Coronary angiography reviewed. Part II. Complication rate and management of the 'high risk' patient.

Authors:  N P Madigan; J F Sanfelippo; J J Curtis; S Saab; M Zmijewski
Journal:  Mo Med       Date:  1980-08

9.  The effect of gender on the probability of myocardial infarction among emergency department patients with acute chest pain: a report from the Multicenter Chest Pain Study Group.

Authors:  M A Cunningham; T H Lee; E F Cook; D A Brand; G W Rouan; M C Weisberg; L Goldman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1989 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Clinical characteristics and outcome of acute myocardial infarction in patients with initially normal or nonspecific electrocardiograms (a report from the Multicenter Chest Pain Study).

Authors:  G W Rouan; T H Lee; E F Cook; D A Brand; M C Weisberg; L Goldman
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1989-11-15       Impact factor: 2.778

View more
  2 in total

1.  Economic outcome of cardiac CT-based evaluation and standard of care for suspected acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department: a decision analytic model.

Authors:  Kelley R Branch; Brian W Bresnahan; David L Veenstra; William P Shuman; William S Weintraub; Janet M Busey; Daniel J Elliott; Lee M Mitsumori; Jared Strote; Kathleen Jobe; Ted Dubinsky; James H Caldwell
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-12-30       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Efficacy and safety of the computed tomography coronary angiography based approach for patients with acute chest pain at an emergency department: one month clinical follow-up study.

Authors:  Joonghee Kim; Hwijae Lee; Sungwook Song; Jinsik Park; Hwanjun Jae; Whal Lee; Sangdo Shin; Sungkoo Jung; Youngho Kwak; Giljoon Suh; Jaehyung Park
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2010-02-17       Impact factor: 2.153

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.