Literature DB >> 25286008

The effect of repair costs on the profitability of a ureteroscopy program.

Jeffrey J Tosoian1, Wesley Ludwig, Nikolai Sopko, Jeffrey K Mullins, Brian R Matlaga.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Ureteroscopy (URS) is a common treatment for patients with stone disease. One of the disadvantages of this approach is the great capital expense associated with the purchase and repair of endoscopic equipment. In some cases, these costs can outpace revenues and lead to an unprofitable and unsustainable enterprise. We sought to characterize the profitability of our URS program when accounting for endoscope maintenance and repair costs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all URS cases performed at a single hospital during fiscal year 2013 (FY2013). Charges, collection rates, and fixed and variable costs including annual equipment repair costs were obtained. The net margin and break-even point of URS were derived on a per-case basis.
RESULTS: For 190 cases performed in FY2013, total endoscope repair costs totaled $115,000, resulting in an average repair cost of $605 per case. The vast majority of cases (94.2%) were conducted in the outpatient setting, which generated a net margin of $659 per case, while inpatient cases yielded a net loss of $455. URS was ultimately associated with a net positive margin approaching $600 per case. On break-even analysis, URS remained profitable until repair costs reached $1200 per case.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, an established URS program can sustain profitability even with large equipment repair costs. Nonetheless, our findings serve to emphasize the importance of controlling costs, particularly in the current setting of decreasing reimbursement. A multifaceted approach, based on improving endoscope durability and exploring digital and disposable platforms, will be critical in maintaining the sustainability of URS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25286008     DOI: 10.1089/end.2014.0435

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  16 in total

Review 1.  To Dust or Not To Dust: a Systematic Review of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy Techniques.

Authors:  Javier E Santiago; Adam B Hollander; Samit D Soni; Richard E Link; Wesley A Mayer
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Defining the Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope Reprocessing Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

Authors:  Dylan Isaacson; Tessnim Ahmad; Ian Metzler; David T Tzou; Kazumi Taguchi; Manint Usawachintachit; Samuel Zetumer; Benjamin Sherer; Marshall Stoller; Thomas Chi
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 3.  Handling and protecting your flexible ureteroscope: how to maximise scope usage.

Authors:  Khaled Hosny; Jennifer Clark; Shalom J Srirangam
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2019-09

Review 4.  Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA Uro-group.

Authors:  Michele Talso; Ioannis K Goumas; Guido M Kamphuis; Laurian Dragos; Tzevat Tefik; Olivier Traxer; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2019-09

5.  Identifying factors associated with need for flexible ureteroscope repair: a Western Endourology STone (WEST) research consortium prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Kazumi Taguchi; Jonathan D Harper; Marshall L Stoller; Brian D Duty; Mathew D Sorensen; Roger L Sur; Manint Usawachintachit; David T Tzou; David L Wenzler; Dylan Isaacson; Angela Xu; Carissa Chu; Uwais B Zaid; Eric R Taylor; Krishna Ramaswamy; Thomas Chi
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-12-09       Impact factor: 3.436

6.  Single-Use vs Reusable Ureteroscopes in Horseshoe Kidney Stones.

Authors:  Bogdan Geavlete; Razvan Popescu; Valentin Iordache; Petrisor Geavlete
Journal:  Maedica (Bucur)       Date:  2021-12

7.  First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue™): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study.

Authors:  Steeve Doizi; Guido Kamphuis; Guido Giusti; Kim Hovgaard Andreassen; Thomas Knoll; Palle Jörn Osther; Cesare Scoffone; Daniel Pérez-Fentes; Silvia Proietti; Oliver Wiseman; Jean de la Rosette; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-09-26       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Quality of Acute Care for Patients With Urinary Stones in the United States.

Authors:  Charles D Scales; Jonathan Bergman; Stacey Carter; Gregory Jack; Christopher S Saigal; Mark S Litwin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 9.  Economic Considerations in the Management of Nephrolithiasis.

Authors:  Daniel Roberson; Colin Sperling; Ankur Shah; Justin Ziemba
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2020-03-31       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 10.  Digital ureteroscopes: technology update.

Authors:  Chad M Gridley; Bodo E Knudsen
Journal:  Res Rep Urol       Date:  2017-01-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.