| Literature DB >> 25646101 |
Amitabh Chandra1, Julia Thornton Snider2, Yanyu Wu3, Anupam Jena4, Dana P Goldman5.
Abstract
Surgeons increasingly use robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery for a variety of medical conditions. For hospitals, the acquisition and maintenance of a robot requires a significant investment, but financial returns are not linked to any improvement in long-term patient outcomes in the current reimbursement environment. Kidney cancer provides a useful case study for evaluating the long-term value that this innovation can provide. Kidney cancer is generally treated through partial or radical nephrectomy, with evidence favoring the former procedure for appropriate patients. We found that robot-assisted surgery increased access to partial nephrectomy and that partial nephrectomy reduced mortality and renal failure. The value of the benefits of robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery to patients, in terms of quality-adjusted life-years gained, outweighed the health care and surgical costs to patients and payers by a ratio of five to one. In addition, we found no evidence that the availability of robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery increased the likelihood that inappropriate patients received partial nephrectomy. Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.Entities:
Keywords: Access To Care; Cost of Health Care; Health Economics; Medical technology; Medicare
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25646101 DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0986
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) ISSN: 0278-2715 Impact factor: 6.301