Literature DB >> 28350948

Bending the Cost Curve-Establishing Value in Spine Surgery.

Scott L Parker1, Silky Chotai1, Clinton J Devin1, Lindsay Tetreault2, Thomas E Mroz3, Darrel S Brodke4, Michael G Fehlings5, Matthew J McGirt6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As publically promoted by all stakeholders in health care reform, prospective outcomes registry platforms lie at the center of all current evidence-driven value-based models.
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the variability in outcomes and cost at population level and individual patient level for patients undergoing spine surgery for degenerative diseases.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospective longitudinal spine registry data was conducted. Baseline and postoperative 1-year patient-reported outcomes were recorded. Previously published minimal clinically important difference for Oswestry Disability Index (14.9) was used. Back-related resource utilization and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were assessed. Variations in outcomes and cost were analyzed at population level and at the individual patient level.
RESULTS: A total of 1454 patients were analyzed. There was significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes at postoperative 1 year ( P < .0001). For patients demonstrating health benefit at population level, 12.5%, n = 182 of patients experienced no gain from surgery and 38%, n = 554 failed to achieve minimal clinically important difference. Mean 1-year QALY-gained was 0.29; 18% of patients failed to report gain in QALY. For patients with 2-year follow-up, surgery resulted in 0.62 QALY-gained at average direct cost of $28 953. A wide variation in both QALY-gained and cost was observed.
CONCLUSION: Spine treatments that on average are cost-effective may have wide variability in value at the individual patient level. The variability demonstrated here represents an opportunity, through registries, to identify specific care that may be less effective, and refine patient-specific care delivery and indications to drive overall group-level treatment value. Understanding value of spine care at an individualized as well as population level will allow clinicians, and eventually payers, to better target resources for improving care for nonresponders, ultimately driving up the average health for the whole population.
Copyright © 2016 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost; Cost-effectiveness; Patient-reported outcomes; QOD; Spine; Spine registry; Surgery; Value

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28350948     DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyw081

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurgery        ISSN: 0148-396X            Impact factor:   4.654


  5 in total

Review 1.  Best Practices for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment 2.0 (MIST): Consensus Guidance from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN).

Authors:  Timothy R Deer; Jay S Grider; Jason E Pope; Tim J Lamer; Sayed E Wahezi; Jonathan M Hagedorn; Steven Falowski; Reda Tolba; Jay M Shah; Natalie Strand; Alex Escobar; Mark Malinowski; Anjum Bux; Navdeep Jassal; Jennifer Hah; Jacqueline Weisbein; Nestor D Tomycz; Jessica Jameson; Erika A Petersen; Dawood Sayed
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 2.832

Review 2.  Spine centers of excellence: applications for the ambulatory care setting.

Authors:  Evan D Sheha; Sravisht Iyer
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-09

Review 3.  A Review of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Intermittent Neurogenic Claudication: Disease and Diagnosis.

Authors:  Timothy Deer; Dawood Sayed; John Michels; Youssef Josephson; Sean Li; Aaron K Calodney
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 3.750

4.  Cervical and spinopelvic parameters can predict patient reported outcomes following cervical deformity surgery.

Authors:  Peter Gust Passias; Katherine E Pierce; Bailey Imbo; Lara Passfall; Oscar Krol; Rachel Joujon-Roche; Tyler Williamson; Kevin Moattari; Peter Tretiakov; Ammar Adenwalla; Irene Chern; Haddy Alas; Cole A Bortz; Avery E Brown; Shaleen Vira; Bassel G Diebo; Daniel M Sciubba; Renaud Lafage; Virginie Lafage
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2022-03-09

5.  Artificial Intelligence and Robotics in Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Jonathan J Rasouli; Jianning Shao; Sean Neifert; Wende N Gibbs; Ghaith Habboub; Michael P Steinmetz; Edward Benzel; Thomas E Mroz
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-04-01
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.