Taavy Miller1,2, Rajib Paul1, Melinda Forthofer1, Shane R Wurdeman2,3. 1. Department of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA. 2. Department of Clinical and Scientific Affairs, Hanger Clinic, Austin, TX, USA. 3. Department of Biomechanics, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the impact of a prosthesis and the timing of prosthesis receipt on total direct health care costs in the 12 months post-amputation period. DESIGN: Data on patients with LLA (n=510) were obtained from a commercial claims database for retrospective cohort analysis. Generalized linear multivariate modeling was used to determine differences in cost between groups according to timing of prosthesis receipt compared to a control group with no prosthesis. RESULTS: Receipt of a prosthesis between 0 and 3 months post-LLA yielded a reduced total cost by approximately 0.23 in log scale within 12 months following amputation when compared to the no-prosthesis group. Despite the included costs of a prosthesis, individuals that received a prosthesis either at 4-6 months post-amputation or 7-9 months post-amputation incurred costs similar to the no-prosthesis group. CONCLUSION: Earlier receipt of a prosthesis is associated with reduced spending in the 12 months post-amputation of approximately $25,000 compared to not receiving a prosthesis. Our results suggest that not providing or delaying the provision of a prosthesis increases costs by about 25%.
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the impact of a prosthesis and the timing of prosthesis receipt on total direct health care costs in the 12 months post-amputation period. DESIGN: Data on patients with LLA (n=510) were obtained from a commercial claims database for retrospective cohort analysis. Generalized linear multivariate modeling was used to determine differences in cost between groups according to timing of prosthesis receipt compared to a control group with no prosthesis. RESULTS: Receipt of a prosthesis between 0 and 3 months post-LLA yielded a reduced total cost by approximately 0.23 in log scale within 12 months following amputation when compared to the no-prosthesis group. Despite the included costs of a prosthesis, individuals that received a prosthesis either at 4-6 months post-amputation or 7-9 months post-amputation incurred costs similar to the no-prosthesis group. CONCLUSION: Earlier receipt of a prosthesis is associated with reduced spending in the 12 months post-amputation of approximately $25,000 compared to not receiving a prosthesis. Our results suggest that not providing or delaying the provision of a prosthesis increases costs by about 25%.
Authors: Glenn K Klute; Jocelyn S Berge; Michael S Orendurff; Rhonda M Williams; Joseph M Czerniecki Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Maria Narres; Tatjana Kvitkina; Heiner Claessen; Sigrid Droste; Björn Schuster; Stephan Morbach; Gerhard Rümenapf; Kristien Van Acker; Andrea Icks Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Monika E von Bonsdorff; Taina Rantanen; Timo Törmäkangas; Jenni Kulmala; Timo Hinrichs; Jorma Seitsamo; Clas-Håkan Nygård; Juhani Ilmarinen; Mikaela B von Bonsdorff Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 3.295