Jeffrey Voigt1, Michael Mosier2, Ian M Gralnek3,4. 1. Medical Device Consultants of Ridgewood, Ridgewood, NJ, USA. meddevconsultant@aol.com. 2. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Washburn University, Topeka, KS, USA. 3. Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technicon Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. 4. Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Emek Medical Center, Afula, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this Markov model lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis was to evaluate a new medical device technology which minimizes redo colonoscopies on the outcomes of cost, quality of life, and aversion of colorectal cancers (CRC). METHODS: A new technology (PureVu® System) which cleans inadequately prepped colons was evaluated using TreeAge 2019 software in patients who presented with inadequate prep in outpatient settings in the US. PureVu was compared to the standard of care (SOC). Peer reviewed literature was used to identify the CRC incidence cancers based on missing polyps. Costs for procedures were derived from 2019 Medicare and from estimated private payer reimbursements. Base case costs, sensitivity analysis and incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) were evaluated. The cost of PureVu was $750. RESULTS: Assuming a national average compliance rate of 60% for colonoscopy, the use of PureVu saved the healthcare system $833-$992/patient depending upon the insurer when compared to SOC. QALYs were also improved with PureVu mainly due to a lower incidence of CRCs. In sensitivity analysis, SOC becomes less expensive than PureVu when compliance to screening for CRC using colonoscopy is ≤ 28%. Also, in order for SOC to be less expensive than PureVu, the list price of PureVu would need to exceed $1753. In incremental cost effectiveness analysis, PureVu dominated SOC. CONCLUSION: Using the PureVu System to improve bowel prep can save the healthcare system $3.1-$3.7 billion per year, while ensuring a similar quality of life and reducing the incidence of CRCs.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this Markov model lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis was to evaluate a new medical device technology which minimizes redo colonoscopies on the outcomes of cost, quality of life, and aversion of colorectal cancers (CRC). METHODS: A new technology (PureVu® System) which cleans inadequately prepped colons was evaluated using TreeAge 2019 software in patients who presented with inadequate prep in outpatient settings in the US. PureVu was compared to the standard of care (SOC). Peer reviewed literature was used to identify the CRC incidence cancers based on missing polyps. Costs for procedures were derived from 2019 Medicare and from estimated private payer reimbursements. Base case costs, sensitivity analysis and incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) were evaluated. The cost of PureVu was $750. RESULTS: Assuming a national average compliance rate of 60% for colonoscopy, the use of PureVu saved the healthcare system $833-$992/patient depending upon the insurer when compared to SOC. QALYs were also improved with PureVu mainly due to a lower incidence of CRCs. In sensitivity analysis, SOC becomes less expensive than PureVu when compliance to screening for CRC using colonoscopy is ≤ 28%. Also, in order for SOC to be less expensive than PureVu, the list price of PureVu would need to exceed $1753. In incremental cost effectiveness analysis, PureVu dominated SOC. CONCLUSION: Using the PureVu System to improve bowel prep can save the healthcare system $3.1-$3.7 billion per year, while ensuring a similar quality of life and reducing the incidence of CRCs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colonoscopy; Cost effectiveness; Markov model
Authors: Robert E Schoen; Paul F Pinsky; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Douglas J Reding; Richard B Hayes; Timothy Church; Susan Yurgalevich; V Paul Doria-Rose; Tom Hickey; Thomas Riley; Christine D Berg Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2009-10-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Stacy B Menees; H Myra Kim; Eric E Elliott; Jennifer L Mickevicius; Brittany B Graustein; Philip S Schoenfeld Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 9.427