Cost analysis of cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation: a single blind randomised clinical trial comparing extracapsular cataract extraction and phacoemulsification

A randomised single blinded clinical trial to compare the cost of cataract surgery between extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) and phacoemulsification (PEA) was conducted at Hospital Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (HUKM) between March and December 2000. A total of 60 patients were included in this study. The cost of a cataract surgery incurred by hospital, patients and households up to two months after discharge were included. The costs of training, loss of patients' income after discharge and intangible costs were excluded. Results showed that the average cost for one ECCE operation is RM1,664.46 (RM1,233.04-RM2,377.64) and for PEA is RM1,978.00 (RM1,557.87-RM3,334.50). During this short period of follow up, it can be concluded that ECCE is significantly cheaper than PEA by an average difference of RM 313.54 per patient (p < 0.001). Cost of equipment and low frequency of PEA technique done in HUKM were the two main reasons for the high unit cost of PEA as compared to ECCE.

Morbidity and process of care in urban Malaysian general practice: the impact of payment system

BACKGROUND: The majority of primary care consultations in Malaysia occur in the general practice clinics. To date, there is no comprehensive documentation of the morbidity and practice activities in this setting. OBJECTIVES: We reported the reasons for encounter, diagnoses and process of care in urban general practice and the influence of payment system on the morbidity and practice activities. METHODS: 115 clinics in Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh and Penang participated in this study. General practitioners in these clinics completed a 2-page questionnaire for each of the 30 consecutive patients. The questionnaire requested for the following information: demographic data, reasons for encounter, important physical findings, diagnoses, investigations ordered, outpatient procedures performed, medical certificate given, medication prescribed and referral made. The morbidity (reasons for encounter and diagnoses) was coded using ICPC-2 and the medication data was coded using MIMS Classification Index. RESULTS: During 3481 encounters, 5300 RFEs (152 RFEs per 100 encounters) and 3342 diagnoses (96 diagnoses per 100 encounters) were recorded. The majority of the RFEs and diagnoses are in the following ICPC Chapters: Respiratory, General and unspecified, Digestive, Neurological, Musculoskeletal and Skin. The frequencies of selected aspects of the process of care (rate per 100 encounters) were: laboratory investigations 14.7, outpatient procedures 2.4, sick certification 26.9, referral 2.4, and medication prescription 244. Consultation for chronic diseases and acute infections were influenced more by demographic variables (age, employment) rather than payment system. Cash-paying patients were more likely to receive laboratory investigations and injections. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the breadth of clinical care in the general practice. Relatively fewer patients consulted specifically for preventive care and treatment of chronic diseases. The frequencies of outpatient procedures and referrals appeared to be low. Payment system results in important differences in patient mix and influences some types of practice activities.