Preoperative spirometry and laparotomy: blowing away dollars.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Increasing evidence indicates that routine preoperative diagnostic spirometry (pulmonary function tests [PFTs]) before elective abdominal surgery does not predict individual risk of postoperative pulmonary complications and is overutilized. This economic evaluation estimates potential savings from reduced use of preoperative PFTs. DESIGN: Analyses of (1) real costs (resource consumption to perform tests) and (2) reimbursements (expenditures for charges) by third-party payers. SETTING: University-affiliated public and Veterans Affairs hospitals. PATIENTS: Adults undergoing elective abdominal operations. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Average real cost of PFTs was $19.07 (95% confidence interval [CI], $18.53 to $19.61), based on a time and motion study. Average reimbursement expenditure by third-party payers for PFTs was $85 (range, $33 to $150; 95% CI, $68 to $103), based on Medicare payment of $52 and a survey of nine urban US hospitals with a spectrum of bed sizes and teaching status. Estimates from published literature included the following: (1) annual number of major abdominal operations, 3.5 million; and (2) proportion of PFTs not meeting current guidelines, 39% (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.47). Local data were used when estimates were not available in the literature: (1) proportion of laparotomies that are elective, 76% (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.79); and (2) frequency of PFTs before laparotomy, 69% (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.84). Estimated annual national real costs for preoperative PFTs are $25 million to $45 million. If use of PFTs were reduced by our estimate for the proportion of PFTs not meeting current guidelines, potential annual national cost savings would be $7,925,411 to $21,406,707. National reimbursement expenditures by third-party payers range from more than $90 million to more than $235 million. If use were reduced, potential annual savings in reimbursements would be $29,084,076 to $111,345,440. Potential savings to Medicare approach $8 million to $20 million annually. CONCLUSION: Reduced use of PFTs before elective abdominal surgery could generate substantial savings. Current evidence indicates reduced use would not compromise patients' outcomes.

Problems in interpreting cost effectiveness in clinical trials. Experimental versus implementation costs.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the difficulty of estimating cost effectiveness of alternative implementation strategies using clinical trial data. DESIGN: Two examples drawn from a hearing-aid intervention trial and a physical-therapy trial for frail elderly are used to demonstrate how alternative implementation strategies may affect cost effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis is used to document a range of possible economic outcomes for each example and show how assumptions based on trials may bias implementation decisions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs and cost-effectiveness ratios are estimated for alternative implementation strategies and compared with trial results. MAIN RESULTS: Staffing and equipment substitutions, reconfigurations, and economies of scale can reduce the cost of trial interventions substantially. Such resource alterations as well as protocol and target group modifications may also have an impact on effectiveness. In both examples effectiveness can be reduced by as much as 50% and under certain conditions alternative implementation strategies will still be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Cost effectiveness of implementations can differ substantially from a trial when different resources or target populations are incorporated. Institutions must conduct preimplementation studies which consider alternative resource configurations before adopting an intervention based on trial results.