Implantable Penile Prosthesis for Erectile Dysfunction: Insurance Coverage in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: A manufacturer's benefit verification database was evaluated to ascertain United States health plan insurance coverage for implantable penile prostheses for erectile dysfunction. METHODS: All-payer and employer-sponsored health plan benefit verification databases were queried to determine implantable penile prosthesis approval status. For the all-payer analysis, data by payer were available and presented for 2019-2021 to assess approval status varied by payer and over time. For the employer-sponsored health plan analysis, data by payer were available from 2018-2021. RESULTS: Benefit verification records for the all-payer database were available for 3,167 patients in 2019, 3,016 in 2020, and 2,837 in 2021. Insurance type was preferred provider organization (27.5%), Medicare Advantage (26.9%), Medicare (15.9%), or point-of-service (10.5%). Most patients were approved or verified for implantable penile prosthesis coverage (79.4% in 2019, 79.6% in 2020, and 78.4% in 2021). Coverage was most extensive for government-based insurance (Medicare 98.7%, Medicare Advantage 97.1%, Tricare 100%, and Veterans Affairs 80.0%) but was also favorable for commercial insurance (75.0%). The most common reason for lack of coverage was employer exclusion; the proportion of patients with no coverage due to exclusion increased from 13.5% in 2019 to 17.5% in 2021. Analyses of the employer-sponsored health plan database (n=3,083 patients) showed that 63.1% of patients were approved or verified for coverage and 34.2% did not have coverage due to health plan exclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 80% of patients had implantable penile prosthesis coverage. Employer exclusion was the most common reason for lagging coverage; rates of employer exclusion increased 29.3% from 2019-2021.

Productivity loss and productivity loss costs to United States employers due to priority conditions: a systematic review.

AIMS: To summarize published studies evaluating productivity loss and productivity loss costs associated with cancer, chronic lung disease, depression, pain, and cardiometabolic disease among US employees. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed search from the past 10 years was conducted using the terms productivity, absenteeism, presenteeism, cancer, bronchitis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, pain, heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes (limited to English-language publications and studies of adults aged 19-64). Study endpoints included annual incremental time (work hours lost and Work Productivity and Impairment [WPAI] questionnaire overall work impairment) and monetary estimates of productivity loss. Studies were critically appraised using a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Quality Rating Scheme. RESULTS: Of 2,037 records identified from the search, 183 studies were included. The most common observed condition leading to productivity loss was pain (24%), followed by cancer (22%), chronic lung disease (17%), cardiometabolic disease (16%), and depression (16%). Nearly three-quarters of the studies (n = 133, 72.7%) were case-control/retrospective cohort studies (OCEBM quality rating 3); the remainder were case series/cross-sectional studies (n = 28, 15.3%; quality rating 4), randomized clinical trials (n = 18, 9.8%; quality rating 1); and controlled trials without randomization/prospective comparative cohort trials (n = 4, 2.2%; quality rating 2). Samples sizes ranged from 18 patients to millions of patients for studies using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Most studies found employees lost up to 80 annual incremental work hours; employees with cancer and cardiometabolic disease had the greatest number of work hours lost. Overall percentage work impairment ranged from 10% to 70% and was higher for pain and depression. Annual incremental costs of lost work productivity ranged from $100 to $10,000 and were higher for cancer, pain, and depression. LIMITATIONS: Study heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some gaps in evidence for the cost of productivity loss, sufficient data highlight the substantial employer burden of lost productivity among priority conditions.

Investment in workforce health and well-being is a practice pursued by high-performing companies as health improvement strategies have produced excellent returns on investment. This literature review sought to gain a better understanding of employee productivity loss for important diseases (i.e. cancer, chronic lung disease [bronchitis, asthma, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], depression, pain, and cardiometabolic disease [heart disease, hypertension, or diabetes] to help employers and healthcare payers prioritize investment in workforce health. The findings highlight the substantial burden of lost productivity among these conditions. Most studies found employees lost up to 80 annual work hours and employees with cancer and cardiometabolic disease had the greatest annual incremental number of work hours lost. The proportion of work impairment ranged from 10% to 70% and was higher for employees with pain and depression. The annual cost of lost work productivity ranged from $100 to $10,000 and was higher among employees with cancer, pain, and depression.

Economic burden of complicated ureteral stent removal in patients with kidney stone disease in the USA.

Aim: To examine the medical costs of simple versus complicated ureteral stent removal. Materials & methods: We included adults with kidney stones undergoing simple or complicated cystoscopy-based stent removal (CBSR) post ureteroscopy from the 2014 to 2018 Merative™ MarketScan® Commercial Database. The medical costs of patients with complicated and simple CBSR were compared. Results: Among 16,682 patients, 2.8% had complicated CBSR. Medical costs for patients with complicated CBSR were higher than for simple CBSR ($2182 [USD] vs $1162; p < 0.0001). Increased stenting time, increased age, southern US geography and encrusted stent diagnoses were significantly associated with complicated CBSR. Conclusion: Complicated ureteral stent removal doubled the medical costs associated with CBSR. Ureteral stents with anti-encrustation qualities may reduce the need for complicated CBSR and associated costs.

A comprehensive analysis of clinical, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness outcomes of key treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Treatment options for men with moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) have variable efficacy, safety, and retreatment profiles, contributing to variations in patient quality of life and healthcare costs. This study examined the long-term cost-effectiveness of generic combination therapy (CT), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of BPH. A systematic literature review was performed to identify clinical trials of CT, PUL, WVTT, PVP, and TURP that reported change in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) for men with BPH and a prostate volume ≤80 cm3. A random-effects network meta-analysis was used to account for the differences in patient baseline clinical characteristics between trials. An Excel-based Markov model was developed with a cohort of males with a mean age of 63 and an average IPSS of 22 to assess the cost-effectiveness of these treatment options at 1 and 5 years from a US Medicare perspective. Procedural and adverse event (AE)-related costs were based on 2021 Medicare reimbursement rates. Total Medicare costs at 5 years were highest for PUL ($9,580), followed by generic CT ($8,223), TURP ($6,328), PVP ($6,152), and WVTT ($2,655). The total cost of PUL was driven by procedural ($7,258) and retreatment ($1,168) costs. At 5 years, CT and PUL were associated with fewer quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than WVTT, PVP, and TURP. Compared to WVTT, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for both TURP and PVP were above a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY (TURP: $64,409/QALY; PVP: $87,483/QALY). This study provides long-term cost-effectiveness evidence for several common treatment options for men with BPH. WVTT is an effective and economically viable treatment in resource-constrained environments.

The Economic Burden of Cystoscopy-Based Ureteral Stent Removal in the United States: An Analysis of Nearly 30,000 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Ureteral stents are commonly placed after ureteroscopy. We examined the rate of cystoscopy-based stent removal (CBSR) following ureteroscopy for stone disease and its economic burden in the United States. METHODS: Adults undergoing ureteroscopy and stenting (index surgery) for stone disease between 2014 and 2018 were identified using the IBM® MarketScan® Commercial Database. Patients were categorized as those with CBSR or without CBSR within 6 months post-index surgery. Rate and location of CBSR were assessed. To estimate the economic burden of CBSR, medical costs (2019 U.S. dollars) paid by insurers were calculated at 6 months post-index surgery. A generalized linear model examined the association of CBSR with total costs adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Among 29,535 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 56.5% had CBSR within 6 months. Median time to CBSR was 9 days; 70% of patients with CBSR had their stent removed in the office. Medical costs for CBSR patients were significantly higher than those for nonCBSR patients ($7,808 vs $6,231; p <0.0001). The difference was driven by the cost of CBSR ($1,132 vs $0; p <0.0001) and health care utilization for stone disease ($2,464 vs $2,121; p <0.0001). CBSR was associated with a 17% increase in medical costs compared to nonCBSR (OR: 1.17; 95% CI 3.03, 3.46). CONCLUSIONS: Over 50% of patients had CBSR within 6 months following ureteroscopy. Medical costs for patients undergoing CBSR were significantly higher and driven by the cost of CBSR and resource utilization for stone disease. Ureteral stents that avoid CBSR can lower medical costs to the health care system.

The Epidemic of COVID-19-Related Erectile Dysfunction: A Scoping Review and Health Care Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 infection is expected to be associated with an increased likelihood of erectile dysfunction (ED). Considering the high transmissibility of COVID-19, ED may be a concerning consequence for a large segment of the population. AIMS: To (1) summarize existing published evidence for the impact of COVID-19 on the prevalence, severity, treatment, and management of ED; and (2) identify health-related trends in the emerging literature and identify gaps in the existing research literature and make recommendations for future research needs in the area. METHODS: A scoping literature search was conducted on April 27, 2021. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-ScR) checklist was followed. The literature search was performed in PubMed using the terms: COVID-19, erectile, sexual, and dysfunction. A total of 693 publications were screened for relevance. Studies were appraised for their level of evidence based on study design and the rigor of methodology. RESULTS: The evidence that COVID-19 infection causes or impacts ED is compelling. Four topics emerged regarding the nature of the association between COVID-19 and ED: (1) the biological impact of COVID-19 infection on ED; (2) the mental health impact of COVID-19 on ED; (3) the impact of COVID-19 on the management of ED and access to ED treatment; and (4) health disparities and the impact of COVID-19 on ED. Long-term and well-designed studies are needed to clarify the extent of the impact of COVID-19 on ED. The pandemic exposed several vulnerabilities within worldwide healthcare and social systems. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has a uniquely harmful impact on men's health and erectile function through biological, mental health, and healthcare access mechanisms. As the pandemic wanes, strategies to identify long-term effects and additional health care support may be needed to adequately mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on men's health. Hsieh T-C, Edwards NC, Bhattacharyya SK, et al.The Epidemic of COVID-19-Related Erectile Dysfunction: A Scoping Review and Health Care Perspective. Sex Med Rev 2022;10:286-310.

Cost of Lost Productivity Due to Erectile Dysfunction and Impact of Employer Benefit Exclusion of Penile Prosthesis Implantation Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the cost of lost productivity due to erectile dysfunction (ED) and employer benefit exclusion of penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) among men with employer-sponsored health insurance. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed using administrative claims data, US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and published literature. The economic impact of ED productivity loss and PPi benefit exclusion was reported in2019USD. RESULTS: Men with ED had an additional 282.7 hours/ year of work impairment compared to men without ED, resulting in annual incremental costs of $7270. US employers excluding PPi benefits could lose $9.3billion/year of work due to additional work impairment from ED. CONCLUSIONS: Productivity loss due to ED and PPI benefit exclusion have considerable economic impacts on men with ED and their employers. continuous advocacy for benefit exclusion removal is needed to ensure appropriate patient access.

SpaceOAR hydrogel spacer injection prior to stereotactic body radiation therapy for men with localized prostate cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Conventionally fractionated radiotherapy is a common treatment for men with localized prostate cancer. A growing consensus suggests that stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is similarly effective but less costly and more convenient for patients. The SpaceOAR hydrogel rectal spacer placed between the prostate and rectum reduces radiation-induced rectal injury in patients receiving conventionally fractionated radiotherapy, but spacer efficacy with SBRT is unclear. The purpose of this research was to assess the clinical utility of the hydrogel rectal spacer in men receiving SBRT for prostate cancer. METHODS: We performed systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies in men who received the SpaceOAR hydrogel spacer prior to SBRT (≥5.0 Gy fractions) for treatment of localized prostate center. Rectal irradiation results were compared to controls without spacer implant; all other outcomes were reported descriptively owing to lack of comparative data incuding perirectal separation distance, rectal irradiation on a dosimetric curve, gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, and freedom from biochemical failure. GI toxicity was reported as the risk of a grade 2 or 3+ bowel complication in early (≤3 months) and late (>3 months) follow-up. RESULTS: In 11 studies with 780 patients, SBRT protocols ranged from 7 to 10 Gy per fraction with total dose ranging from 19 to 45 Gy. Perirectal distance achieved with the rectal spacer ranged from 9.6 to 14.5 mm (median 10.8 mm). Compared to controls receiving no spacer, SpaceOAR placement reduced the radiation delivered to the rectum by 29% to 56% across a dosimetric profile curve. In early follow-up, grade 2 GI complications were reported in 7.0% of patients and no early grade 3+ GI complications were reported. In late follow-up, the corresponding rates were 2.3% for grade 2 and 0.3% for grade 3 GI toxicity. Over 16 months median follow-up, freedom from biochemical failure ranged from 96.4% to 100% (pooled mean 97.4%). CONCLUSIONS: SpaceOAR hydrogel spacer placed between the prostate and rectum prior to SBRT is a promising preventative strategy that increases the distance between the prostate and rectum, reduces rectal radiation exposure, and may lower the risk of clinically important GI complications.

Putting Patients Ahead by Leaving Nothing Behind: An Emerging Treatment Paradigm in Minimally Invasive Surgical Therapy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are highly prevalent in older men. The long-term clinical utility of lifestyle modification and oral medications for LUTS is limited. There is a great clinical need for safe, effective, and durable BPH therapies for men who unsuccessfully attempt conservative measures. Enthusiasm for transurethral resection of the prostate has declined due to surgical risk, high rates of postoperative sexual dysfunction, and the perceived invasive nature therein. Consequently, interest has grown in developing minimally invasive surgical treatments (MISTs) that are efficacious but with a more favorable risk profile in order to better align with patient preferences. This review evaluates currently available MISTs for BPH. Further, we critically examine a "Leave Nothing Behind" philosophy in MIST for BPH since implantation of permanent metallic devices may be associated with increased long-term failure rates.

The Quality of Life and Economic Burden of Erectile Dysfunction.

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common disorder in adult males that results in withdrawal from sexual intimacy, psychosocial problems (ie, poor self-esteem, depression, anxiety), decreased work productivity, and reduction in quality of life for both the men suffering from ED and their female partners. A pragmatic literature review was undertaken using PUBMED to identify original research studies published over the past 20 years that assessed the impact of ED on a male's quality of life, the impact of ED on a female partner's quality of life, or the economic impact of ED on employers. Twenty studies were selected for inclusion. This review showed that men with ED have a poorer quality of life than men without ED (n=9 studies). Results from a global burden of illness study showed that men with ED report substantially lower SF-36 Mental and Physical Component Summary scores and SF-6D scores compared to men without ED (p<0.001). Similarly, the partner is also negatively impacted by ED due to relationship difficulties and decreased sexual satisfaction (n=8 studies). Results from the Female Experience of Men's Attitudes to Life Events and Sexuality study showed that females were significantly less satisfied and engaged in sexual activity less frequently after their partner developed ED (p<0.001). ED also poses a substantial economic burden on employers (n=3 studies). An observational study in men aged 40-70 showed that men with ED had significantly higher rates of absenteeism (2x) and work productivity impairment compared to men without ED (p<0.001). Overall, this contemporary review demonstrated that ED imposes a substantial quality of life burden on men and their female partners as well as a significant economic burden on their employers. These findings underscore the need for more education and awareness of the burden of ED and greater access to appropriate ED treatments to help alleviate this burden.

Addressing Health-Care System Inequities in the Management of Erectile Dysfunction: A Call to Action.

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common, burdensome, and costly urologic condition strongly related to all aspects of general health, from physical to mental. ED has profound consequences as it may interfere physical well-being, quality of life (QoL), self-esteem, relationships, self-worth, and productivity. It is therefore important to ensure that all types of effective ED treatments are consistently accessible to patients. While federal and state mandates ensure access to treatment for women's breast health, female-factor infertility, and gender affirmation to ensure that these individuals do not experience a diminished QoL, there are no comparable mandates for men's sexual and reproductive health. The burden of ED necessitates a call to action to improve the accessibility of ED treatments. The call to action steps include: (a) coverage for pharmacological, surgical, and other ED treatments should be viewed in the same way as coverage for other health issues, whether male or female and regardless of the stages of treatment, physical dysfunction, or physical changes; (b) American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines for the management of ED should be followed, including implementation of templates in electronic medical records (EMRs) to support adherence to the guidelines; and (c) coverage criteria should explicitly state that the criteria are intended to support gender equity for sexual and reproductive health care and should not be used to prevent men from receiving medically necessary ED treatments. This call to action offers a pathway to support every man who seeks treatment for ED as a medically necessary intervention by removing systemic health-care barriers.

High-concentration nonavian high-molecular weight hyaluronan injections and time-to-total knee replacement surgery.

Aim: To examine the time-to-total knee replacement (TKR) surgery among patients with high-concentration nonavian high-molecular-weight hyaluronan injection (HMW-HA) compared with those without HA injections. Materials & methods: Using MarketScan® Commercial claims all patients aged 18-64 who underwent TKR surgery between 2008 and 2017 were identified. Time-to-TKR surgery was compared between patients receiving Orthovisc® (Anika Therapeutics Inc. Bedford MA, USA, referred to as nonavian HMW-HA) injections and patients who did not receive an HA injection. Results: The median time-to-TKR surgery was 893 days in the nonavian HMW-HA cohort and 399 days in the non-HA cohort (p < 0.001), a difference of 494 days (16.2 months). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the time-to-TKR surgery is 16.2 months longer in patients who received treatment with nonavian HMW-HA injections.

Association of the Placement of a Perirectal Hydrogel Spacer With the Clinical Outcomes of Men Receiving Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Perirectal spacers are intended to lower the risk of rectal toxic effects associated with prostate radiotherapy. A quantitative synthesis of typical clinical results with specific perirectal spacers is limited. Objective: To evaluate the association between perirectal hydrogel spacer placement and clinical outcomes of men receiving radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Data Sources: A systematic search was performed of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for articles published through September 2019. Study Selection: Studies comparing men who received a hydrogel spacer vs men who did not receive a spacer (controls) prior to prostate radiotherapy. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Via random-effects meta-analysis, group comparisons were reported using the weighted mean difference for continuous measures and the risk ratio for binary measures. Main Outcomes and Measures: Procedural results, the percentage volume of rectum receiving at least 70 Gy radiation (v70), early (≤3 months) and late (>3 months) rectal toxic effects, and early and late changes in bowel-related quality of life on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (minimal clinically important difference, 4 points). Results: The review included 7 studies (1 randomized clinical trial and 6 cohort studies) involving 1011 men (486 who received a hydrogel spacer and 525 controls), with a median duration of patient follow-up of 26 months (range, 3-63 months). The success rate of hydrogel spacer placement was 97.0% (95% CI, 94.4%-98.8% [5 studies]), and the weighted mean perirectal separation distance was 11.2 mm (95% CI, 10.1-12.3 mm [5 studies]). Procedural complications were mild and transient, occurring in 0% to 10% of patients within the studies. The hydrogel spacer group received 66% less v70 rectal irradiation compared with controls (3.5% vs 10.4%; mean difference, -6.5%; 95% CI, -10.5% to -2.5%; P = .001 [6 studies]). The risk of grade 2 or higher rectal toxic effects was comparable between groups in early follow-up (4.5% in hydrogel spacer group vs 4.1% in control group; risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52-1.28; P = .38 [6 studies]) but was 77% lower in the hydrogel spacer group in late follow-up (1.5% vs 5.7%; risk ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.99; P = .05 [4 studies]). Changes in bowel-related quality of life were comparable between groups in early follow-up (mean difference, 0.2; 95% CI, -3.1 to 3.4; P = .92 [2 studies]) but were greater in the hydrogel spacer group in late follow-up (mean difference, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.8-8.0; P < .001 [2 studies]). Conclusions and Relevance: For men receiving prostate radiotherapy, injection of a hydrogel spacer was safe, provided prostate-rectum separation sufficient to reduce v70 rectal irradiation, and was associated with fewer rectal toxic effects and higher bowel-related quality of life in late follow-up.

A novel metric for treatment durability in clinical trials of minimally invasive treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Introduction: Clinical trial manuscripts commonly report results of individual endpoints. However, durability of a medical treatment may be difficult to determine when evaluating endpoint outcomes individually. We reviewed pivotal trial manuscripts of two minimally invasive benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) treatments and estimated the rate of treatment durability using a composite, symptom-centric metric.Methods: Data were derived from published pivotal trial reports of two minimally invasive BPH treatments - water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT) and prostatic urethral lift (PUL). We estimated the risk of medical or surgical retreatment using life-table methods, and the number of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) using z-score methods. Treatment durability was defined as a MCID on the IPSS at the 4-year follow-up visit while free from medical or surgical retreatment.Results: Comparing WVTT to PUL, the rate of medical or surgical retreatment was 10.6% vs. 31.8%, the IPSS MCID was achieved in 82.2% vs. 79.5%, and treatment durability rates were 71.8% vs. 51.7%.Conclusions: Utilization of a composite treatment durability metric derived from endpoints commonly reported in the BPH literature may allow patients and their providers to make better informed treatment decisions.

Real-world impact of the high concentration non-avian high molecular weight hyaluronan on pain medication use among osteoarthritis patients.

Objective: A prior study found that hyaluronic acid (HA) treatment may help reduce pain medication use (such as steroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs] and opioids) among knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients in the real-world setting. This study aims to update the prior study results to include only the high concentration non-avian high molecular weight hyaluronan (HMW-HA) injectables using data from recent years.Study design: This was a retrospective cohort study utilizing IBM MarketScan Commercial data from 2008 to 2015.Methods: Commercially insured patients between 18 and 64 years of age who received high concentration non-avian HMW-HA (Orthovisc1) between 1 January 2008 and 30 June 2015 were identified. Utilization of three prescription pharmacotherapies commonly used in the treatment for knee OA - NSAIDs, corticosteroid injections and opioids - in the 6 month pre and post periods was assessed. Utilization was measured as number of prescriptions and any prescription (yes/no). The independent variable was receiving the high concentration non-avian HMW-HA injection. Paired sample t-test and McNemar's test were used to assess pre-post changes.Results: The utilization of NSAIDs and steroids prescriptions was reduced significantly during the post period among the study cohort. The proportion of patients filling these prescriptions during the post period was also reduced (p < .001). In addition, the number of patients getting any opioid prescriptions was reduced significantly during the post period (p < .001).Conclusions: Based on this retrospective cohort study, the high concentration non-avian HMW-HA may offer effective pain alleviation among knee OA patients while reducing prescription pain medications such as steroids, NSAIDs and opioids.

Ninety-day postoperative cost in primary total hip arthroplasty: an economic model comparing surgical approaches.

BACKGROUND: While primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a safe and effective procedure, it is unclear whether choice of surgical approach influences health care cost. METHODS: We developed an economic model in which patients receiving THA via the anterior approach (AA) by high volume anterior hip surgeons were compared to a propensity-score matched cohort of primary THA cases performed by high volume surgeons that were identified from Medicare claims (Control). Cost elements included the procedure and hospital stay, postacute care, readmission, and outpatient care through 90 days postoperatively. Costs were derived from Medicare claims and adjusted to account for nationwide payer mix. RESULTS: Health care costs over 90 days postoperative were $17,763 with AA and $23,969 with Control, a difference of $6,206 (95% CI: $5,210-$7,204) per patient. The cost savings with AA were mainly attributable to lower per-patient costs of the index hospitalization ($13,578 vs $16,017), postacute care ($3,123 vs $6,037), and hospital readmissions ($700 vs $1,584). CONCLUSION: The AA for primary THA was found to lower 90-day health care costs when compared to a matched sample of THA cases. These study findings may be used to inform hospitals and health care payers regarding the cost implications associated with selection of different surgical approaches to primary THA.

In-hospital outcomes with anterior versus posterior approaches in total hip arthroplasty: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether in-hospital outcomes are different with anterior approach (AA) or posterior approach (PA) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: We performed a systematic review with random-effects meta-analysis of random-ized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AA with PA in primary THA. Hospital outcomes were reported as odds ratio (OR), weight mean difference, or standardized mean difference (SMD). RESULTS: A total of seven RCTs with 609 patients were included. Outcomes favoring AA included 1.4 cm shorter incision (p=0.045), 0.5 days shorter hospital stay (p=0.01), 0.5 points less pain on a 0-10 scale (p=0.007), and less opioid use (SMD=-0.39 corresponding to 12 fewer morphine equivalents per day, p=0.01). The procedure time was 16 minutes longer with AA vs. PA (p=0.002). There were no statistical differences between AA and PA in operative blood loss (mean difference =19 mL, p=0.71), transfusions (9.7% vs. 16.2%, OR=0.45, p=0.39), or complications (5.5% vs. 4.1%, OR=1.42, p=0.62). CONCLUSION: While the AA to primary THA may take longer time compared with the PA, the incision is shorter, and patients report slightly less pain, require less opioid medication, and leave the hospital earlier. The clinical relevance of these differences during longer-term follow-up is uncertain. The choice of surgical approach in primary THA should also consider factors such as experience of the surgeon and preferences of the surgeon and patient.

Association between Hyaluronic Acid Injections and Time-to-Total Knee Replacement Surgery.

This study assessed the association between hyaluronic acid (HA) injections and time-to-total knee replacement (TKR) surgery for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Patients 18 to 64 years of age who had TKR surgery between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2011 were identified from the MarketScan Commercial claims database. All patients had 6 years or more of continuous enrollment prior to TKR surgery. There were two cohorts (1) patients with HA injections prior to TKR surgery and (2) patients who did not have HA injections prior to TKR surgery. Time-to-TKR was defined as the total days from the date of diagnosis of knee OA on the patient's first visit to an orthopedic surgeon to the date of TKR surgery. Results included 22,555 patients who had TKR surgery: 14,132 in the non-HA and 8,423 in the HA cohort. In this retrospective analysis of patients undergoing TKR, the median Time-to-TKR surgery was 326 days for the non-HA and 908 days for the HA cohort, a difference of 582 days. Those receiving HA injections had a median 1.6-year longer Time-to-TKR surgery versus those who did not receive HA injections. These results have both clinical and economic implications.

Cost comparison of peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis in end-stage renal disease.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare utilization and costs in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) beginning peritoneal dialysis (PD) or hemodialysis (HD). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Using a US health insurance database, we identified all patients with ESRD who began dialysis between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2006. Patients were designated as PD patients or as HD patients based on first-noted treatment. Patients with less than 6 months of pretreatment data and those with less than 12 months of data following initiation of dialysis ("pretreatment" and "follow-up," respectively) were dropped from the study sample. The PD patients were matched to HD patients using propensity scoring to control for differences in pretreatment characteristics. Healthcare utilization and costs were then compared over 12 months between propensity-matched PD patients and HD patients using paired t tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests for continuous variables and using Bowker and McNemar tests for categorical variables, as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 463 patients met all study entrance criteria; 56 (12%) began treatment with PD, and 407 (88%) began treatment with HD. Fifty PD patients could be propensity matched to an equal number of HD patients. The HD patients were more than twice as likely as matched PD patients to be hospitalized over the subsequent 12 months (hazard ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-3.51; P <.01). Their median healthcare costs over the 12-month follow-up period were $43,510 higher ($173,507 vs $129,997 for PD patients, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ESRD, PD patients are less likely than HD patients to be hospitalized in the year following initiation of dialysis. They also have significantly lower total healthcare costs.

The financial implications for Medicare of greater use of peritoneal dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Although annual per-person health care costs for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on in-center hemodialysis greatly exceed those for patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD), which is a home dialysis therapy, current use of PD remains low. In April 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a new Dialysis Conditions of Coverage final rule underscoring its intent to promote use of home dialysis whenever appropriate. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this paper were to provide context for the use of in-home versus in-center dialysis, to describe factors that influence patterns of dialysis utilization in the United States, and to explore the magnitude of the potential savings that might result from broader use of home dialysis therapies. METHODS: A 5-year budget-impact analysis was performed using data from the 2007 Annual Data Report of the United States Renal Data System. Scenarios were developed in which the PD share of total dialysis was varied to estimate the impact on total Medicare dialysis costs. This study took the perspective of Medicare, the main payer for dialysis in the United States. RESULTS: If the PD share of total dialysis were to decrease from the current 8% to 5%, Medicare spending for dialysis would increase by an additional $401 million over a 5-year period. Alternatively, if the PD share of total dialysis were to increase to 15%, Medicare could realize potential savings of >$1.1 billion over 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to the conclusion articulated in the Dialysis Conditions of Coverage final rule, increasing clinically appropriate use of PD would be associated with considerable savings to Medicare and to the taxpayers who fund Medicare. These savings could be used to offset part of the financial burden of ESRD care on Medicare and to help legislators meet ever-tightening budgetary constraints.