Health care cost analysis of enhanced pacing modalities in bradycardia patients: Portuguese case study on the results of the MINERVA trial.

INTRODUCTION: The MINERVA trial established that atrial preventive pacing and atrial antitachycardia pacing (DDDRP) in combination with managed ventricular pacing (MVP) reduces progression to permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF and bradycardia who need cardiac pacing, compared to standard dual-chamber pacing (DDDR). It was shown that AF-related health care utilization was significantly lower in the DDDRP + MVP group than in the control group. Cost analysis demonstrated significant savings related to this new algorithm, based on health care costs from the USA, Italy, Spain and the UK. OBJECTIVE: To calculate the savings associated with reduced health care utilization due to enhanced pacing modalities in the Portuguese setting. METHODS: The impact on costs was estimated based on tariffs for AF-related hospitalizations and costs for emergency department and outpatient visits in Portugal. RESULTS: The MINERVA trial showed a 42% reduction in AF-related health care utilization thanks to the new algorithm. In Portugal, this represents a potential cost saving of 2323 euros per 100 patients in the first year and 17118 euros over a 10-year period. Considering the number of patients who could benefit from this new algorithm, Portugal could save a total of 75369 euros per year and 555410 euros over 10 years. Additional savings could accrue if heart failure and stroke hospitalizations were considered. CONCLUSION: The combination of atrial preventive pacing, atrial antitachycardia pacing and an algorithm to minimize the detrimental effect of right ventricular pacing reduces recurrent and permanent AF. The new DDDRP + MVP pacing mode could contribute to significant costs savings in the Portuguese health care setting.

Measuring hospital efficiency--comparing four European countries.

BACKGROUND: Performing international comparisons on efficiency usually has two main drawbacks: the lack of comparability of data from different countries and the appropriateness and adequacy of data selected for efficiency measurement. With inpatient discharges for four countries, some of the problems of data comparability usually found in international comparisons were mitigated. The objectives are to assess and compare hospital efficiency levels within and between countries, using stochastic frontier analysis with both cross-sectional and panel data. METHODS: Data from English (2005-2008), Portuguese (2002-2009), Spanish (2003-2009) and Slovenian (2005-2009) hospital discharges and characteristics are used. Weighted hospital discharges were considered as outputs while the number of employees, physicians, nurses and beds were selected as inputs of the production function. Stochastic frontier analysis using both cross-sectional and panel data were performed, as well as ordinary least squares (OLS) analysis. The adequacy of the data was assessed with Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg tests. RESULTS: Data available results were redundant to perform efficiency measurements using stochastic frontier analysis with cross-sectional data. The likelihood ratio test reveals that in cross-sectional data stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) is not statistically different from OLS in Portuguese data, while SFA and OLS estimates are statistically different for Spanish, Slovenian and English data. In the panel data, the inefficiency term is statistically different from 0 in the four countries in analysis, though for Portugal it is still close to 0. CONCLUSIONS: Panel data are preferred over cross-section analysis because results are more robust. For all countries except Slovenia, beds and employees are relevant inputs for the production process.

Potential of geographical variation analysis for realigning providers to value-based care. ECHO case study on lower-value indications of C-section in five European countries.

BACKGROUND: Although C-section is a highly effective procedure, literature abounds with evidence of overuse and particularly misuse, in lower-value indications such as low-risk deliveries. This study aims to quantify utilization of C-section in low-risk cases, mapping out areas showing excess-usage in each country and to estimate excess-expenditure as a proxy of the opportunity cost borne by healthcare systems. METHODS: Observational, ecologic study on deliveries in 913 sub-national administrative areas of five European countries (Denmark, England, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain) from 2002 to 2009. The study includes a cross-section analysis with 2009 data and a time-trend analysis for the whole period. Main endpoints: age-standardized utilization rates of C-section in low-risk pregnancies and deliveries per 100 deliveries. Secondary endpoints: Estimated excess-cases per geographical unit of analysis in two scenarios of minimized utilization. RESULTS: C-section is widely used in all examined countries (ranging from 19% of Slovenian deliveries to 33% of deliveries in Portugal). With the exception of Portugal, there are no systematic variations in intensity of use across areas in the same country. Cross-country comparison of lower-value C-section leaves Denmark with 10% and Portugal with 2%, the highest and lowest. Such behaviour was stable over the period of analysis. Within each country, the scattered geographical patterns of use intensity speak for local drivers playing a major role within the national trend. CONCLUSION: The analysis conducted suggests plenty of room for enhancing value in obstetric care and equity in women's access to such within the countries studied. The analysis of geographical variations in lower-value care can constitute a powerful screening tool.