Economic Considerations in the Management of Nephrolithiasis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: From health systems to individuals, nephrolithiasis is economically burdensome. The aim of the current paper is to characterize the financial burden of disease associated with nephrolithiasis with an emphasis on investigating treatment modality economic efficiency. RECENT FINDINGS: For small volume practices and cases where there is high risk of scope damage, disposable flexible ureteroscope utilization seems to provide economic efficiency. The rise in global prevalence of stone disease is a large contributing factor to increasing costs associated with nephrolithiasis. A large proportion of costs from kidney stones stem from ED visits and inpatient care. There are opportunities to save money by transitioning care to outpatient settings in scenarios that allow such transition. Metaphylaxis and prevention strategies are effective at lowering costs in properly selected patient populations. Flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are the most economically efficient methods of surgically treating stone disease, with PCNL being reserved for large and lower pole stones. Time off work and other indirect costs, while challenging to quantify, are important considerations in the economics of nephrolithiasis.

Assessing Cost-Effectiveness of New Technologies in Stone Management.

Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up are all influential in determining the overall cost to the health care system for kidney stones. New innovations in the field of nephrolithiasis have been abundant, including disposable ureteroscopes, ultrasound-guided approaches to percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and advanced laser lithotripters. Identifying cost-effective treatment strategies encourages practitioners to be thoughtful about providing value-based high-quality care and remains on important principle in the treatment of urinary stone disease.

Epidemiología de la litiasis renal y factores asociados / Epidemiology of renal lithiasis and associated factors

No disponible

Epidemiology and economics of nephrolithiasis.

Nephrolithiasis is a disease common in both the Western and non-Western world. Several population based studies have demonstrated a rising prevalence and incidence of the disease over the last several decades. Recurrence occurs frequently after an initial stone event. The influence of diet on the risk of nephrolithiasis is important, particularly dietary calcium and fluid intake. An increasing intake of dietary calcium and fluid are consistently associated with a reduced risk of incident nephrolithiasis in both men and women. Increasing evidence suggests that nephrolithiasis is associated with systemic diseases like obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Nephrolithiasis places a significant burden on the health care system, which is likely to increase with time.

The economics of stone disease.

The rising prevalence of kidney stone disease is associated with significant costs to healthcare systems worldwide. This is in part due to direct procedural and medical management costs, as well as indirect costs to health systems, patients, and families. A number of manuscripts evaulating the economics of stone disease have been published since the 2008s International Consultation on Stone Disease. These highlight costs associated with stone disease, including acute management, surgical management, and medical management. This work hopes to highlight optimization in care by reducing inefficient treatments and maximizing cost-efficient preventative strategies.

The new epidemiology of nephrolithiasis.

Historically nephrolithiasis was considered a disease of dehydration and abnormal urine composition. However, over the past several decades, much has been learned about the epidemiology of this disease and its relation to patient demographic characteristics and common systemic diseases. Here we review the latest epidemiologic studies in the field.

Primary prevention of nephrolithiasis is cost-effective for a national healthcare system.

UNLABELLED: Study Type--Therapy (cost-effectiveness meeting) Level of Evidence 2b. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? One of the major problems with nephrolithiasis is the high rate of recurrence, which can effect up to 50% of patients over a 5-year period. Patients with recurrent stones are recommended to increase fluid intake based on prospective studies that show a reduction in recurrence rates in patients who intake a high volume of water. Strategies to reduce stones in recurrent stone formers are quite effective with a >50% risk reduction with increased fluid intake alone. Unfortunately, despite a high societal cost and morbidity, there are no prospective studies evaluating the benefit of fluid intake to prevent stone disease in subjects without a prior history of stone but at risk for stones. The budget impact analyses show that prevention of nephrolithiasis can have a significant cost savings for a payer in a healthcare system and reduce the stone burden significantly. Future studies will need to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of such an approach in a population. OBJECTIVE: • To evaluate the impact of primary prevention of stones using a strategy of increased fluid intake. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: • A Markov model was constructed and analysed using Excel to calculate and compare the costs and outcomes for a virtual cohort of subjects with low vs high water intake. • A literature search was used to formulate assumptions for the model including an annual incidence of urolithiasis of 0.032%, annual risk of stone recurrence of 14.4% and 40% risk reduction in subjects with high water intake. • Costs were based on resource utilisation from the Delphi panel and official price lists in France. • Outcomes were based on payer perspective and included direct and indirect costs and loss of work. RESULTS: • The base-case analysis found total cost of urolithiasis is €4267 with direct costs of €2767, including cost of treatment and complications. The annual budget impact for stone disease based on 65 million inhabitants is €590 million for the payer. • The use of high water intake by 100% of the population results in annual cost savings of €273 million and 9265 fewer stones. Even if only 25% of the population is compliant, there is still a cost saving of €68 million and 2316 stones. • The model was evaluated to determine the impact of varying the assumptions by ±10%. For example, when the incidence of stone disease is increased or decreased by 10% then the mean (range) baseline cost will change by €59(531-649) million for the payer and savings will either increase or decrease by €27 (246-300) million. • The largest impact on cost savings occurs when varying risk reduction of water by 10% resulting in either a mean (range) increase or decrease by €35 (238-308) million. • Varying cost of stone management by 10% has an impact of ±€17 million. Varying other factors such as stone recurrence by 10% has only an impact of ±€9 million and varying risk of chronic kidney disease ±€1 million, as they affect only a portion of the population. CONCLUSIONS: • The budget impact analyses show that prevention of nephrolithiasis can have a significant cost savings for a payer in a healthcare system and reduce the stone burden significantly. • Future studies will need to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of such an approach in a population.

Cost-effectiveness of primary prevention strategies for nephrolithiasis.

PURPOSE: Stone disease is a highly prevalent condition associated with substantial cost and morbidity. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a primary prevention strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision analysis model was constructed to compare the cost of ad hoc management of symptomatic stones vs the cost of primary prevention. A literature search was performed to determine the incidence of stone disease, the effectiveness of nonmedical prevention strategies and cost associated with stone management. One and 2-way sensitivity analyses were performed to determine conditions under which a strategy of primary prevention might be cost-effective. RESULTS: Assuming a 1% incidence of stones, a 50% risk reduction and a $100 cost per individual per year for primary prevention, the model was used to calculate the overall costs per individual per year without and with a primary prevention strategy of $46 and $123, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that primary prevention was cost-effective if the incidence of stones exceeded 4.3% yearly or the cost of prevention was less than $23 per person yearly. Varying other factors (risk reduction, probability of requiring surgery, hours of lost work, emergency room cost) failed to reach cost equivalence under any circumstances or required unrealistic assumptions. Preventive strategies were more costly than no prevention unless the incidence of stone disease was at least 1%, the cost did not exceed $20 per person per year and the prevention strategy was at least 50% effective in preventing stones. CONCLUSIONS: Primary prevention strategies for stone disease have not been sufficiently evaluated but can theoretically be cost-effective if the population has a sufficiently high incidence of stone disease and the strategy is of low cost and moderately effective.

Economics and cost of care of stone disease.

Nephrolithiasis is associated with a high cost to society because of the high prevalence of disease and high recurrence rates. The total annual medical expenditures for urolithiasis in the United States were estimated at $2.1 billion in 2000. The cost of stone disease reflects the cost of health care services required to manage stone disease and the rate of utilization. Although the care of individuals with urolithiasis has shifted from the inpatient to the outpatient setting and the hospital length of stay has decreased, costs continue to rise because of increases in the prevalence of kidney stones. There are 2 potential areas that would allow for a decrease in stone disease-related costs, lower health care-related costs, and decreased prevalence of stone disease. Reducing treatment-related costs are unlikely to provide a solution to the high cost of caring for stone disease because physician-fee reductions did not result in a significant reduction in costs. Furthermore, there are no significant advancements in surgical technique or technologies in the horizon. One area of cost savings could be to develop better guidelines for acute management, optimizing timing for surgery in acute settings and increasing the practice of medical expulsive therapy. Another area with potential to reduce costs is the reduction of overall stone burden through the prevention of new stones or recurrences. Strategies for primary prevention in high-risk populations have not been studied and represent an area for future research. More efforts should be made to improve medical management of stone formers. These efforts include improving dietary recommendations, identifying barriers to evaluations and treatment of recurrent stone formers, improving patient compliance with recommendations, and development of new medications.

Economic impact of extracolonic findings at computed tomographic colonography.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of extracolonic findings at computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and estimate the cost of the workup of newly discovered potentially significant lesions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: An electronic information system was used to review all patient data before and after the CTC in a mixed cohort of 376 patients. Extracolonic findings were categorized into the CT Colonography Reporting and Data System classification. The impact of additional diagnostic workup was estimated using Medicare reimbursement for relevant extra services. RESULTS: There were 51 patients (13.6%) with E3 and 16 (4.3%) with E4 findings. At least 1 extracolonic finding was found in 272 patients (72.3%). There were 520 extracolonic findings, of which, 447 (86.0%) were classified as low clinical significance, E2. Only 7 (12.5%) of 56 E3 lesions and 7 (41.2%) of 17 E4 lesions received additional diagnostic workup. The total additional cost of evaluating E3 and E4 lesions was $13.07 per CTC. CONCLUSIONS: A mixed (screening and nonscreening) CTC population has a low prevalence of high-risk lesions, and the additional cost of their evaluation is relatively small.