Search

Objectives: Unwarranted clinical variations in radical prostatectomy (RP) procedures are frequently reported, yet less attention is given to the variations in associated costs. This issue can further widen disparities in access to care and provoke questions about the overall value of the procedure. The present paper aimed to delve into the disparities in hospital, medical provider and out-of-pocket costs for RP procedures in Australia, discussing plausible causes and potential policy opportunities. Methods: A retrospective cohort study using Medibank Private claims data for RP procedures conducted in Australian hospitals between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2020 was undertaken. Results: Considerable variations in both medical provider and out-of-pocket costs were observed across the country, with variations evident between different states or territories. Particularly striking were the discrepancies in the costs charged by medical providers, with a notable contrast between the 10th and 90th percentiles revealing a substantial difference of A$9925. Hospitals in Australia exhibited relatively comparable charges for RP procedures. Conclusions: Initiatives such as enhancing transparency regarding individual medical provider costs and implementing fee regulations with healthcare providers may be useful in curbing the variations in RP procedure costs. What is known about the topic? Unwarranted clinical variations in radical prostatectomy procedures are well documented in the literature; however, variations in cost are less widely reported. What does this paper add? This paper aims to highlight the cost variations in radical prostatectomy procedures in Australia, discussing their plausible causes, implications and proposing potential policy opportunities. What are the implications for practitioners? Excessive fees imposed by medical providers may contribute to inequalities in healthcare access. Enhancing transparency of individual medical provider costs and implementing fee regulations may be useful in controlling unwarranted variations in procedure costs. This article belongs to the Special Issue: Value-based Healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to describe and compare the proportion of patients classified as an emergency department (ED) mental health presentation under different definitions, including the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) definition. Methods: This retrospective cohort study enrolled all patients that presented to the EDs of a multi-centre Victorian health service between 1 January 2020 and 30 June 2023. Varying definitions of a mental health presentation were applied to each ED attendance, applying the current AIHW definition (using selected diagnosis codes), broader diagnosis-based coding, the presenting complaint recorded at triage and whether the patient was seen by or referred to the emergency psychiatric service (EPS). The proportion of all ED presentations meeting each definition and any overlap between definitions were calculated. The agreement between each definition and the AIHW definition was evaluated using Kappa's coefficient. Results: There were 813,078 presentations to ED of which 34,248 (4.2%) met the AIHW definition for a mental health presentation. Throughout the study, 45,376 (5.6%) patients were seen and/or referred to EPS, and 36,160 (4.4%) patients were allocated a mental health presenting complaint by triage staff. There was moderate interrater agreement between these definitions, with a kappa statistic (95% confidence interval) between the AIHW definition and a mental health presenting complaint recorded at triage of 0.58 (0.58–0.59) and between the AIHW definition and review by EPS of 0.58 (0.57–0.58). Conclusions: The AIHW definition is a conservative measure of ED mental health presentations and may underestimate emergency psychiatry workload in Australian EDs. What is known about this topic? It is unknown whether the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) definition of an emergency department (ED) mental health presentation definition accurately reflects ED mental health workload. What does this paper add? The AIHW definition appears to underestimate the clinical workload related to ED mental health presentations. There is moderate agreement between the AIHW definition and mental health presentations classified according to complaint recorded at triage, or whether the patient is reviewed by psychiatry services. What are the implications for practitioners? Accurate measurement of emergency psychiatry workload should not rely on the AIHW definition alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study aimed to determine which method to triage intensive care patients using chronic comorbidity in a pandemic was perceived to be the fairest by the general public. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the public perceived it fair to provide preferential intensive care triage to vulnerable or disadvantaged people, and frontline healthcare workers. Methods: A postal survey of 2000 registered voters randomly selected from the Australian Electoral Commission electoral roll was performed. The main outcome measures were respondents' fairness rating of four hypothetical intensive care triage methods that assess comorbidity (chronic medical conditions, long-term survival, function and frailty); and respondents' fairness rating of providing preferential triage to vulnerable or disadvantaged people, and frontline healthcare workers. Results: The proportion of respondents who considered it fair to triage based on chronic medical conditions, long-term survival, function and frailty, was 52.1, 56.1, 65.0 and 62.4%, respectively. The proportion of respondents who considered it unfair to triage based on these four comorbidities was 31.9, 30.9, 23.8 and 23.2%, respectively. More respondents considered it unfair to preferentially triage vulnerable or disadvantaged people, than fair (41.8% versus 21.2%). More respondents considered it fair to preferentially triage frontline healthcare workers, than unfair (44.2% versus 30.0%). Conclusion: Respondents in this survey perceived all four hypothetical methods to triage intensive care patients based on comorbidity in a pandemic disaster to be fair. However, the sizable minority who consider this to be unfair indicates that these triage methods could encounter significant opposition if they were to be enacted in health policy. What is known about the topic? Triage systems can be used to prioritise the order in which patients are treated in a pandemic, but the views of the general public on using chronic comorbidity as intensive care unit (ICU) triage criteria are unknown. What does this paper add? This Australian survey, conducted during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, demonstrated that the majority of respondents perceived ICU triage methods based on comorbidity to be fair, but significant ethical issues exist. What are the implications for practitioners? It may be possible to develop an ICU triage protocol for future pandemics in Australia, but further research is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There is a need to undertake more proactive and in-depth analyses of general practice accreditation processes. Two areas that have been highlighted as areas of potential inconsistency are the self-assessment and surveyor assessment of indicators. Methods: The data encompass 757 accreditation visits made between December 2020 and July 2022. A mixed-effect multilevel logistic regression model determined the association between attempt of the self-assessment and indicator conformity from the surveyor assessment. Furthermore, we present a contrast of the rate of indicator conformity between surveyors as an approximation of the inter-assessor consistency from the site visit. Results: Two hundred and seventy-seven (37%) practices did not attempt or accurately report conformity to any indicators at the self-assessment. Association between attempting the self-assessment and the rate of indicator non-conformity at the site visit failed to reach statistical significance (OR = 0.90 [95% CI = 1.14–0.72], P = 0.28). A small number of surveyors (N = 9/34) demonstrated statistically significant differences in the rate of indicator conformity compared to the mean of all surveyors. Conclusions: Attempt of the self-assessment did not predict indicator conformity at the site visit overall. Appropriate levels of consistency of indicator assessment between surveyors at the site visit were identified. What is known about the topic? There is a need to undertake more proactive and in-depth analyses of the general practice accreditation process and outcomes to improve the quality and safety within this healthcare sector. What does this paper add? Attempt of the self-assessment does not predict indicator conformity at the site visit overall, and appropriate levels of consistency of indicator assessment between surveyors at the site visit were identified. What are the implications for practitioners? We present empirical evidence as to the consistency of assessment with general practice accreditation to inform future standards and (re)accreditation assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The study examined emergency department (ED) presentations, unplanned hospitalisations and potentially preventable hospitalisations in older people receiving long-term care by type of care received (i.e. permanent residential aged care or home care packages in the community), in Australia in 2019. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Registry of Senior Australians National Historical Cohort. Individuals were included if they resided in South Australia, Queensland, Victoria or New South Wales, received a home care package or permanent residential aged care in 2019 and were aged ≥65 years. The cumulative incidence of ED presentations, unplanned hospitalisations and potentially preventable hospitalisations in each of the long-term care service types were estimated during the year. Days in hospital per 1000 individuals were also calculated. Results: The study included 203,278 individuals accessing permanent residential aged care (209,639 episodes) and 118,999 accessing home care packages in the community (127,893 episodes). A higher proportion of people accessing home care packages had an ED presentation (43.1% [95% confidence interval, 42.8–43.3], vs 37.8% [37.6–38.0]), unplanned hospitalisation (39.8% [39.6–40.1] vs 33.4% [33.2–33.6]) and potentially preventable hospitalisation (11.8% [11.6–12.0] vs 8.2% [8.1–8.4]) than people accessing permanent residential aged care. Individuals with home care packages had more days in hospital due to unplanned hospitalisations than those in residential care (7745 vs 3049 days/1000 individuals). Conclusions: While a high proportion of older people in long-term care have ED presentations, unplanned hospitalisations and potentially preventable hospitalisations, people in the community with home care packages experience these events at a higher frequency. What is known about the topic? Unplanned hospitalisations and emergency department presentations are frequent and burdensome for older people receiving long-term aged care. What does this paper add? While unplanned hospitalisations and emergency department presentations were high in all people receiving long-term care, these events were higher in people receiving home care packages than those in residential aged care. What are the implications for practitioners? Further efforts to address the high unplanned hospitalisations and emergency department presentations experienced by the increasing number of older adults accessing home care packages are required to allow this population to remain at home successfully. This article belongs to the Special Issue: Value-based Healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to quantify the out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and perceived financial burden among Australian men with localised prostate cancer in the first 6 months after diagnosis, by primary management option. Methods: This cost-analysis quantified OOP costs using administrative claims data and self-reported survey data. Financial burden was assessed using the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity–Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (COST-FACIT) tool. Participants were recruited into a randomised control trial from public or private treatment centres in Victoria and Queensland. Generalised linear models were used to predict OOP costs and COST-FACIT scores. Results: Median total OOP costs within 6 months of diagnosis for 256 Australian patients with localised prostate cancer was A$1172 (A$343–2548). Up to 50% of the sample reported A$0 costs for most medical services. Compared with those managed with active surveillance, men having active treatment had 6.4 (95% CI: 3.2–12.7) times greater total OOP costs. Management option, higher Gleason score at diagnosis and having multiple comorbidities were significant predictors of higher OOP costs. Overall high scores on the COST-FACIT indicated low levels of financial burden for the entire sample. Conclusion: Largely attributable to being managed with active surveillance, Australian men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer reported relatively low OOP costs and financial burden in the first 6 months post-diagnosis. Together with clinical outcomes, clinicians can use this up to date evidence on costs and perceived financial burdens to assist localised prostate cancer patients and their families make informed decisions about their preferred management option. What is known about the topic? International evidence suggests that men with low-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance initially incur lower out-of-pocket costs than those managed with active treatment. What does this paper add? Australian men with low-risk prostate cancer report low out-of-pocket costs and financial burden in the first 6 months post-diagnosis. Compared with those managed with active surveillance, men having active treatment had 6–7 times greater out-of-pocket expenses. What are the implications for practitioners? Being managed by active surveillance as the primary management option for low-risk prostate cancer reduces the financial burdens associated with a cancer diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. New legislation to curb the rapid increase in e-cigarette use among youth is underway. We estimated the future healthcare costs for chronic diseases from e-cigarette use among never smokers who transition to tobacco smoking. Methods. Using populationattributable fractions, we estimated the health expenditure attributable to e-cigarettes based on the prevalence of e-cigarette use, uptake of tobacco smoking, and risk of smoking on developing chronic disease. Data for men and women were derived from published reports on e-cigarette use prevalence, risk of smoking-related disease and addiction, and health expenditure for 25 diseases. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to address data input variation. Results. Future healthcare costs attributed to new e-cigarette-initiated smokers were conservatively estimated to be (in Australian dollars) $179.6 million annually. Collectively, the estimated costs were highest for respiratory diseases ($102.2 million; 57% of total costs), malignant cancers ($49.6 million; 28%), and cardiovascular disease ($27.7 million; 15%). The uptake rate of e-cigarettes was more important in driving healthcare costs than the proportion moving from e-cigarettes to cigarette smoking. Conclusion. High avoidable health system costs are predicted for the treatment of chronic conditions created by e-cigarette-initiated smoking. These costs exclude the immediate and direct healthcare harms of e-cigarette-related poisoning, lung injury, and respiratory problems, and costs associated with the unknown health harms of e-cigarette use alone. The proposed regulations to curb recreational e-cigarette use in Australia are set to prevent expensive health care arising sometime in the future from new cigarette smokers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]