Search

Background: Indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) are increasingly used in the treatment of malignant pleural effusion (MPE). In general, these catheters have been reported to manage MPE efficiently. Unfortunately, insurance companies in the Netherlands do not reimburse these catheters in either first-line treatment or following failed talc pleurodesis. Objectives: Investigation of direct costs of IPC placement. Methods: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database. Direct costs for both catheters and vacuum bottles were calculated. Indicators for indirect costs such as adverse events and complications and the need for additional home care for drainage were registered. Results: Mean costs for IPC amounted to EUR 2,173 and were different between tumor types - mesothelioma: EUR 4,028, breast: EUR 2,204, lung: EUR 1,146 and other: EUR 1,841; p = 0.017. Four patients were admitted to hospital for treatment of complications. Mean costs for IPC placement was similar when inserted as frontline treatment and after failed pleurodesis. Approximately 75% of patients did not need any help from specialized home care. Conclusion: Direct costs for IPC placement turn out to be acceptable when compared with estimated hospitalization costs for pleurodesis treatment. Randomized controlled trials have to be performed to compare the cost-effectiveness of IPCs compared to pleurodesis. Copyright © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In February 2005, a case-mix system based on 'diagnosis treatment combinations' (DBCs) was introduced in The Netherlands for the registration and reimbursement of hospital and medical specialist care. This paper describes the characteristics of the DBC system and how it is used for the reimbursement of hospitals. Prices for reimbursement are either based on fixed tariffs ('list A') or negotiated between health insurers and hospitals ('list B') and are partly based on information about unit costs of health care services. Because the DBC system is still under development we will describe the current situation (March 2006), but also focus on the most likely future developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and cost effectiveness of two treatments of pressure sores on the heel: a collagenase-containing ointment and a hydrocolloid dressing.Design: Study and cost data were collected prospectively in a randomised clinical trial in The Netherlands by counting the resource use for each patient until wound healing occurred.Study Participants: All 24 female study participants were inpatients from the same hospital with grade IV pressure sores on the heel following orthopaedic surgery.Interventions: Two different treatment strategies were analysed: a collagenase-containing ointment (Novuxol) and a hydrocolloid dressing (Duoderm).Perspective: Hospital perspective.Main Outcome Measures and Results: The average costs per patient for treatment with the hydrocolloid dressing were about 5% higher than those with the collagenase-containing ointment. The treatment costs were similarly distributed within both groups, with 34% for materials and 66% for personnel. The cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that cost savings of 899 Dutch guilders (1998 values) per successfully treated patient could be expected using the collagenase-containing ointment instead of the hydrocolloid dressing. In addition, wound healing was achieved, on average, within a shorter time period with the collagenase treatment (10 weeks) compared with the hydrocolloid treatment (14 weeks). The robustness of the results were also tested using sensitivity analyses. These analyses served to confirm that collagenase treatment provides a better cost-effectiveness ratio than hydrocolloid treatment.Conclusions: With regard to overall costs and costs per successfully treated patient, this study showed collagenase treatment to be more cost effective than the hydrocolloid treatment in patients with grade IV pressure sores on the heel and that the amount of time needed for wound healing was shorter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the total costs associated with the administration of two different tumour necrosis factor (TNF) strategies used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA): etanercept, a soluble TNF receptor that can be administered at home by subcutaneous injection, versus infliximab, an antibody that requires an intravenous infusion in a hospital outpatient setting.Design and Setting: The main analytical framework of the study was a cost-cost analysis comparing the total annual costs associated with the administration of etanercept and infliximab in adult RA patients. The perspective of the study was that of the Dutch society. An economic model was constructed to determine the costs of both treatments. The cost evaluation included direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs and indirect costs. The base-case analysis compared monotherapy with etanercept versus a combination therapy with infliximab and methotrexate. Data for the economic model came from published literature, expert opinion and official price and tariff lists. All costs were in 1999 values.Patients and Participants: The analysis was performed for the adult RA population eligible for treatment with etanercept or infliximab in The Netherlands.Main Outcome Measures and Results: The analysis showed that the total annual drug costs per patient do not differ substantially between infliximab and etanercept, with costs of Netherland guilders (NLG)31,526 (12,610 US dollars) and NLG31,334 (12,534 US dollars), respectively. However, the other medical costs (i.e. excluding the costs of the two drugs themselves) are substantially higher for infliximab due to the additional costs associated with administration in an outpatient clinic and the use of methotrexate [NLG 12,621 (5048 US dollars) versus NLG269 (107 US dollars) for etanercept]. The impact of direct nonmedical costs (transportation) and indirect costs were negligible. Overall treatment with infliximab is more expensive than treatment with etanercept with total costs of NLG45 115 (18,046 US dollars) and NLG3I,621 (12,648 US dollars), respectively (42.7% increase).Conclusions: Based on the assumptions used in the model, we may conclude that the use of etanercept compares favourably with infliximab from a budgetary and health economic perspective: the total costs are substantially lower when the efficacy of etanercept is assumed to be at least equivalent to the efficacy of infliximab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]