Search

Background: During an orthopedic or trauma surgery procedure, when an implantable medical device is unpackaged, not implanted and cannot be resterilized, it is considered "waste". The cost burden falls on the hospital. The French Social Security Code provides for add-on reimbursement for certain expensive or very specialized devices (supplementary list of costly implants). To allow its restocking without linking it to a patient or reimbursement request, the wasted implant is tracked in a computerized database. The economic impact of these wasted implants is not known in France. This led us to conduct a retrospective study: 1) to determine the percentage and number of wasted implants, 2) to identify elements related to the surgery that impact implant waste., Hypothesis: Various elements of the surgical environment (type of procedure, specialty, surgeon experience, time of year) can independently contribute to the non-implantation of a medical device., Methods: We carried out a retrospective observational study of data collected prospectively in the database of our teaching hospital in 2016. The primary outcome was the percentage of wasted implants. The secondary outcome was the mean cost of these wasted implants. These parameters were determined for all the implants used in orthopedics and trauma surgery and tracked in this department, then for each variable hypothesized to led to non-implantation. Our analysis was descriptive, then comparative., Results: In our database, 29,073 devices were tracked (€3,761,180), of which 1995 devices were wasted (6.9%). The total cost of the wasted implants was €179,193 (4.8% of the overall cost). The breakdown of the wasted implants was 430 (4.4%) from the add-on list (average cost of €293.10) versus 1565 implants associated with the hospital's diagnosis-related group payment system (average cost of €33.90). Trauma surgery procedures had significantly more wasted implants than orthopedic surgery (1135 vs. 860 (p<0.01)), although the individual cost was less (€59.20 vs. €130.10 (p<0.01)). Fracture fixation implants were more likely to be wasted than ligament reconstruction or arthroplasty implants, with a lower mean cost. More implants were wasted during hip arthroplasty than during other arthroplasty procedures. Less experienced surgeons wasted more implants than more experienced surgeons (1087 vs. 905 (p<0.01)) but these implants cost less (€69.20 vs. €114.80 (p<0.05)). The percentage of implants wasted was higher during the resident changeover period relative to the other months of the year (772 vs. 1223 (p<0.01))., Discussion: This study is the first attempt at quantifying the number and cost of wasted implants in the context of orthopedics and trauma surgery at a teaching hospital in France. While trauma surgery is associated with more wasted implants, the cost burden is higher in orthopedics. Surgeons, by virtue of their experience and teaching mandate, have a decisive role managing this cost burden., Type of Study: IV, Retrospective study., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Objectives: To evaluate the healthcare cost of amputation and prosthesis for management of upper and lower extremities in a single institute., Design: Retrospective cohort study conducted between 2000 and 2014., Participants: All patients who underwent upper (UEA) and lower extremities amputation (LEA) were identified retrospectively from the operating theatre database. Collected data included patient demographics, comorbidities, interventions, costs of amputations including hospitalisation expenses, length of hospital stay and mortality., Outcome Measures: Incidence, costs of amputation and hospitalisation according to the level of the amputation and cost per bed days, length of hospital stay and mortality., Results: A total of 871 patients underwent 1102 (major 357 and minor 745) UEA and LEA. The mean age of patients was 59.4±18.3, and 77.2% were males. Amputations were most frequent among elderly (51.1%). Two-third of patients (75.86%, 95% CI 72.91% to 78.59%) had diabetes mellitus. Females, Qatari nationals and non-diabetics were more likely to have higher mean amputation and hospital stay cost. The estimated total cost for major and minor amputations were US$3 797 930 and US$2 344 439, respectively. The cumulative direct healthcare cost comprised total cost of all amputations, bed days cost and prosthesis cost and was estimated to be US$52 126 496 and per patient direct healthcare procedure cost was found to be US$59 847. The total direct related therapeutic cost was estimated to be US$26 096 046 with per patient cost of US$29 961. Overall per patient cost for amputation was US$89 808., Conclusions: The economic burden associated with UEA and LEA-related hospitalisations is considerable. Diabetes mellitus, advanced age and sociodemographic factors influence the incidence of amputation and its associated healthcare cost. The findings will help to showcase the economic burden of amputation for better management strategies to reduce healthcare costs. Furthermore, larger prospective studies focused on cost-effectiveness of primary prevention strategies to minimise diabetic complication are warranted., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

There is a paucity of available research on knowledge of orthopaedic implant costs and healthcare schemes among orthopaedic residents. With the rising healthcare costs in Singapore, it is imperative for residents, who are the future surgeons, to understand these issues in order to provide proper counselling and cost-effective management. This study aimed to quantify how accurately they understood these issues and determine if senior residents had better knowledge given their increased experience. An online survey was administered to all orthopaedic residents within a residency programme. There was poor knowledge of implant costs and healthcare schemes among residents. Junior residents fared better at healthcare schemes, while senior residents fared better at estimation of implant costs. Education on these issues should be incorporated into the residency programme to bring about more holistic and cost-conscious clinicians., (Copyright: © Singapore Medical Association.)

Health care costs in the United States continue to rise, and economic pressures influencing the care of the orthopedic trauma patient have never been greater. Value-based health care is vital to the survival of the current health care system, and the use of value-based implants is central to success. Value-based implants have similar clinical outcomes to conventional implants; however, multiple barriers exist. Despite biomechanical equivalence and significant cost savings, surgeons have difficultly changing implant use without financial incentive. The rise of physician-owned surgery centers, bundled payments, and gain sharing and comanagement agreements will likely drive this change., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There are few studies of the economic value of orthotic and prosthetic services. A prior cohort study of orthotic and prosthetic Medicare beneficiaries based on Medicare Parts A and B claims from 2007 to 2010 concluded that patients who received timely orthotic or prosthetic care had comparable or lower total health care costs than a comparison group of untreated patients. This follow-up study reports on a parallel analysis based on Medicare claims from 2011 to 2014 and includes Part D in addition to Parts A and B services and expenditures. Its purpose is to validate earlier findings on the extent to which Medicare patients who received select orthotic and prosthetic services had less health care utilization, lower Medicare payments, and potentially fewer negative outcomes compared to matched patients not receiving these services., Methods: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of 78,707 matched pairs of Medicare beneficiaries with clinical need for orthotic and prosthetic services (N = 157,414) using 2011-2014 Medicare claims data. It uses propensity score matching techniques to control for observable selection bias. Economically, a cost-consequence evaluation over a four-year time horizon was performed., Results: Patients who received lower extremity orthotics had 18-month episode costs that were $1939 lower than comparable patients who did not receive orthotic treatment ($22,734 vs $24,673). Patients who received spinal orthotic treatment had 18-month episode costs that were $2094 lower than comparable non-treated patients ($23,560 vs $25,655). Study group beneficiaries receiving both types of orthotics had significantly lower Part D spending than those not receiving treatment (p < 0.05). Patients who received lower extremity prostheses had comparable 15-month episode payments to matched beneficiaries not receiving prostheses ($68,877 vs $68,893) despite the relatively high cost of the prosthesis., Conclusions: These results were consistent with those found in the prior study and suggest that orthotic and prosthetic services provide value to the Medicare program and to the patient.

Objective: Health care costs are increasing in medicine and in orthopedics. Device choice in orthopedic cases can impact the cost of the procedure and thus result in cost savings. This study aims to determine whether orthopedic attendings and residents accurately estimate device costs they are implanting in trauma cases and whether costs would influence their surgical device selection., Design: Using nationally published average cost data for 13 implants, a survey was distributed at 6 US academic centers. Respondents were asked to select the correct cost from cost ranges. They also answered yes/no questions about their choices regarding published research outcomes for specific fractures. Residents' answers were compared with faculty answers using t tests for each cost estimate question, and chi-square tests for yes/no questions and frequencies., Results: A total of 51 faculty members and 76 residents responded. Attending estimates were closer to the actual cost for most devices. The average total error in cost estimate for all 13 implants was $11,288.36 for residents (35.6% difference) and $10,208.33 for faculty members (32.2% difference). Significantly more faculty members estimated costs within 10% versus residents. When asked if the literature showed differences in outcome when using different implants to treat 4 common fractures, most answered these questions correctly. Further, 71.1% of residents said their choice of implant would change if costs affected physician reimbursements versus 58% for faculty members., Conclusions: Our data indicate orthopedic physicians are not aware of true implant costs and nearly half of attendings would not consider cost as a factor in deciding between equivalent implants, even if this affected their reimbursement. Most notably, participants showed a poor ability to closely estimate the cost of more expensive implants (actual device cost greater than $2000). Our results suggest that medical cost containment should be stressed to the next generation of surgeons., (Copyright © 2018 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study examines the burden of road traffic injuries (RTIs) among road crash victims in a tertiary hospital in Ibadan, Nigeria. The study adopted a purposive sampling method to obtain primary data. Interview was done with 266 RTI victims who were admitted to the University College Hospital, Ibadan and discharged between March and May, 2015, using a structured questionnaire. From the data obtained, the study carried out descriptive statistical analyses. The results showed that the average cost per patient for RTI treatment was ₦ 42,946 ($215.9); on average, the amount expended on surgery was the highest followed by wound dressing and drugs; and the prevalence of catastrophic out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure was over 86%. It is recommended that given the high burden of OOP hospital expenditure associated with RTI, there is need to implement more effective financial protection mechanisms against the high OOP expenditure faced by crash victims.

Purpose: Surgical costs are under scrutiny and surgeons are being held increasingly responsible for cost containment. In some instances, implants are the largest component of total procedure cost, yet previous studies reveal that surgeons' knowledge of implant prices is poor. Our study aims to (1) understand drivers behind implant selection and (2) assess whether educating surgeons about implant costs affects implant selection., Methods: We surveyed 226 orthopedic surgeons across 6 continents. The survey presented 8 clinical cases of upper extremity fractures with history, radiographs, and implant options. Surgeons were randomized to receive either a version with each implant's average selling price ("price-aware" group), or a version without prices ("price-naïve" group). Surgeons selected a surgical implant and ranked factors affecting implant choice. Descriptive statistics and univariate, multivariable, and subgroup analyses were performed., Results: For cases offering implants within the same class (eg, volar locking plates), price-awareness reduced implant cost by 9% to 11%. When offered different models of distal radius volar locking plates, 25% of price-naïve surgeons selected the most expensive plate compared with only 7% of price-aware surgeons. For cases offering different classes of implants (eg, plate vs external fixator), there was no difference in implant choice between price-aware and price-naïve surgeons. Familiarity with the implant was the most common reason for choosing an implant in both groups (35% vs 46%). Price-aware surgeons were more likely to rank cost as a factor (29% vs 21%)., Conclusions: Price awareness significantly influences surgeons' choice of a specific model within the same implant class. Merely including prices with a list of implants leads surgeons to select less expensive implants. This implies that an untapped opportunity exists to reduce surgical expenditures simply by enhancing surgeons' cost awareness., Type of Study/level of Evidence: Economic/Decision Analyses I., (Copyright © 2017 American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To compare the yearly cost involved per patient in the use of magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) and traditional growing rods (TGRs) in the treatment of early onset scoliosis (EOS) and to assess the overall cost burden of MCGR with reference to patient and health-care infrastructure., Methods: For a hypothetical case of a 5-year-old girl with a diagnosis of EOS, a decision-tree model using TreeAge Software was developed to simulate annual health state transitions and compare the 8-year accumulative direct, indirect, and total cost among the four groups: (1) dual MCGRs with exchange every 2 years, (2) dual MCGRs with exchange every 3 years, (3) TGR with surgical distraction every year, and (4) TGR with surgical distraction every 6 months. Base-case values and ranges of clinical parameters reflecting complication rate after each type of surgical distraction were determined from a review of literature and expert opinion. Government gazette and expert opinion provided cost estimation of growing rods, surgeries, surgical complications, and routine follow-up. Microsimulation of 1000 individuals was conducted to test the variation in total direct costs (in 2016 Hong Kong dollars (HKD)) between individuals, and estimated the standard deviations of total direct costs for each group., Results: Over the projected treatment period, indirect costs incurred by patients and family were higher for the MCGR as compared to the TGR. However, the total costs incurred by MCGR groups (group 1: HKD164k; group 2: HKD138k) were lower than those incurred by TGR groups (group 3: HKD191k; group 4: HKD290k). Although the accumulative costs of three groups (TGR with distraction every year and MCGR replacing every 2 and 3 years) were approaching each other in the first 2 years after initial implantation, at year 3 the accumulative cost of MCGR exchange every 2 years was HKD36k more than the yearly TGR surgery due to the cost of implant exchange. The cost incurred by both the MCGR groups was less than that incurred by the TGR groups from year 4 to skeletal maturity., Conclusions: The use of dual MCGRs, regardless of its 2- or 3-year exchange, was only cost saving and less expensive than the dual TGRs for EOS treatment from the fourth year of continuous treatment. Despite higher patient-related costs during MCGR treatment, it is important to consider the reduced risks and mental burden suffered by these children during repeat surgeries. With improved knowledge of the costs associated with long-term MCGR use, better constructed cost-effectiveness studies can be performed in the future.

Implant costs comprise the largest proportion of operating room supply costs for orthopedic trauma care. Over the years, hospitals have devised several methods of controlling these costs with the help of physicians. With increasing economic pressure, these negotiations have a tremendous ability to decrease the cost of trauma care. In the past, physicians have taken no responsibility for implant pricing which has made cost control difficult. The reasons have been multifactorial. However, industry surgeon consulting fees, research support, and surgeon comfort with certain implant systems have played a large role in slowing adoption of cost-control measures. With the advent of physician gainsharing and comanagement agreements, physicians now have impetus to change. At our facility, we have used 3 methods for cost containment since 2009: dual vendor, matrix pricing, and sole-source contracting. Each has been increasingly successful, resulting in massive savings for the institution. This article describes the process and benefits of each model.

The steadily increasing demand for orthopedic surgeries and declining rates of reimbursement by Medicare and other insurance providers have led many hospitals to look for ways to control the cost of these surgeries. We reviewed administrative records for a 1-year period and recorded total number of surgical cases, number of cases in which an implant was wasted, and cost of each wasted implant. We determined cost incurred because of implant waste, percentage of cases that involved waste, percentage of total implant cost wasted, and average cost of waste per case. We then analyzed the data to determine if case volume or years in surgical practice affected amount of implant waste. Results showed implant waste represents a significant cost for orthopedic procedures within all subspecialties and is an important factor to consider when developing cost-reduction strategies.

Purpose: To evaluate the cost differences between a conventional growth rod system (CGRS) and magnetic controlled growth rods (MCGR) in treating early onset scoliosis (EOS) over a projected 5 year period. We hypothesise that the high initial outlay for MCGR would be recouped from fewer admissions and surgical procedures over the lifetime of the implant., Methods: The costs of all aspects of treatment for 14 patients undergoing conversion from CGRS to MGRS were collected over a 3 year period. The costs of all aspects of each treatment including clinic visits, hospital stay, theatre and complications were calculated and projected over the lifetime of each device., Results: The initial outlay for insertion for MCGR was £12,913 more than the CGRS. There were significant cost savings for each lengthening which projected over the 5 year lifetime amounted to a cost saving of over £8,000 per patient., Conclusions: Magnetic controlled growth rods reduce the need for multiple invasive procedures in the management of EOS. The implant has a significant projected cost saving in comparison to CGRS.

Background: A poor understanding of cost among healthcare providers may contribute to high healthcare expenditures. Currently, it is unclear whether and how much surgeons know about the costs of implantable medical devices (IMDs)., Questions/purposes: We (1) determined the level of comfort with orthopaedic IMD costs among orthopaedic residents and attending surgeons, (2) quantified how accurately surgeons understand the costs of orthopaedic IMDs, and (3) identified which constructs yield the most accurate cost estimations among residents and attending surgeons., Methods: A questionnaire was presented to 60 residents and 37 attending orthopaedic surgeons from two large academic medical centers. Respondents estimated the cost of 13 commonly used orthopaedic devices. Fifty-one surgeons participated (36 residents, 15 attending surgeons), for an overall response rate of 53%. Cost estimates were compared against the actual material costs, and we recorded the percentage error for each estimate., Results: More than ½ of the respondents rated their knowledge of IMD cost as poor. The mean percentage error in estimation for all respondents was 69% (range, 29%-289%). Overall, 67% of responses were underestimations and 33% were overestimations. Residents demonstrated a mean percentage error of 73% (range, 29%-289%) while attending surgeons had a mean percentage error of 59% (range, 49%-79%). Residents and attending surgeons demonstrated differences in accuracy within groups and between groups based on the IMD being estimated., Conclusions: We found the knowledge of orthopaedic IMD costs among the orthopaedic residents and attending surgeons surveyed was poor. Further investigation of how physicians conceptualize material costs will be important to healthcare cost control.

The suture anchor and transosseous drill hole techniques for reattachment of the distal biceps tendon to the radius have been found to have similar clinical and biomechanical outcomes. However, a comparison of the cost effectiveness of these techniques is lacking. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the use of suture anchors decreases operative time enough to offset the additional cost of the implants. The records of all patients undergoing a distal biceps tendon reattachment were reviewed to determine the method of fixation, operative time, and associated surgical costs. Two surgeons used a technique of fixing the tendon directly to the bone (transosseous group), whereas 3 surgeons used suture anchors. Given the standard nature of the surgical procedure (other than the fixation technique), only the costs that differed between the 2 groups were included. Surgical center costs were obtained from the local outpatient surgical center in 2011 US dollars. Five surgeons treated 70 men (mean age, 45.9±9.2 years). Mean time from injury to surgery was 14 days. Mean operative times for the transosseous and suture anchor groups were 97.6±14.9 and 95.8±25.8 minutes, respectively (P=.74). Two anchors were used in 79% of the anchor cases. The use of anchors cost $474.33 more per patient. However, this value is sensitive to the cost of the individual anchors, intersurgeon variation in operative time, and per-minute value of saved operative time. No operative time was saved with the use of suture anchors. This cost comparison framework can be used to evaluate the balance in surgical resource use due to implant cost vs savings in operative time., (Copyright 2012, SLACK Incorporated.)

Background: Growing prostheses accommodate skeletally immature patients with bone tumors undergoing limb-preserving surgery. Early devices required surgical procedures for lengthening; recent devices lengthen without surgery. Expenses for newer expandable devices that lengthen without surgery are more than for their predecessors but overall reimbursement amounts are not known., Questions/purposes: We sought to determine reimbursement amounts associated with lengthening of growing prostheses requiring surgical and nonsurgical lengthening., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 17 patients with growing prostheses requiring surgical expansion and eight patients with prostheses capable of nonsurgical expansion. Insurance documents were reviewed to determine the reimbursement for implantation, lengthening, and complications. Growth data were obtained from the literature., Results: Mean reimbursement amounts of surgical and nonsurgical lengthenings were $9950 and $272, respectively. Estimated reimbursements associated with implantation of a growing prosthesis varied depending on age, sex, and location. The largest difference was found for 4-year-old boys with distal femoral replacement where reimbursement for expansion to maturity for surgical and nonsurgical lengthening prostheses would be $379,000 and $208,000, respectively. For children requiring more than one surgical expansion, net reimbursements were lower when a noninvasive lengthening device was used. Annual per-prosthesis maintenance reimbursements to address complications for surgical and nonsurgical lengthening prostheses were $3386 and $1856, respectively., Conclusions: This study showed that reimbursements for lengthening of growing endoprostheses capable of nonsurgical expansion may be less expensive in younger patients, particularly male patients undergoing distal femur replacement, than endoprostheses requiring surgical lengthening. Longer outcomes studies are required to see if reimbursements for complications differ between devices., Level of Evidence: Level III, economic and decision analysis. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Purpose: Despite demonstrated cost effectiveness, not all corneal disorders are amenable to type I Boston keratoprosthesis (KPro) implantation. This includes patients with autoimmune diseases, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. Type II KPro is implanted through the eyelids in severe dry eye and cicatricial diseases, and its cost effectiveness was sought., Patients and Methods: In a retrospective chart review, 29 patients who underwent type II KPro surgery at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary between the years 2000 and 2009 were identified. A total of 11 patients had 5-year follow-up data. Average cost effectiveness was determined by cost-utility analysis, comparing type II KPro surgery with no further intervention., Results: Using the current parameters, the cost utility of KPro from third-party insurer (Medicare) perspective was 63,196 $/quality-adjusted life year ., Conclusion: Efforts to refer those less likely to benefit from traditional corneal transplantation or type I KPro, for type II KPro surgery, may decrease both patient and societal costs.

Chronic diseases are currently recognized as one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide. On top of this, these diseases represent a major burden for the healthcare systems in terms of costs and resources, which is driving them to define and adopt novel programs for prevention and chronic disease management. Still, many aspects of the processes of care and follow up of these patients remain unsolved and there is yet uncertainty on how technology can provide an added value to the current processes of care. This paper addresses the importance of the adoption of strategies for the anticipation to acute events within the disease management programs and suggests a holistic approach to embrace the healthcare organizations in the design development and implementation of the new personal health systems.

This study projects prosthetic- and assistive-device costs for veterans with limb loss from Vietnam and injured servicemembers returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) to inform the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for these veterans' future care. The 2005 Medicare prosthetic device component prices were applied to current prosthetic and assistive-device use obtained from a national survey of 581 veterans and servicemembers with major traumatic amputations. Projections were made for 5-year, 10-year, 20-year, and lifetime costs based on eight Markov models. Average 5-year projected costs for prosthetic and assistive-device replacement for the Vietnam group are lower than for the OIF/OEF cohort due in part to use of fewer and less technologically advanced prosthetic devices and higher frequency of prosthetic abandonment. By limb-loss level, for the Vietnam group and OIF/OEF cohort, 5-year projected unilateral upper limb average costs are $31,129 and $117,440, unilateral lower limb costs are $82,251 and $228,665, and multiple limb costs are $130,890 and $453,696, respectively. These figures provide the VA with a funding estimate for technologically advanced prosthetic and assistive devices within the framework of ongoing rehabilitation for veterans with traumatic limb loss from the Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts.

Objectives: The purposes of this study were to assess the incidence of intraoperative trauma implant waste in a regional territory of the United States and to assess its impact on costs., Methods: The total number of procedures using a single device manufacturer's orthopaedic trauma implants in one geographic region and number of occurrences of intraoperative orthopaedic trauma implant waste were recorded prospectively from 74 contiguous hospitals over a period of 18 months along with the individual responsible for the waste (surgeon, vendor representative, or operating room staff), the cost of the wasted implant, and whether the hospital paid for the implant. Hospitals were stratified into teaching or community institutions. The collected data were then aggregated and analyzed for overall incidence and cost as well as cost per trauma procedure., Results: Implant waste occurred in 37 of 6531 procedures (0.6%) with 16 of the centers (21.6%) reporting at least one occurrence and 95% attributed to the surgeon or operating room staff. Community hospitals were found to have a significantly higher incidence of implant waste as compared with teaching hospitals. Hospitals absorbed 74% of the wasted implant costs ($20,357 over the study period). This expense represented a mean additional cost of $3.12 per orthopaedic trauma procedure performed., Conclusions: There is a small but notable annual incidence and cost of orthopaedic trauma implant waste in the study region with the majority of this cost borne by the hospitals. However, implant waste occurs infrequently and represents a very small cost to hospitals per procedure. Educational programs and other strategies to reduce its incidence are unlikely to yield any substantial cost savings.

Objective: To describe the methods used to estimate and compare Veterans Health Administration (VA) annual expenditures for assistive devices and their repair at six VA hospitals with payments for those same devices in the private sector., Methods: Information about dispensed assistive devices and their costs was extracted from (1) the VA's National Prosthetic Patient Database, (2) each site's listing of the VA's Denver Distribution Center cost center in the Cost Distribution Jurisdictional Report, and (3) review of invoices for implanted prosthetics at each study site. We estimated private sector payments by applying Medicare geographically adjusted rates for purchases or rentals, where rates existed, or by inflating VA costs by 30%., Results: The VA spent a total of $30.6 million for prosthetics at the six sites in fiscal year 1999, of which $14.2 million was for items captured in the National Prosthetic Patient Database, $3.4 million for the Denver Distribution Center, and more than $8.1 million for implants. Indirect VA costs were estimated at $4.8 million. Hypothetical private sector payments were estimated at $49.8 million., Conclusions: Unlike Medicare, VA both contracts to provide assistive devices (through a competitive bidding process) and dispenses devices it has purchased. This approach results in significantly lower expenditures, consistent with other reports. Generalizing these cost savings to other private or federal programs covering assistive devices requires further study.

Objective: To develop a systematic set of German cost data in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based solely on valid healthcare payer's cost data sources., Methods: Retrospectively one year cost data of 338 patients with RA were generated and analysed. The cost data were derived from a major statutory health insurance plan ("Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Niedersachsen") and the regional physicians' association ("Kassenärztliche Vereinigung Niedersachsen"). The recently published matrix of cost domains in RA was applied to structure the analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data., Results: The total direct costs for the 338 patients during one year (third quarter 2000 to second quarter 2001) were euro 3815 per patient-year. RA related direct costs were euro 2312 per patient-year. Outpatient costs accounted for 73.7%, inpatient costs for 24.0%, and other disease related costs for 2.3% of RA related direct costs. Outpatients cost drivers were RA related drugs (euro 1019 per patient-year), physician visits (euro 323 per patient-year), diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and tests (euro 185 per patient-year), and devices and aids (euro;168 per patient-year). 98 patients were retired prematurely owing to RA related work disability and incurred costs of euro;8358 per retired patient-year. 96 patients were gainfully employed and incurred sick leave costs of euro 2835 per employed patient-year., Conclusion: Micro-costing based on healthcare payer's data provides a relatively conservative albeit highly accurate estimate of costs in RA. Both RA related and non-RA related costs must be taken into account. In gainfully employed patients and in patients who receive RA related retirement payments productivity costs exceed direct costs.