Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 158 items for :

  • "cost utility" x
Clear All
Restricted access

Michael G. Fehlings, Neilank K. Jha, Stephanie M. Hewson, Eric M. Massicotte, Branko Kopjar and Sukhvinder Kalsi-Ryan

been previously assessed. We therefore sought to address this knowledge gap. This study reports the results of a cost-utility analysis of surgical intervention for the treatment of CSM at a single Canadian institution. Further, we compare the cost utility of CSM surgery to that of other common medical interventions. Methods Study Design Between January 2006 and September 2007, patients entering treatment for CSM in the Division of Neurosurgery in the Toronto Western Hospital of the University Health Network were prospectively recruited for this study, which

Full access

Jared D. Ament and Kee D. Kim

-effective analysis that accounts for the perceived value of an intervention or health state is termed a “cost-utility analysis.” 10 , 23 , 24 Current Practice Despite the increasing prominence of evidence-based medicine practices, a standardized rubric for what is considered cost-effective has yet to be clearly defined. A commonly cited guideline considers interventions costing less than $20,000 US dollars per QALY strongly cost-effective and interventions costing more than $100,000 per QALY as not cost-effective. 17 The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical

Restricted access

Pirjo Räsänen, Juha Öhman, Harri Sintonen, Olli-Pekka Ryynänen, Anna-Maija Koivisto, Marja Blom and Risto P. Roine

permanent disability. Many traditional medical outcomes offer a too limited view on what patients consider beneficial. This is especially true in cases involving disorders such as cervical or lumbar radicular pain in which the patient’s main complaint cannot be objectively measured. Furthermore, traditional medical outcome measures are usually disease specific and, consequently, do not allow comparison of treatment results across different medical specialties. We have been conducting a large trial to explore the feasibility of routine evaluation of cost–utility of

Restricted access

Jared D. Ament, Kevin R. Greene, Ivan Flores, Fernando Capobianco, Gueider Salas, Maria Ines Uriona, John P. Weaver and Richard Moser

value of an intervention or health state is termed a cost-utility analysis (CUA). 4 , 17–19 , 23 Cost-utility analysis is a type of preference-based quality of life metric. Health status instruments, such as the 36-Item (SF-36), 12-Item (SF-12), and 6-Dimension (SF-6D) Short Form Health Surveys, 19 , 20 and other standardized questionnaires are often used as surrogates to elicit patients' valuations for their current health state. Single quality of life values are generated and expressed on a 0–1 scale. Zero represents the value of death and 1 represents the value

Free access

Matthew D. Alvin, Jacob A. Miller, Daniel Lubelski, Benjamin P. Rosenbaum, Kalil G. Abdullah, Robert G. Whitmore, Edward C. Benzel and Thomas E. Mroz

interventions are being increasingly scrutinized for their cost-effectiveness to both the patient and provider. Given equal effectiveness between two procedures for the same medical or surgical indication, patients, providers, and payers will choose the less expensive procedure. It is the transparency of costs that may benefit both the public and private sectors. 22 Cost-effectiveness research seeks to provide such transparency. Table 1 provides some important definitions when interpreting a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Cost-utility analyses (CUAs), a type of cost

Full access

Asdrubal Falavigna, Nicolas Scheverin, Orlando Righesso, Alisson R. Teles, Maria Carolina Gullo, Joseph S. Cheng and K. Daniel Riew

types of analyses are currently used in health care economics: cost-minimization, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility. 35 Cost-minimization studies simply describe the costs of treatments for an indication to determine the least expensive. Cost-benefit analyses establish the ratio between resources spent and benefits gained with a determined treatment. Cost-effectiveness studies estimate the value of an intervention by calculating the ratio between the benefit provided by a specific health care intervention and the cost of a specific health outcomes

Free access

Brian C. F. Chan, B. Catharine Craven and Julio C. Furlan

from a health system perspective. Given this, we carried out this scoping review of the literature in order to identify, synthetize, and analyze the current knowledge on the health economics of AST. Methods This systematic review and scoping synthesis included original articles focused on cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, cost-minimization, cost-comparison, and economic analysis related to neurosurgical management of AST, including traumatic SCI. Editorials, commentary, conference abstracts, and case reports were excluded. For the purpose of this review

Free access

Corinna C. Zygourakis, Taemin Oh, Matthew Z. Sun, Igor Barani, James G. Kahn and Andrew T. Parsa

for 32 radiosurgery patients ($16,143) and 21 microsurgery patients ($23,788) at their institution (Mayo Clinic) between 2000 and 2002. 1 Finally, a British group published the first cost-utility analysis for VS treatment using estimated, as opposed to actual, costs of care in the United Kingdom. 6 To date, no one has performed a cost-utility analysis with actual costs of care for patients with VS under conservative and nonconservative management paradigms in the multipayer system here in the US. We therefore performed a cost-utility analysis for the treatment of

Restricted access

Owoicho Adogwa, Scott L. Parker, Brandon J. Davis, Oran Aaronson, Clinton Devin, Joseph S. Cheng and Matthew J. McGirt

fusion procedures. In 2000 and 2004, the initial cost-effectiveness studies on lumbar fusion used economic modeling and direct cost comparisons in heterogeneous patient populations to demonstrate that instrumented lumbar fusion may not be cost-effective. 8 , 13 In 2008, Tosteson et al. 15 performed the first formal cost-utility analysis on “as-treated” cohorts from the prospective randomized SPORT and demonstrated that lumbar fusion was not very cost-effective when compared with medical management at 2 years ($115,600/QALY gained). However, the fusion cohort

Free access

Zoher Ghogawala, Robert G. Whitmore, William C. Watters III, Alok Sharan, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Andrew T. Dailey, Tanvir F. Choudhri, Jason C. Eck, Michael W. Groff, Jeffrey C. Wang, Daniel K. Resnick, Sanjay S. Dhall and Michael G. Kaiser

randomized trials compared outcomes and cost of lumbar fusion to conservative management. 19 , 39 Two studies examined the comparative cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open TLIF. 43 , 44 One preliminary study provided cost-effectiveness data for TLIF procedures. 1 Six studies addressed incremental cost-effectiveness of new technology for lumbar fusion. 2 , 7 , 8 , 20 , 30 , 34 Scientific Foundation A cost-utility analysis is a specific type of cost-effectiveness evaluation that allows a comparison of 2 alternative treatment strategies in terms of