Counting the Cost of Cellular and/or Tissue-Based Products in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Is There a Justifiable Price Limit per Square Centimeter?

IF 5.8 3区 医学 Q1 DERMATOLOGY
Marissa J Carter, Caroline E Fife
{"title":"Counting the Cost of Cellular and/or Tissue-Based Products in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Is There a Justifiable Price Limit per Square Centimeter?","authors":"Marissa J Carter, Caroline E Fife","doi":"10.1089/wound.2024.0087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To identify how cellular and/or tissue-based products (CTPs) relate to value in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in wound care in comparison with treatments in other medical fields. <b>Approach:</b> This is a cross-sectional study and a cost-effectiveness analysis. Payment limits for each CTP were obtained via the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System Q codes and formulated as cost inputs into a cost-utility model published for treatment of Wagner 1 diabetic foot ulcers using dehydrated human amnion and chorion allograft versus standard of care (SOC). Additional changes to cap the number of CTP applications and adjustments for recent inflation were made. The literature was searched for other cost-utility models in other diabetes-related diseases as a comparison. <b>Results:</b> When the payment limit was ≤$140 per square centimeter, interventions were dominant (less costly, better outcomes) compared with SOC. When the limit exceeded $430 per square centimeter, the cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000/QALY was exceeded. Newer Q codes are generally much more expensive and likely to not be cost-effective, similar to the results for many other chronic diabetes-related diseases . <b>Innovation:</b> This study presents decision makers with tools, by which they can determine as to whether a given CTP is likely to be cost-effective for patients. <b>Conclusion:</b> Over a third of all CTPs will very likely result in noncost-effective interventions. This number is likely to be higher when wounds are larger or used in other wound types where they are less efficacious. The recent trend in much higher costs for CTPs is worrisome.</p>","PeriodicalId":7413,"journal":{"name":"Advances in wound care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in wound care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2024.0087","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To identify how cellular and/or tissue-based products (CTPs) relate to value in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in wound care in comparison with treatments in other medical fields. Approach: This is a cross-sectional study and a cost-effectiveness analysis. Payment limits for each CTP were obtained via the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System Q codes and formulated as cost inputs into a cost-utility model published for treatment of Wagner 1 diabetic foot ulcers using dehydrated human amnion and chorion allograft versus standard of care (SOC). Additional changes to cap the number of CTP applications and adjustments for recent inflation were made. The literature was searched for other cost-utility models in other diabetes-related diseases as a comparison. Results: When the payment limit was ≤$140 per square centimeter, interventions were dominant (less costly, better outcomes) compared with SOC. When the limit exceeded $430 per square centimeter, the cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000/QALY was exceeded. Newer Q codes are generally much more expensive and likely to not be cost-effective, similar to the results for many other chronic diabetes-related diseases . Innovation: This study presents decision makers with tools, by which they can determine as to whether a given CTP is likely to be cost-effective for patients. Conclusion: Over a third of all CTPs will very likely result in noncost-effective interventions. This number is likely to be higher when wounds are larger or used in other wound types where they are less efficacious. The recent trend in much higher costs for CTPs is worrisome.

计算治疗糖尿病足溃疡的细胞和/或组织类产品的成本:是否有合理的每平方厘米价格限制?
目标:确定细胞和/或组织基产品(CTP)与伤口护理中每质量调整生命年成本价值的关系:通过与其他医疗领域的治疗方法进行比较,确定细胞和/或组织类产品(CTPs)与伤口护理中每质量调整生命年的成本价值之间的关系:这是一项横断面研究和成本效益分析。通过 HCPCS Q 编码获得每种 CTP 的支付限额,并将其作为成本输入到已发布的成本效用模型中,该模型针对使用 dHACA 治疗瓦格纳 1 型糖尿病足溃疡与标准护理进行比较。此外,还对 CTP 应用的数量上限进行了调整,并根据最近的通货膨胀率进行了调整。我们还搜索了其他医疗领域的其他成本效用模型作为对比:结果:当支付限额≤每平方厘米 140 美元时,与标准护理相比,干预占主导地位(成本更低、效果更好)。当限额超过每平方厘米 430 美元时,则超过了 100,000 美元/QALY 的成本效益阈值。与许多其他被认为比慢性伤口更严重的慢性疾病的研究结果相比,新的 Q 代码通常要昂贵得多,而且很可能不具有成本效益:创新性:这项研究为决策者提供了工具,使他们能够确定特定的 CTP 对患者而言是否具有成本效益:结论:在所有 CTP 中,超过三分之一的干预措施很可能不具有成本效益。当伤口较大或用于其他类型的伤口时,这一数字可能会更高,因为这些伤口的疗效较差。最近 CTPs 成本大幅提高的趋势令人担忧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Advances in wound care
Advances in wound care Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
4.10%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Advances in Wound Care rapidly shares research from bench to bedside, with wound care applications for burns, major trauma, blast injuries, surgery, and diabetic ulcers. The Journal provides a critical, peer-reviewed forum for the field of tissue injury and repair, with an emphasis on acute and chronic wounds. Advances in Wound Care explores novel research approaches and practices to deliver the latest scientific discoveries and developments. Advances in Wound Care coverage includes: Skin bioengineering, Skin and tissue regeneration, Acute, chronic, and complex wounds, Dressings, Anti-scar strategies, Inflammation, Burns and healing, Biofilm, Oxygen and angiogenesis, Critical limb ischemia, Military wound care, New devices and technologies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信