A National Mandate for Thermal Fuses for Home Oxygen Users is Cost-Effective in the Prevention of Burn Morbidity, Mortality, and Property Loss.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Clifford C Sheckter, Rebecca Coffey
{"title":"A National Mandate for Thermal Fuses for Home Oxygen Users is Cost-Effective in the Prevention of Burn Morbidity, Mortality, and Property Loss.","authors":"Clifford C Sheckter, Rebecca Coffey","doi":"10.1093/jbcr/irae093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Smoking while using home oxygen leads to explosions, which cause cutaneous burns, death, and loss of property. Thermal fuses interrupt the propagation of ignited oxygen lines and reduce the risk of injury. Prior to mandating thermal fuses for all home oxygen users in the United States, cost-effectiveness analysis should be performed. A Markov model was constructed for suffering a thermal injury while smoking on home oxygen. Societal and Medicare perspectives were adopted, evaluating the costs of a federal policy, including purchasing/shipping thermal fuses to all home oxygen users. Costs included the healthcare required to treat burn patients and extend lives in advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cost savings included the avoided property loss. Effectiveness was measured in gains in quality adjusted life years (QALYs). In the status quo, the 10-year societal cost was $28.67 billion compared to $28.36 billion in the policy mandate (saving $305.40 million at 10 years). 1812 QALYs were gained with the policy mandate, yielding, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -$160 317. From the Medicare payor perspective, the ICER was $64 981. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed little variation in the ICER under multiple scenarios. The discrepancy between the dominant ICER for a societal perspective and the cost-effective ICER for a Medicare perspective reflected savings from averted property loss not realized by Medicare. A national policy mandating and paying for thermal fuses for all home oxygen users is dominant from a societal perspective and cost-effective from a Medicare perspective. The US government should adopt such a policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":15205,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Burn Care & Research","volume":" ","pages":"1429-1434"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Burn Care & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irae093","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Smoking while using home oxygen leads to explosions, which cause cutaneous burns, death, and loss of property. Thermal fuses interrupt the propagation of ignited oxygen lines and reduce the risk of injury. Prior to mandating thermal fuses for all home oxygen users in the United States, cost-effectiveness analysis should be performed. A Markov model was constructed for suffering a thermal injury while smoking on home oxygen. Societal and Medicare perspectives were adopted, evaluating the costs of a federal policy, including purchasing/shipping thermal fuses to all home oxygen users. Costs included the healthcare required to treat burn patients and extend lives in advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cost savings included the avoided property loss. Effectiveness was measured in gains in quality adjusted life years (QALYs). In the status quo, the 10-year societal cost was $28.67 billion compared to $28.36 billion in the policy mandate (saving $305.40 million at 10 years). 1812 QALYs were gained with the policy mandate, yielding, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -$160 317. From the Medicare payor perspective, the ICER was $64 981. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed little variation in the ICER under multiple scenarios. The discrepancy between the dominant ICER for a societal perspective and the cost-effective ICER for a Medicare perspective reflected savings from averted property loss not realized by Medicare. A national policy mandating and paying for thermal fuses for all home oxygen users is dominant from a societal perspective and cost-effective from a Medicare perspective. The US government should adopt such a policy.

在全国范围内强制要求家庭氧气使用者使用温度保险丝,在预防烧伤发病率、死亡率和财产损失方面具有成本效益。
使用家用氧气时吸烟会导致爆炸,造成皮肤烧伤、死亡和财产损失。温度保险丝可阻断点燃的氧气线的传播,降低伤害风险。在强制要求美国所有家用氧气用户使用热保险丝之前,应进行成本效益分析。我们建立了一个使用家用氧气吸烟时遭受热伤害的马尔可夫模型。从社会和医疗保险的角度评估了联邦政策的成本,包括为所有家用氧气使用者购买/运送热保险丝的成本。成本包括治疗烧伤病人和延长晚期慢性阻塞性肺病患者生命所需的医疗费用。节约的成本包括避免的财产损失。效果以质量调整生命年(QALYS)的收益来衡量。在现状中,10 年的社会成本为 286.7 亿美元,而在政策授权中为 283.6 亿美元(10 年节省 3.054 亿美元)。政策授权可获得 1,812 QALYs,ICER 为-160,317 美元。从医疗保险支付者的角度来看,增量成本效益比(ICER)为 64,981 美元。确定性和概率敏感性分析表明,在多种情况下,ICER 变化不大。社会角度的主要 ICER 与医疗保险角度的成本效益 ICER 之间的差异反映了医疗保险未实现的避免财产损失所节省的费用。从社会角度看,强制要求所有家庭氧气使用者使用热保险丝并为其付费的国家政策具有主导性,而从医疗保险角度看则具有成本效益。美国政府应采取这样的政策。
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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
21.40%
发文量
535
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Burn Care & Research provides the latest information on advances in burn prevention, research, education, delivery of acute care, and research to all members of the burn care team. As the official publication of the American Burn Association, this is the only U.S. journal devoted exclusively to the treatment and research of patients with burns. Original, peer-reviewed articles present the latest information on surgical procedures, acute care, reconstruction, burn prevention, and research and education. Other topics include physical therapy/occupational therapy, nutrition, current events in the evolving healthcare debate, and reports on the newest computer software for diagnostics and treatment. The Journal serves all burn care specialists, from physicians, nurses, and physical and occupational therapists to psychologists, counselors, and researchers.
×
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