The Cost Effectiveness of Elective Surgical Procedures with Longer NHS Waiting Lists: A Targeted Review.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Laura A Trigg, Caroline Farmer, Madhusubramanian Muthukumar, Edward C F Wilson, Alan Lovell, Dawn Lee
{"title":"The Cost Effectiveness of Elective Surgical Procedures with Longer NHS Waiting Lists: A Targeted Review.","authors":"Laura A Trigg, Caroline Farmer, Madhusubramanian Muthukumar, Edward C F Wilson, Alan Lovell, Dawn Lee","doi":"10.1007/s40258-025-00975-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our aim was to review the evidence for the cost effectiveness of elective surgeries with long waiting lists within the NHS in England. This is to inform understanding of national spending priorities in the context of significant demand for elective surgeries and to inform the debate on appropriate cost-effectiveness thresholds across healthcare decision making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a targeted literature review to identify published cost-effectiveness analyses for nine elective procedures with long waiting lists in the NHS, selected based on previous reviews. These were percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), hysterectomy, cholecystectomy, knee replacement, groin hernia repair, hip replacement, prostatectomy, and cataract surgery. We made comparisons adjusted for currency and price year (2024).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 21 evaluations; in these, the cost effectiveness of surgeries was compared with no surgery (n = 9), medical management (n = 5), and between early and delayed surgery (n = 10). The evaluations reported that almost all procedures would be considered cost effective yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Cholecystectomy, prostatectomy, hip and knee replacement surgeries were associated with ICERs of between £5,000 and £10,000.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings offer insights for policymakers on optimising finite healthcare resources, particularly post-COVID-19, with surgical waiting lists a priority for the NHS. Prioritising these elective procedures is likely to be a highly cost-effective use of NHS resources. Allocation of investment to areas that are more cost effective than others is likely to increase the efficiency of the NHS, resulting in a net health gain compared with the reimbursement of less cost-effective interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-025-00975-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Our aim was to review the evidence for the cost effectiveness of elective surgeries with long waiting lists within the NHS in England. This is to inform understanding of national spending priorities in the context of significant demand for elective surgeries and to inform the debate on appropriate cost-effectiveness thresholds across healthcare decision making.

Methods: We conducted a targeted literature review to identify published cost-effectiveness analyses for nine elective procedures with long waiting lists in the NHS, selected based on previous reviews. These were percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), hysterectomy, cholecystectomy, knee replacement, groin hernia repair, hip replacement, prostatectomy, and cataract surgery. We made comparisons adjusted for currency and price year (2024).

Results: We identified 21 evaluations; in these, the cost effectiveness of surgeries was compared with no surgery (n = 9), medical management (n = 5), and between early and delayed surgery (n = 10). The evaluations reported that almost all procedures would be considered cost effective yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Cholecystectomy, prostatectomy, hip and knee replacement surgeries were associated with ICERs of between £5,000 and £10,000.

Conclusions: These findings offer insights for policymakers on optimising finite healthcare resources, particularly post-COVID-19, with surgical waiting lists a priority for the NHS. Prioritising these elective procedures is likely to be a highly cost-effective use of NHS resources. Allocation of investment to areas that are more cost effective than others is likely to increase the efficiency of the NHS, resulting in a net health gain compared with the reimbursement of less cost-effective interventions.

选择性外科手术的成本效益与较长的NHS等待名单:有针对性的审查。
目的:我们的目的是回顾证据的成本效益选择性手术与长等待名单在英国国民健康保险制度。这是为了了解在选择性手术需求巨大的背景下,国家支出的优先事项,并为医疗保健决策中适当的成本效益阈值的辩论提供信息。方法:我们进行了一项有针对性的文献综述,以确定已发表的成本效益分析,其中9项选择性手术在NHS中有很长的等待名单,选择基于先前的综述。包括经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)、冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)、子宫切除术、胆囊切除术、膝关节置换术、腹股沟疝修补术、髋关节置换术、前列腺切除术和白内障手术。我们进行了汇率和价格调整后的比较(2024年)。结果:我们确定了21个评价;在这些研究中,比较了手术与不手术(n = 9)、医疗管理(n = 5)以及早期和延迟手术(n = 10)的成本效益。评估报告称,几乎所有程序都被认为具有成本效益,每个质量调整生命年的增量成本效益比(ICERs)低于20,000英镑。胆囊切除术、前列腺切除术、髋关节和膝关节置换手术与ICERs相关的费用在5000英镑到1万英镑之间。结论:这些发现为政策制定者提供了优化有限医疗资源的见解,特别是在covid -19之后,手术等待名单是NHS的优先事项。优先考虑这些选择性程序可能是NHS资源的高成本效益使用。将投资分配给比其他领域更具成本效益的领域,可能会提高国民保健制度的效率,与报销成本效益较低的干预措施相比,产生净健康收益。
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
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
×
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