Resource utilization and economic outcomes following repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a retrospective observational analysis.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Joseph J Taylor, Andrew J Manett, Michael Feyder, Brandon S Bentzley
{"title":"Resource utilization and economic outcomes following repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a retrospective observational analysis.","authors":"Joseph J Taylor, Andrew J Manett, Michael Feyder, Brandon S Bentzley","doi":"10.57264/cer-2025-0019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> We investigated the impact of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment-resistant depression on healthcare resource utilization as well as commercial and Medicare Fee-for-Service payer costs. <b>Materials & methods:</b> We conducted a retrospective observational analysis of claims data using Medicare Fee-for-Service datasets and commercial (Merative MarketScan Research Databases) datasets from 1 January 2021 to 30 September 2023. We identified two cohorts, a cohort that received rTMS and a cohort not treated with rTMS over an 18-month period. We used propensity score matching to balance the baseline characteristics of the cohorts, and we calculated the total cost of care based on payer allowed amounts from Merative MarketScan Research Databases and Standard Analytical Files. <b>Results:</b> Relative to the non-TMS cohort, the rTMS cohort incurred 37% more hospital outpatient visits (14.00 vs 10.21; p ≤ 0.0001) with 7% higher outpatient cost ($8946 vs $8363; p = 0.3400). Simultaneously, the rTMS cohort incurred 24% fewer inpatient admissions (0.25 vs 0.33; p = 0.0003) with 19% lower inpatient admission costs ($5666 vs $6978; p = 0.0392), 48% fewer emergency room visits (0.27 vs 0.53; p ≤ 0.0001) with 34% lower emergency room costs ($322 vs $487; p ≤ 0.0001), and $893 less in episode of care costs. <b>Conclusion:</b> This study suggests that patients who receive rTMS for treatment-resistant depression required fewer high acuity hospital visits and incurred less expensive episode-of-care costs compared with patients who do not receive rTMS. From this perspective, rTMS is an investment that returns health and economic dividends through fewer high acuity hospital visits.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e250019"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2025-0019","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: We investigated the impact of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment-resistant depression on healthcare resource utilization as well as commercial and Medicare Fee-for-Service payer costs. Materials & methods: We conducted a retrospective observational analysis of claims data using Medicare Fee-for-Service datasets and commercial (Merative MarketScan Research Databases) datasets from 1 January 2021 to 30 September 2023. We identified two cohorts, a cohort that received rTMS and a cohort not treated with rTMS over an 18-month period. We used propensity score matching to balance the baseline characteristics of the cohorts, and we calculated the total cost of care based on payer allowed amounts from Merative MarketScan Research Databases and Standard Analytical Files. Results: Relative to the non-TMS cohort, the rTMS cohort incurred 37% more hospital outpatient visits (14.00 vs 10.21; p ≤ 0.0001) with 7% higher outpatient cost ($8946 vs $8363; p = 0.3400). Simultaneously, the rTMS cohort incurred 24% fewer inpatient admissions (0.25 vs 0.33; p = 0.0003) with 19% lower inpatient admission costs ($5666 vs $6978; p = 0.0392), 48% fewer emergency room visits (0.27 vs 0.53; p ≤ 0.0001) with 34% lower emergency room costs ($322 vs $487; p ≤ 0.0001), and $893 less in episode of care costs. Conclusion: This study suggests that patients who receive rTMS for treatment-resistant depression required fewer high acuity hospital visits and incurred less expensive episode-of-care costs compared with patients who do not receive rTMS. From this perspective, rTMS is an investment that returns health and economic dividends through fewer high acuity hospital visits.

重复经颅磁刺激治疗难治性抑郁症后的资源利用和经济结果:回顾性观察分析。
目的:我们研究重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)治疗难治性抑郁症对医疗资源利用以及商业和医疗保险按服务收费付款人成本的影响。材料和方法:我们对2021年1月1日至2023年9月30日期间使用医疗保险按服务收费数据集和商业(Merative MarketScan Research数据库)数据集的索赔数据进行了回顾性观察分析。我们确定了两个队列,一个接受rTMS治疗的队列和一个在18个月期间未接受rTMS治疗的队列。我们使用倾向评分匹配来平衡队列的基线特征,并根据Merative MarketScan研究数据库和标准分析文件中的付款人允许的金额计算护理总成本。结果:与非经颅磁刺激组相比,经颅磁刺激组的医院门诊次数多37% (14.00 vs 10.21;P≤0.0001),门诊费用高出7%(8946美元vs 8363美元;p = 0.3400)。同时,rTMS组住院人数减少24% (0.25 vs 0.33;P = 0.0003),住院费用降低19%(5666美元对6978美元;P = 0.0392),急诊室就诊次数减少48% (0.27 vs 0.53;P≤0.0001),急诊室费用降低34%(322美元vs 487美元;P≤0.0001),护理费用减少893美元。结论:本研究表明,与未接受rTMS的患者相比,接受rTMS治疗难治性抑郁症的患者需要更少的高急性住院次数和更少的昂贵的护理费用。从这个角度来看,rTMS是一项投资,通过减少高敏度的医院就诊来回报健康和经济红利。
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
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信