Cargando…

Health economic analysis of inpatient prostate cancer treatment in Austrian hospitals

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PrC) is the fourth most prevalent type of cancer worldwide. Its high incidence and 5-year survival rates contributing to high inpatient care costs make it an important public health issue. In Austria, surgery has been the most common inpatient procedure for PrC, despite...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heilig, D, Wienand, D, Zuba, M, Mitterhauser, M, Simon, J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10595125/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckad160.1351
_version_ 1785124794506674176
author Heilig, D
Wienand, D
Zuba, M
Mitterhauser, M
Simon, J
author_facet Heilig, D
Wienand, D
Zuba, M
Mitterhauser, M
Simon, J
author_sort Heilig, D
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PrC) is the fourth most prevalent type of cancer worldwide. Its high incidence and 5-year survival rates contributing to high inpatient care costs make it an important public health issue. In Austria, surgery has been the most common inpatient procedure for PrC, despite clinical recommendations not clearly indicating its benefits over alternatives. No health economic comparison of these procedures has considered the period after treatment yet. We bridge this gap by analysing the health economic impact of treatment pathways. METHODS: We use a large administrative dataset of all inpatient PrC patients in Austria who received either only surgery or only radiation therapy from 2005-2014 (n = 34,286). To assess the health economic impact, we used diagnosis-related-group (DRG) points and length of stay (LOS). Monthly DRG points and LOS for each patient ±12-months around the index procedure were analysed using the difference in difference (DID) method. We controlled for age, and physical comorbidity burden using Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores. RESULTS: Looking at unadjusted averages, patients in the surgery group were significantly younger and had a lower CCI compared to the radiation group. Consequently, the surgery group had lower nominal average DRG points and LOS. However, when controlling for age and CCI, we found that radiation treatment was less resource intensive. A DID estimation found a shorter average LOS and lower DRG points for the radiation group compared to surgery for the 12 months post index. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant additional costs and LOS times for surgical pathways following risk adjustment in Austria. This implies a potential excess burden of ∼4,400 hospitalisation days and ∼4 million DRG points (€4.8m) a year for the healthcare system during the observed period. Considering international evidence on higher patient burden in surgical pathways, these findings may call for clinical reconsiderations of PrC care. KEY MESSAGES: • Patient characteristics of different inpatient treatment pathways for PrC in Austria were very heterogenous. • Health economic outcomes in the post treatment period for PrC inpatient treatment were significantly better for radiation treatment compared to surgery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10595125
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105951252023-10-25 Health economic analysis of inpatient prostate cancer treatment in Austrian hospitals Heilig, D Wienand, D Zuba, M Mitterhauser, M Simon, J Eur J Public Health Poster Displays BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PrC) is the fourth most prevalent type of cancer worldwide. Its high incidence and 5-year survival rates contributing to high inpatient care costs make it an important public health issue. In Austria, surgery has been the most common inpatient procedure for PrC, despite clinical recommendations not clearly indicating its benefits over alternatives. No health economic comparison of these procedures has considered the period after treatment yet. We bridge this gap by analysing the health economic impact of treatment pathways. METHODS: We use a large administrative dataset of all inpatient PrC patients in Austria who received either only surgery or only radiation therapy from 2005-2014 (n = 34,286). To assess the health economic impact, we used diagnosis-related-group (DRG) points and length of stay (LOS). Monthly DRG points and LOS for each patient ±12-months around the index procedure were analysed using the difference in difference (DID) method. We controlled for age, and physical comorbidity burden using Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores. RESULTS: Looking at unadjusted averages, patients in the surgery group were significantly younger and had a lower CCI compared to the radiation group. Consequently, the surgery group had lower nominal average DRG points and LOS. However, when controlling for age and CCI, we found that radiation treatment was less resource intensive. A DID estimation found a shorter average LOS and lower DRG points for the radiation group compared to surgery for the 12 months post index. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant additional costs and LOS times for surgical pathways following risk adjustment in Austria. This implies a potential excess burden of ∼4,400 hospitalisation days and ∼4 million DRG points (€4.8m) a year for the healthcare system during the observed period. Considering international evidence on higher patient burden in surgical pathways, these findings may call for clinical reconsiderations of PrC care. KEY MESSAGES: • Patient characteristics of different inpatient treatment pathways for PrC in Austria were very heterogenous. • Health economic outcomes in the post treatment period for PrC inpatient treatment were significantly better for radiation treatment compared to surgery. Oxford University Press 2023-10-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10595125/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckad160.1351 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Poster Displays
Heilig, D
Wienand, D
Zuba, M
Mitterhauser, M
Simon, J
Health economic analysis of inpatient prostate cancer treatment in Austrian hospitals
title Health economic analysis of inpatient prostate cancer treatment in Austrian hospitals
title_full Health economic analysis of inpatient prostate cancer treatment in Austrian hospitals
title_fullStr Health economic analysis of inpatient prostate cancer treatment in Austrian hospitals
title_full_unstemmed Health economic analysis of inpatient prostate cancer treatment in Austrian hospitals
title_short Health economic analysis of inpatient prostate cancer treatment in Austrian hospitals
title_sort health economic analysis of inpatient prostate cancer treatment in austrian hospitals
topic Poster Displays
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10595125/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckad160.1351
work_keys_str_mv AT heiligd healtheconomicanalysisofinpatientprostatecancertreatmentinaustrianhospitals
AT wienandd healtheconomicanalysisofinpatientprostatecancertreatmentinaustrianhospitals
AT zubam healtheconomicanalysisofinpatientprostatecancertreatmentinaustrianhospitals
AT mitterhauserm healtheconomicanalysisofinpatientprostatecancertreatmentinaustrianhospitals
AT simonj healtheconomicanalysisofinpatientprostatecancertreatmentinaustrianhospitals