A pathway to value‐based care of chronic rhinosinusitis using a claims database

OBJECTIVE: To construct a comprehensive picture of the typical chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patient in the United States including the demographics, comorbidities, and geographic prevalence. The study will also identify the diagnostic and treatment regimens, their cost, and pattern of use for both medically and surgically managed patients. STUDY DESIGN: Historical cohort study utilizing private and public payer databases. METHODS: Medical claims data from the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases from the years 2010 to 2012 for patients with acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) and CRS 18 and older were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 54 million unique patients in the databases from 2010 to 2012. Approximately 8 million had at least one diagnosis of ARS and 298,337 had a diagnosis of CRS. Females represented 63.7% of patients with ARS and 59.4% with CRS. Medicare patients represented 6.7% of the ARS population and 10.2% of the CRS population. The mean cost of a CRS episode for those commercially insured was $1024 and $762 in Medicare. CRS patients underwent diagnostic procedures including diagnostic endoscopy (55.1%), cultures (23.6%), sinus CT scan (82.1%) and MRI (0.2%). Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) was performed on 14.4% of those patients with CRS. Change in frequency of medication use from the 6 months prior to ESS to the 6 months post‐ESS yielded a reduction in total costs of 34.2% or $3.9 M. The most commonly operated sinuses (with or without septoplasty on same day as ESS) were the maxillary (94%/76.1%); followed by ethmoid (82.1%/66.6%); frontal (38.8%/35.1%); and sphenoid (28.5%/28.1%). In total, 16.6% had one sinus operated on, 39.1% had two, 24.6% had three, and 18.7% had four sinuses operated on. CONCLUSIONS: This data paints a much clearer understanding of the current medical and surgical management. This study confirms the previously described “value proposition” for the surgical management of those CRS patients refractory to medical management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4