Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

Economic evaluation of access to musculoskeletal care: the case of waiting for total knee arthroplasty

Richard C Mather1, Kevin T Hug2, Lori A Orlando3, Tyler Steven Watters1*, Lane Koenig4, Ryan M Nunley5 and Michael P Bolognesi1

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, England

2 Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA

3 Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, England

4 KNG Health Consulting, Rockville, MD 20850, USA

5 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2014, 15:22  doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-22

Published: 18 January 2014

Abstract

Background

The projected demand for total knee arthroplasty is staggering. At its root, the solution involves increasing supply or decreasing demand. Other developed nations have used rationing and wait times to distribute this service. However, economic impact and cost-effectiveness of waiting for TKA is unknown.

Methods

A Markov decision model was constructed for a cost-utility analysis of three treatment strategies for end-stage knee osteoarthritis: 1) TKA without delay, 2) a waiting period with no non-operative treatment and 3) a non-operative treatment bridge during that waiting period in a cohort of 60 year-old patients. Outcome probabilities and effectiveness were derived from the literature. Costs were estimated from the societal perspective with national average Medicare reimbursement. Effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Principal outcome measures were average incremental costs, effectiveness, and quality-adjusted life years; and net health benefits.

Results

In the base case, a 2-year wait-time both with and without a non-operative treatment bridge resulted in a lower number of average QALYs gained (11.57 (no bridge) and 11.95 (bridge) vs. 12.14 (no delay). The average cost was $1,660 higher for TKA without delay than wait-time with no bridge, but $1,810 less than wait-time with non-operative bridge. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing wait-time with no bridge to TKA without delay was $2,901/QALY. When comparing TKA without delay to waiting with non-operative bridge, TKA without delay produced greater utility at a lower cost to society.

Conclusions

TKA without delay is the preferred cost-effective treatment strategy when compared to a waiting for TKA without non-operative bridge. TKA without delay is cost saving when a non-operative bridge is used during the waiting period. As it is unlikely that patients waiting for TKA would not receive non-operative treatment, TKA without delay may be an overall cost-saving health care delivery strategy. Policies aimed at increasing the supply of TKA should be considered as savings exist that could indirectly fund those strategies.

Keywords:
Total knee arthroplasty; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Cost-utility analysis; Markov; Decision analysis; Healthcare economics