Faculty of Mathematics, Natural Sciences and Information Technologies, Faculty of Mathematics, Natural Sciences and Information Technologies, University of Primorska,
Koper, Slovenia
Aim The economic evaluation of medical programs applies procedures that search for and ensure the cheapest methods of medical treatment with the best feasible health results. The aim of this study was to thoroughly examine both the costs and results of medical outcomes, which were based upon two alternative methods of treatment. The purpose was to offer obtained information to the medical profession and hospital management, since they must decide on how to use the funds designed for knee arthroscopy surgery. Methods A cost-utility analysis of two competitive treatments for knee arthroscopy was evaluated: the first one was executed by a standard department of surgery and the second one for the implementation within the framework of ambulatory treatment. Results The direct costs of the existing knee arthroscopy surgery amount to 930.39 euro, while the alternative treatment amount to 419.80 euro. The second alternative treatment would significantly reduce labor costs, depreciation costs and material costs. The implementation of the second alternative would reduce the total cost by 54.88%. Conclusion: Outpatient surgical procedures can bring numerous potential advantages such as lower costs and unchanged or improved medical outcomes, when compared to the classical method of outpatient treatment. The results show that the outpatient treatment does not sacrifice quality in order to reduce hospital costs.
Brent R. Cost-benefit analysis and health care evaluations. 2nd Ed. Edward Elgar; 2014.
2.
Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, Brien O, Stoddart B, G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press; 2005.
3.
Wilson E. De-mystifying pharmacoeconomics. Drug Benefit Trends. 1999. p. 56–67.
4.
Dirksen C, Schmitz R, Hans K, Nieman F, Hoogenboom L, Go P. Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy is as effective as hospitalization and from a social perspective less expensive: a randomized study. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2001. p. 2434–9.
5.
Jarrett P, Staniszewski A. The development of ambulatory surgery and future challenges. International Association for Ambulatory Surgery; 2006. p. 21–34.
6.
Lemos P, Regalado A. Patient outcomes and clinical indicators for ambulatory surgery. International Association for Ambulatory Surgery; 2006. p. 257–80.
7.
Toftgaard C, Parmentier G. International terminology in ambulatory surgery and its worldwide practice. International Association for Ambulatory Surgery; 2006. p. 35–60.
8.
Castells X, Alonso J, Castilla M, Ribó C, Cots F, Antó J. Outcomes and costs of outpatient and inpatient cataract surgery: a randomised clinical trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001. p. 23–9.
9.
Shnaider I, Chung F. Outcomes in say surgery. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2006. p. 622–9.
10.
Coley K, Williams B, Dapos S, Chen C, Smith R. Retrospective evaluation of unanticipated admissions and readmissions after same day surgery and associated costs. J Clin Anesth. 2002. p. 349–53.
11.
Calland J, Tanaka K, Foley E, Bovbjerg V, Markey D, Blome S, et al. Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy: patient outcomes after implementation of a clinical pathway. Ann Surg. 2001. p. 704–15.
12.
Richardson J, Khan M, Iezzi A, Maxwell A. Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Med Decis Making. 2015. p. 265–91.
13.
Van Hout B, Janssen M, Feng Y, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012. p. 708–15.
14.
Bertin K. Minimally invasive outpatient total hip arthroplasty: a financial analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005. p. 154–63.
15.
Aronowitz E, Kleinbart F. Outpatient ACL reconstruction using intraoperative local analgesia and oral postoperative pain medication. Orthopedics. 1998. p. 781–4.
16.
Kao J, Giangarra C, Singer G, Martin S. A comparison of outpatient and inpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Arthroscopy. 1995. p. 151–6.
17.
Lovald S, Ong K, Malkani A, Lau E, Schmier J, Kurtz S, et al. Complications, mortality, and costs for outpatient and short-stay total knee arthroplasty patients in comparison to standard-stay patients. J Arthroplasty. 2014. p. 510–5.
18.
Krywulak S, Mohtadi N, Russell M, Sasyniuk T. Patient satisfaction with inpatient versus outpatient reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a randomized clinical trial. Can J Surg. 2005. p. 201–6.
19.
Blatnik P, Novak M. Economic efficiency of day hospital: case of surgery department. Int J Sustainable Economy. 2013. p. 307–20.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
