Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2014 Jan 18:15:22.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-22.

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

Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Richard C Mather 3rd et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Health state diagram. The figure shows the health state diagram used to model patients undergoing either TKA without delay, delayed TKA with non-operative bridge treatment, or delayed TKA with no bridge treatment. The diagram reflects the distinct health states in the model.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Sensitivity analysis on potential wait times with net benefits as outcome. The graph shows the results of a one-way sensitivity analysis on wait times up to 60 months for primary TKA with net benefits as the outcome.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Societal economic impact of potential wait times. The figure shows the estimated future societal costs of delayed TKA. Values are costs only and do not include monetary value of utility. These values represent the incremental cost of each wait time with non-operative treatment bridge compared to TKA without delay baseline. They are extrapolated from data from out model combined with volume projections from Kurtz et al. [3].

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Harris WH, Sledge CB. Total hip and total knee replacement (2) N Engl J Med. 1990;323:801–807. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199009203231206. - DOI - PubMed
    1. NIH Consensus Panel. NIH Consensus Statement on total knee replacement December 8-10, 2003. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1328–1335. - PubMed
    1. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–785. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00222. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Farley FA, Weinstein JN, Aamoth GM, Shapiro MS, Jacobs J, McCarthy JC, Kramer J. Orthopaedic Workforce Taskforce to Board of Directors, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2005-2006. Workforce analysis in orthopaedic surgery: how can we improve the accuracy of our predictions? J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15:268–273. - PubMed
    1. Williams TE Jr, Satiani B, Thomas A, Ellison EC. The impending shortage and the estimated cost of training the future surgical workforce. Ann Surg. 2009;250:590–597. - PubMed

MeSH terms