BMC Health Services Research (Dec 2023)

Cost-effectiveness of a second opinion program on spine surgeries: an economic analysis

  • Eliane Antonioli,
  • Daniel Tavares Malheiro,
  • Vanessa Damazio Teich,
  • Isabela Dias Paião,
  • Miguel Cendoroglo Neto,
  • Mario Lenza

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10405-x
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 23, no. 1
pp. 1 – 14

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background In this study we proposed a new strategy to measure cost-effectiveness of second opinion program on spine surgery, using as measure of effectiveness the minimal important change (MIC) in the quality of life reported by patients, including the satisfaction questionnaire regarding the treatment and direct medical costs. Methods Retrospective analysis of patients with prior indication for spine surgery included in a second opinion program during May 2011 to May 2019. Treatment costs and outcomes were compared considering each patients’ recommended treatment before and after the second opinion. Costs were measured under the perspective of the hospital, including hospital stay, surgical room, physician and staff fees and other costs related to hospitalization when surgery was performed and physiotherapy or injection costs when a conservative treatment was recommended. Reoperation costs were also included. For comparison analysis, we used data based on our clinical practice, using data from patients who underwent the same type of surgical procedure as recommended by the first referral. The measure of effectiveness was the percentage of patients who achieved the MIC in quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-3 L 2 years after starting treatment. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Results Based upon the assessment of 1,088 patients that completed the entire second opinion process, conservative management was recommended for 662 (60.8%) patients; 49 (4.5%) were recommended to injection and 377 (34.7%) to surgery. Complex spine surgery, as arthrodesis, was recommended by second opinion in only 3.7% of cases. The program resulted in financial savings of -$6,705 per patient associated with appropriate treatment indication, with an incremental effectiveness of 0.077 patients achieving MIC when compared to the first referral, resulting in an ICER of $-87,066 per additional patient achieving the MIC, ranging between $-273,016 and $-41,832. Conclusion After 2 years of treatment, the second opinion program demonstrated the potential for cost-offsets associated with improved quality of life.

Keywords