medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-7749 (Electronic)
ISSN 2992-7897 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de difusión científica de la Asociación Mexicana de Cirujanos de Columna A. C.

2023, Number 4

<< Back

Cir Columna 2023; 1 (4)

Health economics: emphasis on economic evaluation applied to spine surgery

Jiménez ÁJM, Farfán LLP

Language: Spanish
References: 25
Page: 256-260
PDF size: 133.43 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Traumatic spinal injuries secondary to car accidents, violence or work-related accidents occupy the first place at medical care and highly specialized surgical units, meaning a high hospital admission and cost compared to other traumatic pathologies, due to the high need for diagnostic methods, surgical planning and intervention that represent an increase in the expense and use of medical resources, which on several occasions are ignored and affect the economic balance of patients and the health sector, added to this, degenerative, metabolic, infectious and tumoral pathology also involves a series of diagnostic-therapeutic factors which represent an increase in the rate of spine surgery and have an impact on the economy of patients and health institutions. Because of this, economic evaluation is an added step in the overall reasoning of spine surgery, where the cost of what is involved in performing any medical action can be assessed, creating allocation criteria, defining necessary expenditures, distribution of health resources and beneficial medical-surgical planning, affecting the economic capacity of patients and the health sector to the least extent possible, all this under a series of definitions provided by the economic evaluation and that should be a pillar of the spine surgeon's decision-making; for example, how to define direct and indirect costs, which translate into the validation of an expense made and the recognition of the same, tangible and intangible costs that define those quantifiable and non-quantifiable costs before the market price system, as well as being able to weigh the maximum benefit of the medical surgical plan and compare it with cost-utility, to assess the quality of the health consequences achieved, cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness, always seeking the greatest benefit in both prolonging and improving quality of life and being able to minimize costs that have an impact on the management of patients, nor compromising the best possible results of the approach to be performed.


REFERENCES

  1. Sekhon LH, Fehlings MG. Epidemiology, demographics, and pathophysiology of acute spinal cord injury. Spine. 2001; 26: S2-S12.

  2. Dryden DM, Saunders LD, Jacobs P, Schopflocher DP, Rowe BH, Yiannakoulias NM, et al. Direct health care costs after traumatic spinal cord injury. J Trauma. 2005; 59: 441-447.

  3. Drummond MF. Cost of illness studies: a major headache? Pharmaco Economics. 1992; 2: 1-4.

  4. Hagard S, Cartem F, Milde RG. Screening for spina bifida cystica: a cost-benefit analysis. B J Soc Prevent Med. 1976; 30: 40-53.

  5. Finnern HW, Sykes DP. The hospital cost of vertebral fractures in the EU: estimates using national datasets. Osteoporos Int. 2003; 14: 429-436.

  6. Hebert JS, Burnham RS. The effect of polytrauma in persons with traumatic spine injury: a prospective database of spine fractures. Spine. 2000; 25: 55-60.

  7. Yang NP, Deng CY, Lee YH, Lin CH, Kao CH, Chou P. The incidence and characterisation of hospitalised acute spinal trauma in Taiwan-a population-based study. Injury. 2008; 39: 443-450.

  8. Van der Roer N, de Bruyne MC, Bakker FC, van Tulder MW, Boers M. Direct medical costs of traumatic thoracolumbar spine fractures. Acta Orthop. 2005; 76: 662-666.

  9. Fanuele JC, Birkmeyer NJ, Abdu WA, Tosteson TD, Weinstein JN. The impact of spinal problems on the health status of patients: have we underestimated the effect? Spine. 2000; 25: 1509-1514.

  10. Smith SR, Purzner T, Fehlings MG. The epidemiology of geriatric spinal cord injury. Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation. 2010; 15: 54-64.

  11. Birsch S, Donaldson C. Applications of cost benefit analysis to health care: departures from welfare economic theory. J Health Economics. 1987; 6: 211-225.

  12. Boyle MH, Torrance GW, Sinclair JC, Horwood SP. Economic evaluation of neonatal intensive care of very low birth weight infants. N Engl J Med. 1983; 308: 1330-1337.

  13. Boyke MH, Torrance GW, Sinclair JC, Horwood SP. Economic evaluation of neonatal intensive care of very low birth weight infants. N Engl J Med. 1983; 308:1330-1337.

  14. Neumann P, Johannesson M. The willingness to pay for in vitro fertilization: a pilot study using contingent valuation. Medical Cre. 1994; 32: 686-699.

  15. Hull R, Hirsh J, Sackett DL, Stoddart GL. Cost effectiveness of clinical diagnosis, venography and non invasive testing in patients with symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 1981; 304: 1561-1567.

  16. Reynell PC, Reynell MC. The cost-benefit analysis of a coronary care unit. Br Heart J. 1972;34:897-900.

  17. Mehrez A, Gafni A. Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making. 1989; 9: 142-149.

  18. Rusell IT, Delvin HB, Fell M, Glass NJ, Newell DJ. Day case surgery for hernias and haemorrhoids: a clinical social economic evaluation. Lancet. 1977; 1: 844-847.

  19. Saackett DK. Evaluation of health services. In: Laast JM (ed). Health and preventive medicine. New York, Appleton Century Crofts, 1980, 1800-1823.

  20. Weinstein M, Season WB. Foundations of cost effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977; 296: 716-721.

  21. Weisbrod BA, Test Maa, Stein LI. Alternatives to mental hospital treatment: economic cost benefit analysis. Arch General Psychiatry. 1980; 37: 400-405.

  22. Drummond MF. Welfare economics and cost benefit analysis in health care. Scottish Journal of Political Economy. 1981; 28: 125-145.

  23. Drummond MF. Métodos para la evaluación económica de los programas de Atención de la Salud. Ed. Díaz Santos. 1991, 11-12.

  24. Deparment of epidemiology and biostatistics: Clinical epidemiology rounds. How to read a clinical journal V: to distinguish useful from useless or even harmful therapy. Can Med Assoc J. 1981; 124: 1156-1162.

  25. Alosh HBS, Lee HR, Skolasky RL. Insurance status, geography, race, and ethnicity as predictors of anterior cervical spine surgery rates and in-hospital mortality: an examination of united states trends from 1992 to 2005. Spine. 2009; 34: 1956-1962.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com