Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 4/2012

01-04-2012 | Symposium: Value Based Healthcare

Measuring the Value of Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Considering Costs Over the Continuum of Care

Authors: Deborah A. Marshall, PhD, Tracy Wasylak, MSc, CHE, Hoa Khong, MD, Robyn D. Parker, BSc, Peter D. Faris, PhD, Cy Frank, MD FRCSC

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 4/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Controlling escalating costs of hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA) without compromising quality of care has created the need for innovative system reorganization to inform sustainable solutions.

Questions/purposes

The purpose of this study was to inform estimates of the value of THA and TKA by determining: (1) the data sources data required to obtain costs across the care continuum; (2) the data required for different analytical perspectives; and (3) the relative costs across the continuum of care.

Methods

Within the context of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing alternative care pathways, we captured healthcare resource use: (1) 12 months before surgery; (2) inpatient; (3) acute recovery; and (4) long-term recovery 3 and 12 months postsurgery. We established a standardized costing model to reflect both the healthcare payer and patient perspectives.

Results

Multiple data sources from regional health authorities, administrative databases, and patient questionnaire were required to estimate costs across the care continuum. Inpatient and acute care costs were approximately 60% of the total with the remaining 40% incurred 12 months presurgery and 12 months postsurgery. Regional health authorities bear close to 60%, and patient costs are approximately 30% of the mean total costs, most of which were incurred after the acute inpatient stay.

Conclusions

To fully understand the value of an orthopaedic intervention such as THA and TKA, a broader perspective than one limited to the payer should be considered using a standardized measurement framework over a relevant time horizon and from multiple viewpoints to reflect the substantial patient burden and support sustainable improvement over the care continuum.

Level of Evidence

Level III, economic and decision analyses study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Alberta Health and Wellness. Alberta Hip and Knee Replacement Project Evaluation Report. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Health and Wellness; 2006. Alberta Health and Wellness. Alberta Hip and Knee Replacement Project Evaluation Report. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Health and Wellness; 2006.
2.
go back to reference Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMed Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Bozic KJ, Saleh KJ, Rosenberg AG, Rubash HE. Economic evaluation in total hip arthroplasty: analysis and review of the literature. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:180–189.PubMedCrossRef Bozic KJ, Saleh KJ, Rosenberg AG, Rubash HE. Economic evaluation in total hip arthroplasty: analysis and review of the literature. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:180–189.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.
5.
go back to reference Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. A Guidance Document for the Costing Process. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; 1996. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. A Guidance Document for the Costing Process. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; 1996.
7.
go back to reference Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005.
8.
go back to reference Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
9.
go back to reference Gooch KL, Smith D, Wasylak T, Faris PD, Marshall DA, Kong H, Hibbert JE, Parker RD, Zernicke RF, Beaupre L, Pearce T, Johnston DW, Frank CB. The Alberta Hip and Knee Replacement Project: a model for health technology assessment based on comparative effectiveness of clinical pathways. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:113–123.PubMedCrossRef Gooch KL, Smith D, Wasylak T, Faris PD, Marshall DA, Kong H, Hibbert JE, Parker RD, Zernicke RF, Beaupre L, Pearce T, Johnston DW, Frank CB. The Alberta Hip and Knee Replacement Project: a model for health technology assessment based on comparative effectiveness of clinical pathways. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:113–123.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hawker GA, Badley EM, Croxford R, Coyte PC, Glazier RH, Guan J, Harvey BJ, Williams JI, Wright JG. A population-based nested case-control study of the costs of hip and knee replacement surgery. Med Care. 2009;47:732–741.PubMedCrossRef Hawker GA, Badley EM, Croxford R, Coyte PC, Glazier RH, Guan J, Harvey BJ, Williams JI, Wright JG. A population-based nested case-control study of the costs of hip and knee replacement surgery. Med Care. 2009;47:732–741.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Health Quality Council of Alberta. Alberta Quality Maxrix for Health. Alberta: Health Quality Council of Alberta; 2004. Health Quality Council of Alberta. Alberta Quality Maxrix for Health. Alberta: Health Quality Council of Alberta; 2004.
13.
go back to reference Heiner DE, Mauerhan DR, Masonis JL, Heath J. Patient out-of-pocket expenses in major orthopedic procedures: total hip arthroplasty as a case study. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:509–514.PubMedCrossRef Heiner DE, Mauerhan DR, Masonis JL, Heath J. Patient out-of-pocket expenses in major orthopedic procedures: total hip arthroplasty as a case study. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:509–514.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Willan AR, Briggs AH. Statistical Analysis of Cost-effectiveness Data. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2006.CrossRef Willan AR, Briggs AH. Statistical Analysis of Cost-effectiveness Data. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2006.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Measuring the Value of Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Considering Costs Over the Continuum of Care
Authors
Deborah A. Marshall, PhD
Tracy Wasylak, MSc, CHE
Hoa Khong, MD
Robyn D. Parker, BSc
Peter D. Faris, PhD
Cy Frank, MD FRCSC
Publication date
01-04-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 4/2012
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2026-4

Other articles of this Issue 4/2012

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 4/2012 Go to the issue