The Health Economic Impact of Living Cell Tissue Products in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds: A Retrospective Analysis of Medicare Claims Data.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Chronic Disease
Databases, Factual
Emergency Service, Hospital
/ economics
Female
Health Care Costs
Hospitalization
/ economics
Humans
Insurance Claim Review
/ economics
Male
Medicare
/ economics
Middle Aged
Retrospective Studies
Skin Transplantation
/ economics
Skin, Artificial
/ economics
United States
Wounds and Injuries
/ diagnosis
Journal
Advances in skin & wound care
ISSN: 1538-8654
Titre abrégé: Adv Skin Wound Care
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100911021
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
2
10
2019
medline:
6
6
2020
entrez:
2
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To investigate differences in wound-related costs; product waste; lower-extremity amputations; and number of applications, hospitalizations, and emergency room visits among patients treated with three cellular and/or tissue-based products. This retrospective intent-to-treat matched-cohort study analyzed the full Medicare claims dataset from 2011 to 2014. Patients who received either a bilayer cellular construct (BLCC), dermal skin substitute (DSS), or cryopreserved human skin allograft (CHSA) were concurrently matched for Charlson Comorbidity Index, age, sex, and region, resulting in 14,546 study patients. Key variables were reported at 60, 90, and 180 days after the first product application. There were no statistically significant differences in the distribution of Charlson Comorbidity Index, age, sex, and region among cohorts. Wound-related costs and product wastage were lower for CHSA patients relative to both BLCC and DSS patients at all time intervals (P < .05). Patients treated with CHSA received fewer product applications than DSS at 90 and 180 days (P < .05). Amputations were significantly higher among patients treated with DSS than either CHSA or BLCC (P < .0001). The data demonstrate that wound-related costs, product waste, amputations, and frequency of applications are lower for CHSA than DSS. Wound-related costs and product waste are lower for CHSA compared with BLCC. Further claims analysis and prospective clinical trials could help develop appropriate quality measures and reimbursement models to ensure smarter spending for the growing population of patients with chronic wounds.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31573991
doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000581588.08281.c1
pmc: PMC7328865
pii: 00129334-202001000-00006
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
27-34Références
Wounds. 2016 Apr;28(4):119-25
pubmed: 27071139
Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2018 Jul;35(3):357-365
pubmed: 29861018
Wound Repair Regen. 2017 Apr;25(2):192-209
pubmed: 28370796
J Vasc Surg. 2015 Apr;61(4):939-44
pubmed: 25656592
PLoS One. 2017 May 12;12(5):e0177176
pubmed: 28498862
Value Health. 2018 Jan;21(1):27-32
pubmed: 29304937
Wound Repair Regen. 2004 Mar-Apr;12(2):163-8
pubmed: 15086767
Wound Repair Regen. 2015 Sep;23(5):737-44
pubmed: 26100572
Wound Repair Regen. 2016 Jul;24(4):737-44
pubmed: 27062201
Foot Ankle Spec. 2011 Feb;4(1):29-41
pubmed: 21135263
Wounds. 2011 Jul;23(7):184-9
pubmed: 25879172
J Med Econ. 2015;18(8):586-95
pubmed: 25786331
JAMA Dermatol. 2013 Sep;149(9):1050-8
pubmed: 23884238
Ostomy Wound Manage. 2014 Sep;60(9):26-38
pubmed: 25211605
Adv Skin Wound Care. 2016 Sep;29(9):399-406
pubmed: 27538107