Search

Objective: To determine the value of neurologist ambulatory care in chronic neurologic diseases in a large administrative claims dataset detailing costs, adverse events, and health care utilization., Methods: The Optum proprietary claims dataset (2010-2012) was examined to describe direct health care costs, as well as specific outcome metrics for a large population of persons with chronic neurologic illnesses. In phase I of the study, we detail neurologist involvement and differences in annualized allowed third--party payments within episode treatment groups (ETGs) for 10 neurologic illnesses. For phase II, we examined health care utilization for ETGs of epilepsy, Parkinson disease (PD), stroke, and multiple sclerosis (MS) with and without neurologist involvement. Reported outcomes were unadjusted differences and odds ratios between treatment groups., Results: For phase I, a total of 1,913,605 ETGs for 10 neurologic conditions were identified, 30.1% meeting criteria for neurologist involvement. All conditions had higher direct costs when neurologists were involved with care, ranging from a 25% increase for Alzheimer dementia to 100% more for MS care. In phase II, fractures, infections, emergent care, and inpatient admission were less with neurologist ambulatory care, while neurologist care was associated with greater utilization of disease-specific treatments (immunotherapies in MS anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation-associated stroke, deep brain stimulation and dopaminergic therapies in PD)., Conclusion: Neurologist involvement with care is associated with greater unadjusted allowed payments, but fewer adverse events and less acute care utilization., (© 2015 American Academy of Neurology.)

Multidisciplinary care in ALS is associated with longer survival, improved quality of life, and reduced hospital admissions, but there are no published data on institutional costs associated with multidisciplinary ALS care at U.S. centers. We prospectively examined institutional costs, adherence to AAN Practice Parameters and patient satisfaction in multidisciplinary ALS clinics at 18 U.S. ALS centers. Centers reported patient volumes; direct costs for staff salary/benefits, supplies and equipment; and institutional non-salary and overhead costs over a three-month period. In 1117 patients seen during this period, mean age was 61.5 years (range 25-91 years), 56% were male, and mean ALSFRS-R score was 29. Mean total salary/benefit cost per clinic day for all providers was $2964 (range $1692-$5236 across centers). Mean salary/benefit cost per patient per clinic was $507 (range $258-$806 across centers). Differences among centers in reporting non-salary costs prevented meaningful analysis. Practice parameter adherence and patient satisfaction were high. This prospective collaborative study demonstrates the direct financial burden of evidence-based multidisciplinary ALS care in the U.S.; more refined non-salary and overhead cost data are needed to evaluate the full cost impact of care. These data may be useful in supporting evidence-based models of patient centered care for ALS.

Objective: To describe the clinical characteristics of encounters with patients misdiagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS)., Methods: A cross-sectional Internet-based physician survey of MS specialists was performed., Results: The response rate for the survey was 50.4%. Of those who responded, the majority (95%) reported having evaluated 1 or more patients who had been diagnosed with MS, but who they strongly felt did not have MS, within the last year. The majority of respondents (>90%) also reported the use of disease-modifying therapy in a proportion of these patients. Most respondents (94%) found clinical encounters with these patients equally or more challenging than giving a new diagnosis of MS. Fourteen percent of respondents reported that they did not always inform such patients of their opinion that they did not have MS., Conclusions: The misdiagnosis of MS is common and has significant consequences for patient care and health care system costs. Caring for a patient with a misdiagnosis of MS is challenging, and at times honest disclosure of a misdiagnosis represents an important ethical concern for neurologists. More data are needed on this patient population to improve diagnostic acumen and the care of these patients.

The health care industry in general and care of chronic pain in particular are described as recession-proof. However, a perfect storm with a confluence of many factors and events -none of which alone is particularly devastating - is brewing and may create a catastrophic force, even in a small specialty such as interventional pain management. Multiple challenges related to interventional pain management in the current decade will include individual and group physicians, office practices, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and hospital outpatient departments (HOPD). Rising health care costs are discussed on a daily basis in the United States. The critics have claimed that health outcomes are the same as or worse than those in other countries, but others have presented the evidence that the United States has the best health care system. All agree it is essential to reduce costs. Numerous factors contribute to increasing health care costs. They include administrative costs, waste, abuse, and fraud. It has been claimed the U.S. health care system wastes up to $800 billion a year. Of this, fraud accounts for approximately $200 billion a year, involving fraudulent Medicare claims, kickbacks for referrals for unnecessary services, and other scams. Administrative inefficiency and redundant paperwork accounts for 18% of health care waste, whereas medical mistakes account for $50 billion to $100 billion in unnecessary spending each year, or 11% of the total. Further, American physicians spend nearly 8 hours per week on paperwork and employ 1.66 clerical workers per doctor, more than any other country. It has been illustrated that it takes $60,000 to $88,000 per physician per year, equal to one-third of a family practitioner's gross income, and $23 to $31 billion each year in total to interact with health insurance plans. The studies have illustrated that an average physician spends $68,274 per year communicating with insurance companies and performing other non-medical functions. For an office-based practice, the overall total in the United States is $38.7 billion, or $85,276 per physician. In the United States there are 2 types of physician payment systems: private health care and Medicare. Medicare has moved away from the Medicare Economic Index (MEI) and introduced the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula which has led to cuts in physician payments on a yearly basis. In 2010 and beyond into the new decade, interventional pain management will see significant changes in how we practice medicine. There is focus on avoiding waste, abuse, fraud, and also cutting costs. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) and comparative effectiveness research (CER) have been introduced as cost-cutting and rationing measures, however, with biased approaches. This manuscript will analyze various issues related to interventional pain management with a critical analysis of physician payments, office facility payments, and ASC payments by various payor groups.

Background: Aim of this study was to assess the direct costs of Parkinson's disease (PD) within a 3-month period (i.e. the accounting period for the German statutory health insurance) in 12 neurological outpatient practices in Berlin during 2006., Material and Methods: A total of 425 patients (age 69.1+/-9.3 years, 185 females) were recruited, and sociodemographic and clinical data were obtained by a specific questionnaire. The distribution of costs was analyzed based on several clinical and patient parameters. The costs were calculated with different approaches: (1) prospectively, with the practices' accounting according to German uniform scales (GoA, EbM) and (2) retrospectively, with questionnaires for the Parkinson's patients. Costs were calculated according to current German guidelines of the statutory health insurance. Clinical parameters were assessed with a questionnaire for physicians., Results: The direct medical costs totaled 1,667 EUR (range 1,436-1,995 EUR, CI 95%) per patient per 3 months. Charges by physicians were 42 EUR (39-45 EUR, CI 95%) for patients with statutory health insurance and 135 EUR (106-177 EUR, CI 95%) for those with private insurance. Disease severity and disease duration correlated with higher direct medical costs. Motor fluctuations and depression also were major factors influencing cost., Conclusion: Our study emphasizes the large economic burden caused mainly by PD medication and hospitalization. For the first time a direct comparison between costs and actual physicians' reimbursement was possible. In combination with further economic studies, this comparison will help to define shortcomings and excesses in PD health care services.

Objective: To explore the association between patient-reported-outcomes measurements and costs in adult outpatients with drug refractory epilepsy (DRE) in Spain., Methods: Secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study to determine resources utilization and related costs of refractory epilepsy in Spain (LINCE study). Consecutive adult outpatients fulfilling criteria for DRE were analyzed. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), anxiety and depression, self-perceived health status and patient's satisfaction with treatment were assessed respectively by QOLIE-10, HAD scales, EQ-5D-VAS and SATMED-Q questionnaire. Costs were estimated from public tariffs computing healthcare and non-healthcare resources use in the year 2005., Results: Seven hundred sixty two consecutive patients (728 (95.5%) valuables; 50.8% males, 40.5+/-13.5 years) were analyzed. Severe levels of anxiety and depression were both associated with higher costs: from a mean yearly total cost of 6291 euros +/- 7748 (no anxiety) to 10325.8 euros +/-9900.8 (severe), p<0.0012 and from 5983.5 euros +/-6726.1 (no depression) to 12691.4 euros +/-11745.9 (severe), p<0.0001. Total yearly cost was inversely associated with HRQoL, self-perceived health status and satisfaction with treatment: from 11517.3 euros +/-11449.2 to 5430.2 euros +/-7776.6, first and tenth QOLIE-10 decile intervals, respectively, from 11494 euros +/- 11668 to 5334.3 +/- 7606, first and tenth VAS decile intervals, respectively, and from 9762.6 euros +/- 9956.6 to 4746.4 euros +/- 5616.7, first and tenth SATMED-Q decile intervals, respectively, p<0.0001., Conclusions: Higher costs of refractory epilepsy were associated with poorer patient-reported-outcomes scores. These findings may be of interest for both health decision makers and clinicians when evaluating the resources devoted to epilepsy.

The aim of this study was to estimate the cost of "brain" disorders in Italy. Country-specific prevalence and health-economic data on addiction, affective, anxiety and psychotic disorders, tumours, dementia, epilepsy, migraine/other headaches, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, stroke and head trauma were reviewed. Direct medical/non-medical and indirect costs were computed. Population-based samples and national or regional registries were used. The Italian population expected with a brain disorder was 12.4 million in 2004. The highest cost per case was for tumours and multiple sclerosis; the lowest was for anxiety disorders and migraine. Dementia (8.6 billion euros), psychotic and affective disorders (18.7 billion euros), migraine (3.5 billion euros) and stroke (3.4 billion euros) represented the highest total costs. Direct medical costs were predominant for psychiatric and neurosurgical disorders, direct non-medical costs for dementia, and indirect costs for neurological disorders. The total cost of brain disorders in Italy was 40.8 billion euros, 3% of the gross national product, and 706 euros per Italian citizen/year. This figure is however likely to be underestimated as it is based on retrospective methodology and samples of brain disorders, and does not include intangible costs.

The "Cost of Disorders of the Brain in Europe" (CBDE) study was conducted by the European Brain Council (EBC) to estimate prevalence and cost of the twelve leading disorders encountered in Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry. The data for Ireland are presented here. Prevalence and costing information was obtained by structured review of published literature for each country. Where such information was lacking, figures were estimated from European data. Costs included direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect costs. None of the costs presented here are directly from Irish data and the prevalence figures are mostly estimated from known European rates. In 2004, 1.1 million people in Ireland were affected by a disorder of the brain. Total cost of included disorders in Ireland was 3.0 billion Euro, representing 3% of gross national product, and costing each Irish citizen Euro 775 per year. Brain disorders are prevalent and pose significant economic burden in Ireland.

Pharmacoeconomics is concerned with how to allocate drug resources among alternative uses efficiently and effectively. Economic evaluation is a set of formal quantitative methods to capture the outcomes and costs of alternate intervention strategies. There are four basic types of economic evaluations used to assess interventions, are classified on the basis of the outcomes employed: 1. Cost minimization (CMA) is the comparison of costs of alternative interventions when the outcomes are assumed to be equal or similar, and the control intervention has been established. 2. Cost-effectiveness (CEA) is appropriate when the health outcomes are measured in common physical units, such as death or disability, or years gained or increased function, or points on cognitive scales. 3. Cost utility (CUA) is an extension of cost-effectiveness, where different types of health outcomes are weighted according to assigned values of 'quality of life' to produce a composite of both the physical measurement and the value assigned to it, e.g. quality-adjusted life years (QALY) or disability-adjusted life years (DALY). A common denominator measure of effectiveness is thus the life years of expected survival, or the QALY. The global burden disease (GBD) researchers adopted an internationally standardized form of the QALY, which they called the DALY. A quality of life measure can be translated into a scale that ranges from a low of 0.0 (the worst possible health state, usually taken as death) to 1.0 (perfect health). The purpose is to make explicit the measurement of costs and value assigned to benefits. 4. Cost-benefit (CBA) analysis value health outcomes in monetary terms, often based on the concept of 'willingness to pay'. The common drugs used by the neurologists had been discussed in this article based on the point view of pharmacoeconomics.

A randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the costs of realtime teleneurology with the cost of conventional neurological care. Two district hospitals in Northern Ireland were equipped with videoconferencing units and were connected to the regional neurological centre by ISDN at 384 kbit/s. Of 168 patients randomized to the study, 141 kept their appointments (76 male, 65 female). Sixty-five patients were randomized to a conventional consultation while 76 were randomized to a teleconsultation. The average age was 44 years of those seen conventionally and 42 years of those seen by telemedicine. The groups had similar diagnoses. The telemedicine group required more investigations and reviews than the conventional group. The average cost of the conventional consultation was 49 pounds sterling compared with 72 pounds sterling for the teleconsultation. Realtime teleneurology was not as cost-effective as conventional care.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) refers to a set of research methods that consider the resources consumed by a medical technology in decisions about how best to use the technology. This analytic method is an evolving, controversial, and often misunderstood field in health services research. The basic set of principles underlying CEA is deceptively simple, but sufficient methodological challenges and controversies exist that have, thus far, limited its use in the development of health policy and in bedside decision making. Nonetheless, neurologists like other specialty groups may feel concerned that the results from such analyses may prove unfavorable to their specialty and the patients they serve. This article reviews the fundamental notions surrounding CEA, provides examples from the literature with particular relevance to the neurological community, and highlights critical issues for neurologists regarding the future of CEA.