TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-Effectiveness of Global Endometrial Ablation vs. Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding
T2 - US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives
AU - Miller, Jeffrey D.
AU - Lenhart, Gregory M.
AU - Bonafede, Machaon M.
AU - Lukes, Andrea S.
AU - Laughlin-Tommaso, Shannon K.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Copyright 2015, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2015.
PY - 2015/10/1
Y1 - 2015/10/1
N2 - Cost-effectiveness modeling studies of global endometrial ablation (GEA) for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) from a US perspective are lacking. The objective of this study was to model the cost-effectiveness of GEA vs. hysterectomy for treatment of AUB in the United States from both commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives. The study team developed a 1-, 3-, and 5-year semi-Markov decision-analytic model to simulate 2 hypothetical patient cohorts of women with AUB - 1 treated with GEA and the other with hysterectomy. Clinical and economic data (including treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, direct costs, and productivity costs) came from analyses of commercial and Medicaid claims databases. Analysis results show that cost savings with simultaneous reduction in treatment complications and fewer days lost from work are achieved with GEA versus hysterectomy over almost all time horizons and under both the commercial payer and Medicaid perspectives. Cost-effectiveness metrics also favor GEA over hysterectomy from both the commercial payer and Medicaid payer perspectives - evidence strongly supporting the clinical-economic value about GEA versus hysterectomy. Results will interest clinicians, health care payers, and self-insured employers striving for cost-effective AUB treatments.
AB - Cost-effectiveness modeling studies of global endometrial ablation (GEA) for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) from a US perspective are lacking. The objective of this study was to model the cost-effectiveness of GEA vs. hysterectomy for treatment of AUB in the United States from both commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives. The study team developed a 1-, 3-, and 5-year semi-Markov decision-analytic model to simulate 2 hypothetical patient cohorts of women with AUB - 1 treated with GEA and the other with hysterectomy. Clinical and economic data (including treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, direct costs, and productivity costs) came from analyses of commercial and Medicaid claims databases. Analysis results show that cost savings with simultaneous reduction in treatment complications and fewer days lost from work are achieved with GEA versus hysterectomy over almost all time horizons and under both the commercial payer and Medicaid perspectives. Cost-effectiveness metrics also favor GEA over hysterectomy from both the commercial payer and Medicaid payer perspectives - evidence strongly supporting the clinical-economic value about GEA versus hysterectomy. Results will interest clinicians, health care payers, and self-insured employers striving for cost-effective AUB treatments.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84941883429&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84941883429&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1089/pop.2014.0148
DO - 10.1089/pop.2014.0148
M3 - Article
C2 - 25714906
AN - SCOPUS:84941883429
SN - 1942-7891
VL - 18
SP - 373
EP - 382
JO - Population health management
JF - Population health management
IS - 5
ER -