Cost-Effectiveness of Global Endometrial Ablation vs. Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives

Jeffrey D. Miller, Gregory M. Lenhart, Machaon M. Bonafede, Andrea S. Lukes, Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)373-382
Number of pages10
JournalPopulation Health Management
Volume18
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2015

Fingerprint

Endometrial Ablation Techniques
Uterine Hemorrhage
Medicaid
Hysterectomy
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs and Cost Analysis
Therapeutics
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Economics
Cost Savings
Health Resources
Databases
Delivery of Health Care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Leadership and Management
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Cost-Effectiveness of Global Endometrial Ablation vs. Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding : US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives. / Miller, Jeffrey D.; Lenhart, Gregory M.; Bonafede, Machaon M.; Lukes, Andrea S.; Laughlin-Tommaso, Shannon K.

In: Population Health Management, Vol. 18, No. 5, 01.10.2015, p. 373-382.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{11c664414c3d46188ff41166764e3031,
title = "Cost-Effectiveness of Global Endometrial Ablation vs. Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Miller, {Jeffrey D.} and Lenhart, {Gregory M.} and Bonafede, {Machaon M.} and Lukes, {Andrea S.} and Laughlin-Tommaso, {Shannon K}",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/pop.2014.0148",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "373--382",
journal = "Population Health Management",
issn = "1942-7891",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "5",

}

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

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

VL - 18

SP - 373

EP - 382

JO - Population Health Management

JF - Population Health Management

SN - 1942-7891

IS - 5

ER -