Magnetic expansion control system achieves cost savings compared to traditional growth rods: An economic analysis model

Alvin W. Su, Todd A. Milbrandt, A. Noelle Larson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study Design. Medical economic model with multi-way sensitivity analysis. Objective. To compare the direct costs of growing rod (GR) versus Magnetic Expansion Control System (MG) from a payer's perspective. We hypothesized that over time the MG will become more cost-effective. Summary of Background Data. Traditional GRs provide effective treatment, but require periodic lengthening surgery. MG allows rod lengthening in clinic, but the implant is expensive. The cumulative cost savings are not well understood. Methods. Index surgery, implant cost, lengthening procedure, and revision surgery due to implant failure or infection were identified as major parameters contributing to the cumulative cost. The "base," "low," and "high" values for the cost and the incidence of each parameter were determined by literature reports, health care database search, or expert consultation. The cumulative cost was compared annually during 5 years of follow-up. Marginal cost was defined as the cost of (GR-MG) for each cumulative year. Final cumulative cost and extreme case scenario at year 5 were assessed by deterministic sensitivity analysis. Results. MG resulted in higher cumulative cost at years 1 and 2, and became lower cost at years 3 through 5. The marginal cost at year 1 was a negative value of $16K, and trended toward positive values of $12K at year 3 and $40K by year 5. Sensitivity analysis revealed that in extreme case, MG could cost more, shown by a marginal cost of $26K by implementing the extreme values of the 3 parameters carrying highest variance: MGinfection management, GR-revision surgery, and GR-lengthening procedure. Conclusion. MG achieved cost neutrality to GR at 3 years after index surgery. This is the first medical economic study in the United States comparing the cost of GR versus MG and demonstrates potential cost-effectiveness of MG from payer's perspective if in place for more than 3 years.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1851-1856
Number of pages6
JournalSpine
Volume40
Issue number23
DOIs
StatePublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Economic Models
Cost Savings
Costs and Cost Analysis
Growth
Medical Economics
Reoperation

Keywords

  • Cost analysis
  • Direct cost
  • Early-onset scoliosis
  • Growing rod
  • Magnetic controlled rod
  • Magnetic Expansion Control System
  • Medical decision making
  • Medical economic model
  • Spine
  • Spine complication
  • Spine deformity
  • Spine nonfusion surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Magnetic expansion control system achieves cost savings compared to traditional growth rods : An economic analysis model. / Su, Alvin W.; Milbrandt, Todd A.; Larson, A. Noelle.

In: Spine, Vol. 40, No. 23, 2015, p. 1851-1856.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Su, Alvin W. ; Milbrandt, Todd A. ; Larson, A. Noelle. / Magnetic expansion control system achieves cost savings compared to traditional growth rods : An economic analysis model. In: Spine. 2015 ; Vol. 40, No. 23. pp. 1851-1856.
@article{e46b8492fcfe4f188e097bf320659234,
title = "Magnetic expansion control system achieves cost savings compared to traditional growth rods: An economic analysis model",
abstract = "Study Design. Medical economic model with multi-way sensitivity analysis. Objective. To compare the direct costs of growing rod (GR) versus Magnetic Expansion Control System (MG) from a payer's perspective. We hypothesized that over time the MG will become more cost-effective. Summary of Background Data. Traditional GRs provide effective treatment, but require periodic lengthening surgery. MG allows rod lengthening in clinic, but the implant is expensive. The cumulative cost savings are not well understood. Methods. Index surgery, implant cost, lengthening procedure, and revision surgery due to implant failure or infection were identified as major parameters contributing to the cumulative cost. The {"}base,{"} {"}low,{"} and {"}high{"} values for the cost and the incidence of each parameter were determined by literature reports, health care database search, or expert consultation. The cumulative cost was compared annually during 5 years of follow-up. Marginal cost was defined as the cost of (GR-MG) for each cumulative year. Final cumulative cost and extreme case scenario at year 5 were assessed by deterministic sensitivity analysis. Results. MG resulted in higher cumulative cost at years 1 and 2, and became lower cost at years 3 through 5. The marginal cost at year 1 was a negative value of $16K, and trended toward positive values of $12K at year 3 and $40K by year 5. Sensitivity analysis revealed that in extreme case, MG could cost more, shown by a marginal cost of $26K by implementing the extreme values of the 3 parameters carrying highest variance: MGinfection management, GR-revision surgery, and GR-lengthening procedure. Conclusion. MG achieved cost neutrality to GR at 3 years after index surgery. This is the first medical economic study in the United States comparing the cost of GR versus MG and demonstrates potential cost-effectiveness of MG from payer's perspective if in place for more than 3 years.",
keywords = "Cost analysis, Direct cost, Early-onset scoliosis, Growing rod, Magnetic controlled rod, Magnetic Expansion Control System, Medical decision making, Medical economic model, Spine, Spine complication, Spine deformity, Spine nonfusion surgery",
author = "Su, {Alvin W.} and Milbrandt, {Todd A.} and Larson, {A. Noelle}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1097/BRS.0000000000001077",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "1851--1856",
journal = "Spine",
issn = "0362-2436",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "23",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Magnetic expansion control system achieves cost savings compared to traditional growth rods

T2 - An economic analysis model

AU - Su, Alvin W.

AU - Milbrandt, Todd A.

AU - Larson, A. Noelle

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Study Design. Medical economic model with multi-way sensitivity analysis. Objective. To compare the direct costs of growing rod (GR) versus Magnetic Expansion Control System (MG) from a payer's perspective. We hypothesized that over time the MG will become more cost-effective. Summary of Background Data. Traditional GRs provide effective treatment, but require periodic lengthening surgery. MG allows rod lengthening in clinic, but the implant is expensive. The cumulative cost savings are not well understood. Methods. Index surgery, implant cost, lengthening procedure, and revision surgery due to implant failure or infection were identified as major parameters contributing to the cumulative cost. The "base," "low," and "high" values for the cost and the incidence of each parameter were determined by literature reports, health care database search, or expert consultation. The cumulative cost was compared annually during 5 years of follow-up. Marginal cost was defined as the cost of (GR-MG) for each cumulative year. Final cumulative cost and extreme case scenario at year 5 were assessed by deterministic sensitivity analysis. Results. MG resulted in higher cumulative cost at years 1 and 2, and became lower cost at years 3 through 5. The marginal cost at year 1 was a negative value of $16K, and trended toward positive values of $12K at year 3 and $40K by year 5. Sensitivity analysis revealed that in extreme case, MG could cost more, shown by a marginal cost of $26K by implementing the extreme values of the 3 parameters carrying highest variance: MGinfection management, GR-revision surgery, and GR-lengthening procedure. Conclusion. MG achieved cost neutrality to GR at 3 years after index surgery. This is the first medical economic study in the United States comparing the cost of GR versus MG and demonstrates potential cost-effectiveness of MG from payer's perspective if in place for more than 3 years.

AB - Study Design. Medical economic model with multi-way sensitivity analysis. Objective. To compare the direct costs of growing rod (GR) versus Magnetic Expansion Control System (MG) from a payer's perspective. We hypothesized that over time the MG will become more cost-effective. Summary of Background Data. Traditional GRs provide effective treatment, but require periodic lengthening surgery. MG allows rod lengthening in clinic, but the implant is expensive. The cumulative cost savings are not well understood. Methods. Index surgery, implant cost, lengthening procedure, and revision surgery due to implant failure or infection were identified as major parameters contributing to the cumulative cost. The "base," "low," and "high" values for the cost and the incidence of each parameter were determined by literature reports, health care database search, or expert consultation. The cumulative cost was compared annually during 5 years of follow-up. Marginal cost was defined as the cost of (GR-MG) for each cumulative year. Final cumulative cost and extreme case scenario at year 5 were assessed by deterministic sensitivity analysis. Results. MG resulted in higher cumulative cost at years 1 and 2, and became lower cost at years 3 through 5. The marginal cost at year 1 was a negative value of $16K, and trended toward positive values of $12K at year 3 and $40K by year 5. Sensitivity analysis revealed that in extreme case, MG could cost more, shown by a marginal cost of $26K by implementing the extreme values of the 3 parameters carrying highest variance: MGinfection management, GR-revision surgery, and GR-lengthening procedure. Conclusion. MG achieved cost neutrality to GR at 3 years after index surgery. This is the first medical economic study in the United States comparing the cost of GR versus MG and demonstrates potential cost-effectiveness of MG from payer's perspective if in place for more than 3 years.

KW - Cost analysis

KW - Direct cost

KW - Early-onset scoliosis

KW - Growing rod

KW - Magnetic controlled rod

KW - Magnetic Expansion Control System

KW - Medical decision making

KW - Medical economic model

KW - Spine

KW - Spine complication

KW - Spine deformity

KW - Spine nonfusion surgery

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84947870422&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84947870422&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001077

DO - 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001077

M3 - Article

C2 - 26230537

AN - SCOPUS:84947870422

VL - 40

SP - 1851

EP - 1856

JO - Spine

JF - Spine

SN - 0362-2436

IS - 23

ER -