Health Economic Analysis of Adult Deformity Surgery

Neurosurgery Clinics of North America

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 293-304

  McCarthy, Ian ^a,b   Hostin, Richard ^c   O'Brien, Michael ^c   Saigal, Rajiv ^d   Ames, Christopher P ^d  

^a BAYLOR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^b SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Baylor Scoliosis Center   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Adult spinal deformity; Health related quality of life; Healthy economics studies; Spine deformity surgery

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST OF ILLNESS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE NEED; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; SPINE MALFORMATION; SPINE SURGERY; TREND STUDY;

ADULT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; HUMANS; ORTHOPEDIC PROCEDURES; QUALITY OF LIFE; SPINAL DISEASES; SPINE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84875906588     PISSN: 10423680     EISSN: 15581349     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.nec.2012.12.005     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Glied S., Smith P.C. The Oxford Handbook of health economics 2011, Oxford Univ Pr, New York.
2. Brazier J., Ratcliffe J., Salomon J., et al. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation 2007, Oxford University Press, USA, New York.
3. Drummond M.F., Sculpher M.J., Torrance G.W. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes 2005, Oxford University Press, USA, New York.
4. Glick H., Doshi J.A., Sonnad S., et al. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. Handbooks in health economic evaluations series 2007, Oxford University Press, New York. A. Gray, A. Briggs (Eds.).
5. Gray A.M., Clarke P.M., Wolstenholme J., et al. Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare 2011, Oxford Univ Pr, New York.
6. Deyo R.A., Nachemson A., Mirza S.K. Spinal-fusion surgery-the case for restraint. N Engl J Med 2004, 350(7):722-726.
7. Deyo R.A., Mirza S.K. The case for restraint in spinal surgery: does quality management have a role to play?. Eur Spine J 2009, 18:331-337.
8. Martin B.I., Turner J.A., Mirza S.K., et al. Trends in health care expenditures, utilization, and health status among US adults with spine problems, 1997-2006. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009, 34(19):2077.
9. Deyo R.A., Mirza S.K., Martin B.I., et al. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 2010, 303(13):1259-1265.
10. Burton D.C., Glattes R.C. Measuring outcomes in spinal deformity. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2007, 18(2):403-405.
11. Asher M., Min Lai S., Burton D., et al. The reliability and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003, 28(1):63.
12. Asher M., Min Lai S., Burton D., et al. Discrimination validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003, 28(1):74.
13. Asher M., Min Lai S., Burton D., et al. Scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003, 28(1):70.
14. Bridwell K.H., Cats-Baril W., Harrast J., et al. The validity of the SRS-22 instrument in an adult spinal deformity population compared with the Oswestry and SF-12: a study of response distribution, concurrent validity, internal consistency, and reliability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005, 30(4):455.
15. Bridwell K.H., Berven S., Glassman S., et al. Is the SRS-22 instrument responsive to change in adult scoliosis patients having primary spinal deformity surgery?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32(20):2220-2225.
16. Berven S., Deviren V., Demir-Deviren S., et al. Studies in the modified Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Instrument in adults: validation, reliability, and discriminatory capacity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003, 28(18):2164.
17. Schwab F., Dubey A., Pagala M., et al. Adult scoliosis: a health assessment analysis by SF-36. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003, 28(6):602.
18. Glassman S.D., Schwab F., Bridwell K.H., et al. Do 1-year outcomes predict 2-year outcomes for adult deformity surgery?. Spine J 2009, 9(4):317-322.
19. Albert T.J., Purtill J., Mesa J., et al. Health outcome assessment before and after adult deformity surgery: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995, 20(18):2002.
20. Glassman S.D., Hamill C.L., Bridwell K.H., et al. The impact of perioperative complications on clinical outcome in adult deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32(24):2764.
21. Cho S.K., Bridwell K.H., Lenke L.G., et al. Comparative analysis of clinical outcome and complications in primary versus revision adult scoliosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012, 37(5):393.
22. Yadla S., Maltenfort M.G., Ratliff J.K., et al. Adult scoliosis surgery outcomes: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus 2010, 28(3):3.
23. Bagó J., Pérez-Grueso F.J., Les E., et al. Minimal important differences of the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire following surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2009, 18(12):1898-1904.
24. Jaeschke R., Singer J., Guyatt G.H. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989, 10(4):407-415.
25. Copay A.G., Subach B.R., Glassman S.D., et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007, 7(5):541-546.
26. Beaton D.E., Boers M., Wells G.A. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2002, 14(2):109.
27. Carreon L.Y., Glassman S.D., McDonough C.M., et al. Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the Oswestry disability index and numeric rating scales for back and leg pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009, 34(19):2085.
28. Parkin D., Rice N., Devlin N. Statistical analysis of EQ-5D profiles: does the use of value sets bias inference?. Med Decis Making 2010, 30(5):556-565.
29. Glassman S.D., Carreon L.Y., Shaffrey C.I., et al. The costs and benefits of nonoperative management for adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010, 35(5):578-582.
30. Kamerlink J.R., Quirno M., Auerbach J.D., et al. Hospital cost analysis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis correction surgery in 125 consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010, 92(5):1097-1104.
31. Duan N. Smearing estimate - a nonparametric retransformation method. J Am Stat Assoc 1983, 78(383):605-610.
32. Manning W.G., Mullahy J. Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform?. J Health Econ 2001, 20(4):461-494.
33. McCullagh P., Nelder J.A. Generalized linear models 1989, Chapman and Hall, London. 2nd edition.
34. Basu A., Rathouz P.J. Estimating marginal and incremental effects on health outcomes using flexible link and variance function models. Biostatistics 2005, 6(1):93-109.
35. Chapko M.K., Liu C.F., Perkins M., et al. Equivalence of two healthcare costing methods: bottom-up and top-down. Health Econ 2009, 18(10):1188-1201.
36. Tumeh J.W., Moore S.G., Shapiro R., et al. Practical approach for using Medicare data to estimate costs for cost-effectiveness analysis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2005, 5(2):153-162.
37. PCORI Draft national priorities for research and research agenda 2012, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Washington, DC.
38. Selby J.V., Beal A.C., Frank L. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. JAMA 2012, 307(15):1583-1584.
39. Walters S.J., Brazier J.E. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005, 14(6):1523-1532.
40. Robinson R. Cost-utility analysis. BMJ 1993, 307(6908):859-862.
41. Tosteson A.N., Skinner J.S., Tosteson T.D., et al. The Cost Effectiveness of Surgical versus Non-Operative Treatment for Lumbar Disc Herniation over Two Years: Evidence from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008, 33(19):2108.
42. Glassman S.D., Polly D.W., Dimar J.R., et al. The cost effectiveness of single-level instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion at five years after surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012, 37(9):769-774.
43. Brazier J., Roberts J., Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002, 21(2):271-292.
44. Briggs A., Sculpher M., Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation 2006, Oxford University Press, New York.
45. Kuntz K.M., Snider R.K., Weinstein J.N., et al. Cost-effectiveness of fusion with and without instrumentation for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000, 25(9):1132.
46. Kim S., Mortaz Hedjri S., Coyte P.C., et al. Cost-utility of lumbar decompression with or without fusion for patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine J 2012, 12(1):44-54.
47. HCI3 Bundled Payment across the U.S. Today: status of implementations and operational finding 2012, Healthcare Incentives Improvement Institute, Newtown, CT.
48. Audet A., Kenward K., Patel S., et al. Hospitals on the path to accountable care: highlights from a 2011 National Survey of Hospital Readiness to Participate in an Accountable Care Organization 2012, The Commonwealth Fund, New York.
49. Nyman J.A. Is 'moral hazard' inefficient? The policy implications of a new theory. Health Aff 2004, 23(5):194-199.
50. Dijk C.E., Berg B., Verheij R.A., et al. Moral hazard and supplier-induced demand: empirical evidence in general practice. Health Econ 2012, [Epub ahead of print].
51. Richardson J. The inducement hypothesis: that doctors generate demand for their own services. Health, Economics, and Health Economics: Proceedings of the World Congress on Health Economics. Leiden, The Netherlands; 1981;189-214.