Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost implications of different settings (inpatient, outpatient/day clinic, or office-based oncologists) for the administration of standard fluoropyrimidine therapies, i.e., Mayo Clinic and Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO)/Ardalan regimen, and to compare the results with the cost of oral capecitabine in Germany. In total, 89 quarterly fee-listings from 26 patients provided by 5 office-based oncologists were analyzed. Physician's services, drug costs, pharmacy costs, and costs for implantable venous port systems and single-use pumps were considered. Findings were transferred to the hospital setting. A third-party payer perspective was applied. Quarterly treatment costs for the Mayo Clinic regimen varied between <euro> 2,036 and <euro> 10,569, and between <euro> 1,294 and <euro> 10,179 for the AIO/Ardalan regimen depending on the treatment setting. Projected costs for capecitabine were <euro> 2,338. No hospitalization was considered to be necessary for capecitabine due to its oral administration route. The most expensive treatment options were the AIO/Ardalan protocol in the office-based setting and the Mayo Clinic protocol in the hospital setting. Capecitabine emerged as the cheapest option in the office-based setting. Overall, the cheapest option was the AIO/Ardalan protocol in municipal hospitals. However, municipal hospitals are unlikely to cover their costs in this situation. Substantial cost savings without incurring losses to providers may be realized if patients are transferred from the hospital setting to the office-based setting and treated with capecitabine.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.