Abstract

Objective: To identify how cellular and/or tissue-based products (CTPs) relate to value in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in wound care in comparison with treatments in other medical fields. Approach: This is a cross-sectional study and a cost-effectiveness analysis. Payment limits for each CTP were obtained via the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System Q codes and formulated as cost inputs into a cost-utility model published for treatment of Wagner 1 diabetic foot ulcers using dehydrated human amnion and chorion allograft versus standard of care (SOC). Additional changes to cap the number of CTP applications and adjustments for recent inflation were made. The literature was searched for other cost-utility models in other diabetes-related diseases as a comparison. Results: When the payment limit was ≤$140 per square centimeter, interventions were dominant (less costly, better outcomes) compared with SOC. When the limit exceeded $430 per square centimeter, the cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000/QALY was exceeded. Newer Q codes are generally much more expensive and likely to not be cost-effective, similar to the results for many other chronic diabetes-related diseases . Innovation: This study presents decision makers with tools, by which they can determine as to whether a given CTP is likely to be cost-effective for patients. Conclusion: Over a third of all CTPs will very likely result in noncost-effective interventions. This number is likely to be higher when wounds are larger or used in other wound types where they are less efficacious. The recent trend in much higher costs for CTPs is worrisome.

Full Text
Paper version not known

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.