Costs of PE interventions are frequently physician-dependent
The development of minimally invasive procedures that treat pulmonary embolism have undoubtedly improved outcomes, but as hospitals transition to value-based care, it is advisable to analyze the costs associated with different techniques and equipment.
By doing so, provider institutions can deliver substantial healthcare value to both patients and providers, experts suggested in a recent cost analysis published by Clinical Radiology [1].
“Without a clear reference standard technique that optimizes patient outcomes, device selection is based on availability and physician-driven selection, which can substantially impact procedural costs,” interventional radiologist T.E. Callese of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and colleagues explained. “In order to maximize the value-based healthcare equation, costs must be weighed against long-term clinical and technical outcomes data.”
Callese and colleagues gathered cost data, including expenses pertaining to equipment and materials, space, personnel, processes and time to better understand what factors influence the final price tag of endovascular PE interventions. To help with this, they developed process maps for catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT), ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis (USAT), pharmaco-mechanical thrombectomy (PMT), mechanical-aspiration thrombectomy (MAT) and aspiration thrombectomy (AT).
Final procedural costs are listed below:
CDT: $3,889
USAT: $9,017.10
PMT: $9,565.98
AT: $12,126.42
MAT: $13,748.01
Procedural space had an impact on increased costs, with ICU use accounting for 33.4% of costs in CDT, 13.5% in USAT and 13.1% in PMT. Likewise, materials significantly impacted prices; this was most evident in AT and MAT, with materials cost accounting for 82.6% and 80.3% of total expenses.
Of note, the authors indicated that in the absence of a reference standard technique, these expenses were frequently physician-driven based on their personal procedural expertise and experience.
The authors emphasized the need to understand device-specific expenses, concluding that this knowledge is “imperative to promoting competition amongst device manufacturers to maximize value to the patient and inform future reimbursement models.”
To see the detailed breakdown of expenses associated with PE procedures, click here.
In addition to her background in journalism, Hannah also has patient-facing experience in clinical settings, having spent more than 12 years working as a registered rad tech. She joined Innovate Healthcare in 2021 and has since put her unique expertise to use in her editorial role with Health Imaging.