Practice Efficiency and Economics
- 1 July 2007
- journal article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
- Vol. 41 (6), 591-598
- https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mcg.0000225634.52780.0e
Abstract
Goal To determine rapidly acting agents' impact on practice efficiency and cost for outpatient colonoscopy in a screening population. Background Propofol-mediated endoscopic sedation is popular due to rapid sedation onset and superior recovery profile compared with sedation with an opioid and benzodiazepine. There are few data on the impact of this type of sedation on the economics and efficiency of an endoscopy unit. Study A provider-perspective economic model assessed the ability of propofol and fospropofol disodium (Aquavan, GPI 15715, MGI Pharma) to increase practice efficiency and determined break-even costs based on current colonoscopy reimbursement levels. Reimbursement inputs by practice setting, costs, and recovery profiles—taken from published literature examining time to discharge—were used to populate the model. To measure robustness of model results to changes in base case inputs, sensitivity analyses were performed. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, inputs were varied simultaneously and randomly for 1000 iterations to determine 95% confidence intervals (CI) for break-even costs. Results In the time to complete 1 colonoscopy with midazolam/meperidine, 1.76 colonoscopies can be completed with propofol and 1.91 colonoscopies can be completed with fospropofol disodium. This efficiency benefit produced a break-even cost for rapid recovery agents of $71.53 (95% CI: $38.39, $105.67) in a hospital outpatient clinic and $61.48 (95% CI: $41.33, $108.99) in an ambulatory surgical center. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated the break-even cost of these agents was most sensitive to operating costs and time to discharge ratio. Conclusions Rapid recovery agents for colonoscopy can improve practice efficiency and offer economic advantages over traditional sedation.Keywords
This publication has 37 references indexed in Scilit:
- Propofol versus midazolam/meperidine for outpatient colonoscopy: Administration by nurses supervised by endoscopistsGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2002
- Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal CancerThe American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2002
- Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidenceGut, 2001
- The Effect of Fecal Occult-Blood Screening on the Incidence of Colorectal CancerThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2000
- Population-Based Surveillance by Colonoscopy: Effect on the Incidence of Colorectal Cancer: Telemark Polyp Study IScandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 1999
- Prevention of Colorectal Cancer by Flexible Endoscopy and Polypectomy: A Case-Control Study of 32 702 VeteransAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1995
- Prevention of Colorectal Cancer by Colonoscopic PolypectomyThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1993
- The Funen Adenoma Follow-up Study: Incidence and Death from Colorectal Carcinoma in an Adenoma Surveillance ProgramScandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 1993
- Results from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/U.S. Food and Drug Administration collaborative study on complication rates and drug use during gastrointestinal endoscopyGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 1991
- Performing screening flexible sigmoidoscopy using colonoscopes: experience in 500 subjectsGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 1990