J Med Econ. 2018 Jun;21(6):610-615. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2018.1452748.

Epub 2018 Apr 3.


Authors

Tina D Hunter 1 , Adam S DeConde 2 , R Peter Manes 3

Affiliations

  • 1 CTI Clinical Trial and Consulting Services, , Biostatistics & Health Outcomes Research , Covington , KY
  • 2 University of California-San Diego , San Diego , CA ,
  • 3 Yale School of Medicine , New Haven , CT

Abstract

Aims: The objective of this study was to quantify the treatment costs and revision surgery rates in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients, with and without nasal polyposis (CRSwNP and CRSsNP), who require treatment with endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The additive contributions of nasal polyposis (NP) and revision surgery to 1-year costs were a primary focus.

Materials and methods: Adults (aged 18-64 years) undergoing ESS for CRS in 2012-2015 were identified within the Blue Health Intelligence database and used to estimate revision rates. Patients with ±1 year of enrollment around the index ESS were used to estimate 1-year healthcare expenditures. Revision ESS rates were evaluated via Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models.

Disease-related healthcare and pharmacy expenditures were modeled with generalized linear regression to assess the impact of baseline patient characteristics.

Results: A total of 86,052 patients underwent ESS for CRS (43.5 ± 12.4 years; 49.3% male), and a sub-set of 23,542 patients were available for 1-year healthcare expenditure analysis (44.0 ± 12.1 years; 50.0% male). Revision ESS rates within 1 year were 3.5% in the CRSwNP cohort and 1.6% in the CRSsNP cohort. NP, deviated septum, gender, and region were statistically significant predictors of revision surgery. Mean 1-year treatment expenditures, including the index ESS, were $8,824 for CRSsNP and $11,166 for CRSwNP patients without revision ESS. CRSwNP doubled the risk of revision surgery in the first year after ESS compared with CRSsNP and cost 24% more in the absence of a second procedure. Revision ESS within the first year increased mean 1-year expenditures by $11,150 and $13,139 for CRSsNP and CRSwNP, respectively.

Limitations: The primary limitation was the limited length of follow-up available for estimating revision ESS rates.

Conclusions: In a large commercially insured US population, disease-related expenditures for patients having ESS for CRS are substantial, as are the additive impacts of NP and revision surgery.

View the study.