RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The objective of this research was to evaluate the outcomes and costs of alternative approaches to managing patients previously treated for peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to compare (1a) urease breath testing (UBT) for assessment of H. pylori status versus (1b) observation without further testing or treatment, among patients who were symptom-free following initial antimicrobial and antisecretory therapy for endoscopically demonstrated ulcer and H. pylori infection; and (2a) UBT versus (2b) repeat endoscopy with H. pylori testing, and versus (2c) repeat antimicrobial and antisecretory therapy without further testing, among patients who remained symptomatic following initial therapy. RESULTS: Among patients who were symptom free after initial therapy, 6.1% receiving UBT had symptomatic ulcer at one year, compared to 18.2% of those simply observed. The expected first-year cost per symptom-free patient following initial therapy was $591 for UBT compared to $480 for observation. Among patients with persistent symptoms after initial therapy, 21% receiving repeat therapy had symptomatic ulcer at one year, compared to 23.8% receiving repeat endoscopy, and 23.3% receiving UBT. Corresponding medical costs per patient were, respectively, $766, $1787 and $1122. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal approach to managing patients following initial treatment for ulcer and H. pylori infection depends on symptom status following initial therapy. For symptomatic patients, the preferred approach is to prescribe a repeat course of antimicrobial and antisecretory therapy. For patients without symptoms following initial therapy, UBT is the preferred approach because it is associated with a threefold lower risk of symptomatic ulcer at one year, although it costs an additional $110 per patient, compared with observation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of a policy restricting reimbursement for Medicaid anti-ulcer drugs on anti-ulcer drug use and peptic-related hospitalizations. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: In addition to U.S. Census Bureau data, all of the following from Florida: Medicaid anti-ulcer drug claims data, 1989-1993; Medicaid eligibility data, 1989-1993; and acute care nonfederal hospital discharge abstract data (Medicaid and non-Medicaid), 1989-1993. STUDY DESIGN: In this observational study, a Poisson multiple regression model was used to compare changes, after policy implementation, in Medicaid reimbursement for prescription anti-ulcer drugs as well as hospitalization rates between pre- and post-implementation periods in Medicaid versus non-Medicaid patients hospitalized with peptic ulcer disease. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Following policy implementation, the rate of Medicaid reimbursement for anti-ulcer drugs decreased 33 percent (p < .001). No associated increase occurred in the rate of Medicaid peptic-related hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Florida's policy restricting Medicaid reimbursement for anti-ulcer drugs was associated with a substantial reduction in outpatient anti-ulcer drug utilization without any significant increase in the rate of hospitalization for peptic-related conditions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The commercial availability of gene testing for familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) represents an important advance in screening for inherited colon cancer. We investigated the financial impact of this diagnostic tool on colorectal screening for FAP. METHODS: Decision analysis was used to compare per-person costs with third-party payers of three colorectal screening strategies used to diagnose FAP in at-risk persons. The strategies included conventional serial flexible sigmoidoscopy and two different APC gene testing approaches. RESULTS: For 1 at-risk relative who begins screening at age 12 years, average screening costs are $2625 when genotyping the proband first, $2674 when genotyping the at-risk relative first, and $3208 for conventional sigmoidoscopy. The cost advantage of genotyping increases as the pedigree size increases. For a pedigree of 5 at-risk relatives, sigmoidoscopy would have to cost less than $85.60 (professional plus facility fee) for conventional screening to compete with genotyping. The cost advantage of genotyping is diminished for at-risk relatives who begin FAP screening at older ages. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of least expensive FAP screening strategy depends on the cost of flexible sigmoidoscopy, patient age when screening starts, and pedigree size. Genotyping can substantially reduce the cost of FAP screening and, when possible, should start with the proband.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)