Cost-Benefit Analysis of Ultrasonography in the Hand Clinic
Despite previous studies demonstrating the benefit of office-based ultrasonography for musculoskeletal evaluation, many hand surgery clinics have yet to adopt this practice. The authors conducted a cost-benefit analysis of establishing an ultrasound machine in a hand clinic. The authors used the Med...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963) 2021-04, Vol.147 (4), p.894-902 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 902 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 894 |
container_title | Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963) |
container_volume | 147 |
creator | Huynh, Kristine A. Yoon, Alfred P. Seyferth, Anne V. Chung, Kevin C. |
description | Despite previous studies demonstrating the benefit of office-based ultrasonography for musculoskeletal evaluation, many hand surgery clinics have yet to adopt this practice. The authors conducted a cost-benefit analysis of establishing an ultrasound machine in a hand clinic.
The authors used the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary, and Physician Compare National Downloadable File databases to estimate provider reimbursement and annual frequency of office-based upper extremity-related ultrasound procedures. Ultrasound machine cost, maintenance fees, and consumable supply prices were gleaned from the literature. The primary outcomes were net cost-benefit difference and benefit-cost ratio at 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years after implementation. Sensitivity analyses were performed by varying factors that influence the net cost-benefit difference.
The estimated total initial expense to establish ultrasonography in the clinic was $53,985. The overall cost-benefit difference was -$49,530 per practice at the end of the first year (benefit-cost ratio, 0.3), -$1049 after 5 years (benefit-cost ratio, 1.0), and $52,022 after 10 years (benefit-cost ratio, 1.4). Benefits primarily accrued because of physician reimbursements. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed machine price, annual procedure volume, and reimbursement rate as the most influential parameters in determining the benefit-cost ratio. Ultrasonography was cost beneficial when the machine price was less than $46,000 or if the billing frequency exceeded six times per week. A societal perspective analysis demonstrated a large net benefit of $218,162 after 5 years.
Implementation of office-based ultrasound imaging can result in a positive financial return on investment. Ultrasound machine cost and procedural volume were the most critical factors influencing benefit-cost ratio. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007732 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2504777938</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2504777938</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4037-47f347a7192500aad10e53ecb6930acaebd76b0d4280fab788374d109bb309b63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkE1Lw0AQhhdRbK3-A5EcvWyd_co2eKpBrVBQ1J6XTbIx0W227iaU_ntj6xfOYYaBd56BB6FTAmMCibx4eHwaw5-SktE9NCSCJphTTvfREIBRTEDQAToK4RWASBaLQzRgTAoRCzJEl6kLLb4yjSnrNpo22m5CHSJXRgvbeh1c4168XlWbqG6itjLRTDdFlNq6qfNjdFBqG8zJ1xyhxc31czrD8_vbu3Q6xzkHJjGXJeNSS5JQAaB1QcAIZvIsThjoXJuskHEGBacTKHUmJxMmeR9Ksoz1LWYjdL7jrrx770xo1bIOubFWN8Z1QfVYLqVM2KSP8l009y4Eb0q18vVS-40ioD61qV6b-q-tPzv7-tBlS1P8HH17-uWunW2ND2-2WxuvKqNtW215sWAcU6AEeL9h2Mr-AOk4de0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2504777938</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cost-Benefit Analysis of Ultrasonography in the Hand Clinic</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Ovid Autoload</source><creator>Huynh, Kristine A. ; Yoon, Alfred P. ; Seyferth, Anne V. ; Chung, Kevin C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Huynh, Kristine A. ; Yoon, Alfred P. ; Seyferth, Anne V. ; Chung, Kevin C.</creatorcontrib><description>Despite previous studies demonstrating the benefit of office-based ultrasonography for musculoskeletal evaluation, many hand surgery clinics have yet to adopt this practice. The authors conducted a cost-benefit analysis of establishing an ultrasound machine in a hand clinic.
The authors used the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary, and Physician Compare National Downloadable File databases to estimate provider reimbursement and annual frequency of office-based upper extremity-related ultrasound procedures. Ultrasound machine cost, maintenance fees, and consumable supply prices were gleaned from the literature. The primary outcomes were net cost-benefit difference and benefit-cost ratio at 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years after implementation. Sensitivity analyses were performed by varying factors that influence the net cost-benefit difference.
The estimated total initial expense to establish ultrasonography in the clinic was $53,985. The overall cost-benefit difference was -$49,530 per practice at the end of the first year (benefit-cost ratio, 0.3), -$1049 after 5 years (benefit-cost ratio, 1.0), and $52,022 after 10 years (benefit-cost ratio, 1.4). Benefits primarily accrued because of physician reimbursements. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed machine price, annual procedure volume, and reimbursement rate as the most influential parameters in determining the benefit-cost ratio. Ultrasonography was cost beneficial when the machine price was less than $46,000 or if the billing frequency exceeded six times per week. A societal perspective analysis demonstrated a large net benefit of $218,162 after 5 years.
Implementation of office-based ultrasound imaging can result in a positive financial return on investment. Ultrasound machine cost and procedural volume were the most critical factors influencing benefit-cost ratio.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0032-1052</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1529-4242</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007732</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33755651</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</publisher><subject>Ambulatory Care Facilities - economics ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Hand - diagnostic imaging ; Humans ; Point-of-Care Testing - economics ; Ultrasonography - economics</subject><ispartof>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), 2021-04, Vol.147 (4), p.894-902</ispartof><rights>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4037-47f347a7192500aad10e53ecb6930acaebd76b0d4280fab788374d109bb309b63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4037-47f347a7192500aad10e53ecb6930acaebd76b0d4280fab788374d109bb309b63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33755651$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Huynh, Kristine A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoon, Alfred P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seyferth, Anne V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chung, Kevin C.</creatorcontrib><title>Cost-Benefit Analysis of Ultrasonography in the Hand Clinic</title><title>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</title><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg</addtitle><description>Despite previous studies demonstrating the benefit of office-based ultrasonography for musculoskeletal evaluation, many hand surgery clinics have yet to adopt this practice. The authors conducted a cost-benefit analysis of establishing an ultrasound machine in a hand clinic.
The authors used the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary, and Physician Compare National Downloadable File databases to estimate provider reimbursement and annual frequency of office-based upper extremity-related ultrasound procedures. Ultrasound machine cost, maintenance fees, and consumable supply prices were gleaned from the literature. The primary outcomes were net cost-benefit difference and benefit-cost ratio at 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years after implementation. Sensitivity analyses were performed by varying factors that influence the net cost-benefit difference.
The estimated total initial expense to establish ultrasonography in the clinic was $53,985. The overall cost-benefit difference was -$49,530 per practice at the end of the first year (benefit-cost ratio, 0.3), -$1049 after 5 years (benefit-cost ratio, 1.0), and $52,022 after 10 years (benefit-cost ratio, 1.4). Benefits primarily accrued because of physician reimbursements. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed machine price, annual procedure volume, and reimbursement rate as the most influential parameters in determining the benefit-cost ratio. Ultrasonography was cost beneficial when the machine price was less than $46,000 or if the billing frequency exceeded six times per week. A societal perspective analysis demonstrated a large net benefit of $218,162 after 5 years.
Implementation of office-based ultrasound imaging can result in a positive financial return on investment. Ultrasound machine cost and procedural volume were the most critical factors influencing benefit-cost ratio.</description><subject>Ambulatory Care Facilities - economics</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Hand - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Point-of-Care Testing - economics</subject><subject>Ultrasonography - economics</subject><issn>0032-1052</issn><issn>1529-4242</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkE1Lw0AQhhdRbK3-A5EcvWyd_co2eKpBrVBQ1J6XTbIx0W227iaU_ntj6xfOYYaBd56BB6FTAmMCibx4eHwaw5-SktE9NCSCJphTTvfREIBRTEDQAToK4RWASBaLQzRgTAoRCzJEl6kLLb4yjSnrNpo22m5CHSJXRgvbeh1c4168XlWbqG6itjLRTDdFlNq6qfNjdFBqG8zJ1xyhxc31czrD8_vbu3Q6xzkHJjGXJeNSS5JQAaB1QcAIZvIsThjoXJuskHEGBacTKHUmJxMmeR9Ksoz1LWYjdL7jrrx770xo1bIOubFWN8Z1QfVYLqVM2KSP8l009y4Eb0q18vVS-40ioD61qV6b-q-tPzv7-tBlS1P8HH17-uWunW2ND2-2WxuvKqNtW215sWAcU6AEeL9h2Mr-AOk4de0</recordid><startdate>20210401</startdate><enddate>20210401</enddate><creator>Huynh, Kristine A.</creator><creator>Yoon, Alfred P.</creator><creator>Seyferth, Anne V.</creator><creator>Chung, Kevin C.</creator><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210401</creationdate><title>Cost-Benefit Analysis of Ultrasonography in the Hand Clinic</title><author>Huynh, Kristine A. ; Yoon, Alfred P. ; Seyferth, Anne V. ; Chung, Kevin C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4037-47f347a7192500aad10e53ecb6930acaebd76b0d4280fab788374d109bb309b63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Ambulatory Care Facilities - economics</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Hand - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Point-of-Care Testing - economics</topic><topic>Ultrasonography - economics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Huynh, Kristine A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoon, Alfred P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seyferth, Anne V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chung, Kevin C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Huynh, Kristine A.</au><au>Yoon, Alfred P.</au><au>Seyferth, Anne V.</au><au>Chung, Kevin C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cost-Benefit Analysis of Ultrasonography in the Hand Clinic</atitle><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</jtitle><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg</addtitle><date>2021-04-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>147</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>894</spage><epage>902</epage><pages>894-902</pages><issn>0032-1052</issn><eissn>1529-4242</eissn><abstract>Despite previous studies demonstrating the benefit of office-based ultrasonography for musculoskeletal evaluation, many hand surgery clinics have yet to adopt this practice. The authors conducted a cost-benefit analysis of establishing an ultrasound machine in a hand clinic.
The authors used the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary, and Physician Compare National Downloadable File databases to estimate provider reimbursement and annual frequency of office-based upper extremity-related ultrasound procedures. Ultrasound machine cost, maintenance fees, and consumable supply prices were gleaned from the literature. The primary outcomes were net cost-benefit difference and benefit-cost ratio at 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years after implementation. Sensitivity analyses were performed by varying factors that influence the net cost-benefit difference.
The estimated total initial expense to establish ultrasonography in the clinic was $53,985. The overall cost-benefit difference was -$49,530 per practice at the end of the first year (benefit-cost ratio, 0.3), -$1049 after 5 years (benefit-cost ratio, 1.0), and $52,022 after 10 years (benefit-cost ratio, 1.4). Benefits primarily accrued because of physician reimbursements. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed machine price, annual procedure volume, and reimbursement rate as the most influential parameters in determining the benefit-cost ratio. Ultrasonography was cost beneficial when the machine price was less than $46,000 or if the billing frequency exceeded six times per week. A societal perspective analysis demonstrated a large net benefit of $218,162 after 5 years.
Implementation of office-based ultrasound imaging can result in a positive financial return on investment. Ultrasound machine cost and procedural volume were the most critical factors influencing benefit-cost ratio.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</pub><pmid>33755651</pmid><doi>10.1097/PRS.0000000000007732</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0032-1052 |
ispartof | Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), 2021-04, Vol.147 (4), p.894-902 |
issn | 0032-1052 1529-4242 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2504777938 |
source | MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Ovid Autoload |
subjects | Ambulatory Care Facilities - economics Cost-Benefit Analysis Hand - diagnostic imaging Humans Point-of-Care Testing - economics Ultrasonography - economics |
title | Cost-Benefit Analysis of Ultrasonography in the Hand Clinic |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T03%3A12%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cost-Benefit%20Analysis%20of%20Ultrasonography%20in%20the%20Hand%20Clinic&rft.jtitle=Plastic%20and%20reconstructive%20surgery%20(1963)&rft.au=Huynh,%20Kristine%20A.&rft.date=2021-04-01&rft.volume=147&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=894&rft.epage=902&rft.pages=894-902&rft.issn=0032-1052&rft.eissn=1529-4242&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/PRS.0000000000007732&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2504777938%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2504777938&rft_id=info:pmid/33755651&rfr_iscdi=true |