• Lisa J Stearns, Jennifer A Hinnenthal, Krisstin Hammond, Eric Berryman, and Nora A Janjan.
• Arizona Center for Pain and Supportive Care, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
• Neuromodulation. 2016 Feb 1; 19 (2): 196-205.

IntroductionTo compare health services utilization and payments for cancer patients who received an implantable intrathecal drug delivery (IDD) system, consisting of a pump and catheter, vs. conventional medical management (CMM) for the treatment of cancer-related pain.MethodsThis retrospective claims-data analysis compared health services utilization and payments in a population of patients receiving either IDD or CMM for treatment of cancer pain. Patients were propensity score-matched 1:1 based on characteristics including, but not limited to, age, gender, cancer type, comorbid conditions, and health care utilization and payments.ResultsFrom a sample of 142 IDD patients and 3188 CMM patients who met all inclusion/exclusion criteria, 73 matched pairs were obtained. In the year following implant, IDD patients had a consistent trend of lower medical utilization, and total payments that were $3195 lower compared to CMM.ConclusionsDespite the high initial cost of IDD, this analysis suggests that patients with IDD incur lower medical utilization and payments over the first year post-implant. Further analysis comprised of a larger, longitudinal sample would contribute to health economics and outcomes research, and assist with future practice guideline development.© 2016 The Authors. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Neuromodulation Society.

30 keywords...

hide…