• Scott Guillemette, Susan Witzke, Jacqueline Leier, Jennifer Hinnenthal, and Joshua P Prager.
• OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, MN 55344-7302, USA. scott.guillemette@optum.com
• Pain Med. 2013 Apr 1;14(4):504-15.

IntroductionAs healthcare budgets continue to contract, there is increased payer scrutiny on the use of implantable intrathecal drug-infusion devices. This study utilizes claims data to evaluate the economic effects of intrathecal drug delivery (IDD) based on health services utilization and costs of care before and after implantation.MethodsWe performed a retrospective database study involving 555 noncancer pain patients that received an IDD system implant within a 3-year service period (1/2006-1/2009). IDD patient costs were temporally aligned to implant month and repriced to a standardized, national pricing schedule over a 6-year episode cycle (3 years preimplant, implant month, and 3 years postimplant). Additionally, we made an actuarial projection of postimplant experience, in the absence of IDD intervention, simulating a conventional pain therapy (CPT) protocol by assuming the same slope in costs prior to implantation at standardized, national price levels. Cost projections were produced over a 30-year time horizon at various reimplantation rates.ResultsIDD therapy was less costly than the CPT protocol over our baseline implantation cycle. Costs in the month of IDD implantation, and in the year following, are cumulatively $17,317 more than the CPT protocol; however, IDD financial break-even occurs soon after the second year postimplant. The lifetime analysis indicates that IDD per patient per year savings is $3,111 compared with CPT.ConclusionThe authors found that patients receiving an implantable IDD system may experience reduced cumulative future medical costs relative to anticipated costs in the absence of receiving IDD. This finding complements published literature on the cost-effectiveness of IDD.Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

30 keywords...

hide…