Open AccessHealth Services Utilization and Payments in Patients With Cancer Pain: A Comparison of Intrathecal Drug Delivery vs. Conventional Medical Management
Author(s) -
Stearns Lisa J.,
Hinnenthal Jennifer A.,
Hammond Krisstin,
Berryman Eric,
Janjan Nora A.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
neuromodulation: technology at the neural interface
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.296
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1525-1403
pISSN - 1094-7159
DOI - 10.1111/ner.12384
Subject(s) - medicine , guideline , cancer pain , payment , intrathecal , health care , cancer , inclusion and exclusion criteria , family medicine , physical therapy , surgery , alternative medicine , business , finance , pathology , economics , economic growth
To 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. Methods This 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. Results From 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. Conclusions Despite 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.