IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0287092.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-utility analysis of endoscopic lumbar discectomy following a uniform clinical pathway in the Korean national health insurance system

Author

Listed:
  • Chi Heon Kim
  • Yunhee Choi
  • Chun Kee Chung
  • Seung Heon Yang
  • Chang-Hyun Lee
  • Sung Bae Park
  • Keewon Kim
  • Sun Gun Chung

Abstract

Introduction: Full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) is a type of minimally invasive spinal surgery for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Sufficient evidence exists to recommend FELD as an alternative to standard open microdiscectomy, and some patients prefer FELD due to its minimally invasive nature. However, in the Republic of Korea, the National Health Insurance System (NHIS) controls the reimbursement and use of supplies for FELD, but FELD is not currently reimbursed by the NHIS. Nonetheless, FELD has been performed upon patients’ request, but providing FELD for patients’ sake is inherently an unstable arrangement in the absence of a practical reimbursement system. The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis of FELD to suggest appropriate reimbursements. Method: This study was a subgroup analysis of prospectively collected data including 28 patients who underwent FELD. All patients were NHIS beneficiaries and followed a uniform clinical pathway. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were assessed with a utility score using the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) instrument. The costs included direct medical costs incurred at the hospital for 2 years and the price of the electrode ($700), although it was not reimbursed. The costs and QALYs gained were used to calculate the cost per QALY gained. Result: Patients’ mean age was 43 years and one-third (32%) were women. L4-5 was the most common surgical level (20/28, 71%) and extrusion was the most common type of LDH (14, 50%). Half of the patients (15, 54%) had jobs with an intermediate level of activity. The preoperative EQ-5D utility score was 0.48±0.19. Pain, disability, and the utility score significantly improved starting 1 month postoperatively. The average EQ-5D utility score during 2 years after FELD was estimated as 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78–0.85). For 2 years, the mean direct costs were $3,459 and the cost per QALY gained was $5,241. Conclusion: The cost-utility analysis showed a quite reasonable cost per QALY gained for FELD. A comprehensive range of surgical options should be provided to patients, for which a practical reimbursement system is a prerequisite.

Suggested Citation

  • Chi Heon Kim & Yunhee Choi & Chun Kee Chung & Seung Heon Yang & Chang-Hyun Lee & Sung Bae Park & Keewon Kim & Sun Gun Chung, 2023. "Cost-utility analysis of endoscopic lumbar discectomy following a uniform clinical pathway in the Korean national health insurance system," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(6), pages 1-13, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0287092
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287092
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287092&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0287092?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0287092. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.