Localized prostate cancer: quality of life meets Whitmore's legacy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Scott Ramsey.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) can help to quantify the contribution of the promotion of a screening program to increased participation in screening. The cost-effectiveness (C/E) of screening promotion depends in large part on the endpoints of interest. At the most fundamental level, the C/E of a strategy for promoting screening would focus on the attendance rate, or cost per person screened, and the C/E would be influenced by the costs of promotion, as well as by the size and responsiveness of the target population. In addition, the costs of screening promotion (measured as the cost per additional participant in screening) can be included in a CEA estimate of the screening technology. In this case, depending on the efficacy of the screening test and the costs and influence of the promotion, the C/E of screening may improve or become poorer. In the current study, the authors reviewed the literature on the C/E of cancer screening promotion. The following lessons were learned regarding the C/E of screening and its promotion: 1) high-quality information on the C/E of screening is increasingly available; 2) cost-effective promotion of screening is dependent on cost-effective screening strategies; 3) quality-of-life effects may be important in assessing the overall C/E of screening programs; 4) research efforts aimed at identifying cost-effective approaches to screening promotion are useful but sparse; 5) C/E studies should be better incorporated into well designed effectiveness research efforts; 6) variations in C/E according to intervention characteristics, population characteristics, and context should be evaluated in greater depth; 7) the long-term effects of screening promotion are critical to assessing C/E; 8) the effects of promotion on costs of screening must be better understood; and 9) CEA must be interpreted in light of other information. The authors showed that CEA can be a valuable tool for understanding the merits of health promotion interventions and that CEA is particularly valuable in identifying screening strategies that might be promoted most cost-effectively.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: The National Emphysema Treatment Trial, a randomized trial comparing lung volume reduction surgery with medical therapy for severe emphysema, included randomized and nonrandomized comparisons of the median sternotomy and video-assisted thoracoscopic approaches for lung volume reduction surgery. METHODS: Lung volume reduction surgery was performed by median sternotomy only at 8 centers and video-assisted thoracoscopy only at 3 centers; 6 centers randomized the approach to lung volume reduction surgery. Mortality, morbidity, functional status, and costs were assessed. RESULTS: In the nonrandomized comparison, 359 patients received lung volume reduction surgery by median sternotomy, and 152 patients received lung volume reduction surgery by video-assisted thoracoscopy. The 90-day mortality was 5.9% for median sternotomy and 4.6% for video-assisted thoracoscopy (P =.67). Overall mortality was 0.08 deaths per person-year for median sternotomy and 0.10 deaths per person-year for video-assisted thoracoscopy (video-assisted thoracoscopy-median sternotomy risk ratio, 1.18; P =.42). Complication rates were low and not statistically different for the 2 approaches. The median hospital length of stay was longer for median sternotomy than for video-assisted thoracoscopy (10 vs 9 days; P =.01). By 30 days after surgery, 70.5% of median sternotomy patients and 80.9% of video-assisted thoracoscopy patients were living independently (P =.02). Functional outcomes were similar for median sternotomy and video-assisted thoracoscopy at 12 and 24 months. Costs for the operation and the associated hospital stay and costs in the 6 months after surgery were both less for video-assisted thoracoscopy than for median sternotomy (P <.01 in both cases). Similar results were noted for the randomized comparison. CONCLUSIONS: Morbidity and mortality were comparable after lung volume reduction surgery by video-assisted thoracoscopy or median sternotomy, as were functional results. The video-assisted thoracoscopic approach to lung volume reduction surgery allowed earlier recovery at a lower cost than median sternotomy.
Early detection represents one of the most promising approaches to reducing the growing cancer burden. It already has a key role in the management of cervical and breast cancer, and is likely to become more important in the control of colorectal, prostate and lung cancer. Early-detection research has recently been revitalized by the advent of novel molecular technologies that can identify cellular changes at the level of the genome or proteome, but how can we harness these new technologies to develop effective and practical screening tests?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the economic burden of diabetes from an employer's perspective. We analyzed the costs of diabetes, using claims data for an employed population and the prevalence of selected comorbid conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The data source is a claims database from a national Fortune 100 manufacturer. It includes medical, pharmacy, and disability claims for all beneficiaries (n >100,000). Both medical and work productivity costs of diabetes patients are compared by age with those of matched control subjects from the overall beneficiary population. Out-of-pocket and intangible costs are excluded. RESULTS: In 1998, the employer's mean annual per capita costs were higher for all diabetes beneficiaries than for control subjects ($7,778 +/- 16,176 vs. $3,367 +/- 8,783; P < 0.0001), yielding an incremental cost of $4,410 +/- 18,407 associated with diabetes. The medical and productivity costs for employees with diabetes were significantly (P < 0.0008) higher than for control subjects. The incremental cost of diabetes among employees ranged from $4,671 (aged 18-35 years) to $4,369 (aged 56-64 years). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes imposes a significant economic burden on employers, particularly when including productivity costs. Employers should select health plans that provide enriched benefits to diabetes patients, including ready access to medical and pharmacy services as well as aggressive diabetes management programs.