27.01.2015 Views

Download the Take Home Message Book in PDF format

Download the Take Home Message Book in PDF format

Download the Take Home Message Book in PDF format

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

WHO WILL PAY THE COSTS OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN ARTHROPLASTY<br />

Jean-Noël Argenson<br />

France<br />

1. The economic and medical challenge for TJA<br />

- <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g life expectancy<br />

- grow<strong>in</strong>g demand for TJA procedures<br />

- <strong>in</strong>creased cost related to new technologies<br />

2. Increased projected OA knee younger patients<br />

- <strong>the</strong> less than 65 to represent 60% of all TKA <strong>in</strong> 2030<br />

- average 25% <strong>in</strong>crease life expectancy with implant<br />

- active life style<br />

- <strong>in</strong>creased expectations<br />

- more likely to use more costly premium implants<br />

3. Reasons for <strong>in</strong>creased TKA utilization<br />

- <strong>in</strong>creased population<br />

- epidemic obesity<br />

- sport-related <strong>in</strong>juries<br />

- newer components to last longer and accommodate high activity<br />

- better preoperative health to provide better outcome<br />

4. Cost-effectiveness analysis of TJA<br />

- quality adjusted life ga<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

- cost per quality of life ga<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

- TJA is effective cl<strong>in</strong>ically and <strong>in</strong> terms of effectiveness<br />

5. Payers for new technologies <strong>in</strong> TJA<br />

- patients<br />

- hospitals<br />

- national systems<br />

- private <strong>in</strong>surance<br />

- health suppliers<br />

References:<br />

1. Bozic JJ, Morshed S, Silverste<strong>in</strong> MD, Rubash HE, Kahn JG. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate new technologies <strong>in</strong><br />

orthopaedics. J Bone Jo<strong>in</strong>t Am.2006; 88-A:706-14<br />

2. Kurtz SM, Lau ED, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision jo<strong>in</strong>t<br />

replacement. Cl<strong>in</strong> Orthop. 2010; 467:2606-12<br />

3. Gioe TJ, Sharma A, Tatman P, Mehle S. Do “premium” jo<strong>in</strong>t implants add value Cl<strong>in</strong> Orthop 2010; 469:48-54<br />

4. Los<strong>in</strong>a EL, Thornhill TS, Rome BN, Wright J, Katz JN. The dramatic <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> total knee replacement utilization rates <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

United States cannot be fully expla<strong>in</strong>ed by growth <strong>in</strong> population size and <strong>the</strong> obesity epidemic. J Bone Jo<strong>in</strong>t Surg Am. 2012;<br />

94-A:201-7.<br />

5. Jenk<strong>in</strong>s PJ, Clement ND, Hamilton DF, Gaston P, Patton JT, Howie CR. Predict<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> cost-effectiveness of total hip and<br />

knee replacement. Bone Jo<strong>in</strong>t J 2013; 95-B:115-21<br />

6. Kremers MH, Visscher SL, Moriarty JP, Re<strong>in</strong>alda MS, Kremers WK, Naessens JM, Lewallen DG. Determ<strong>in</strong>ants of direct<br />

medical costs <strong>in</strong> primary and revision total knee arthroplasty. Cl<strong>in</strong> Orthop 2013; 471:206-14<br />

37

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!