Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:00:35.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic evaluation of hemodialysis: Implications for technology assessment in Greece

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2005

Daphne Kaitelidou ,
Panagiotis N. Ziroyanis ,
Nikolaos Maniadakis  and
Lycurgus L. Liaropoulos
Daphne Kaitelidou
Affiliation:
University of Athens
Panagiotis N. Ziroyanis
Affiliation:
“G. Gennimatas” Hospital
Nikolaos Maniadakis
Affiliation:
University Hospital of Rio
Lycurgus L. Liaropoulos
Affiliation:
University of Athens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Hemodialysis is a well-established treatment for 74 percent of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients in Greece. The purpose of this study is to provide an estimate of the direct cost of dialysis in a public hospital setting and an estimate of the loss of production for ESRD patients. The results will be useful for public health facility planning purposes.

Methods: A socioeconomic prevalence-based analysis was performed using micro-economic evaluation of health-care resources consumed to provide hemodialysis for ESRD patients in 2000. Lost productivity costs due to illness were estimated for the patient and family using the human capital approach and the friction method. Indirect morbidity costs due to absence from work and long-term were estimated, as well as mortality costs. Mean gross income was used for both patient and family.

Results: Total health-sector cost for hemodialysis in Greece exceeds €171 million, or €182 per session and €229 per inpatient day. There were 2,046 years lost due to mortality, and the potential productivity cost was estimated at €9.9 million, according to the human capital approach, and €303.000, according to the friction method. Total morbidity cost due to absence from work and early retirement was estimated at more than €273 million, according to the human capital approach, and €12.5, according to the friction method.

Conclusions: Providing hemodialysis care for 0.05 percent of the population suffering from ESRD absorbs approximately 2 percent of total health expenditure in Greece. In addition to the cost for the National Health System, production loss due to mortality and morbidity from the disease are also considerable. Promoting alternative technologies such as organ transplantation and home dialysis as well as improving hemodialysis efficiency through satellite units are strategies that may prove more cost-effective and psychologically advantageous for the patients.

Keywords

Cost of hemodialysisEconomic evaluationCost of illness
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 40 - 46
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Hospital Association–American Hospital. 1993. Estimated useful lives of depreciable hospital assets. American Hospital Publishing Inc;
1995. Annual Data Report (ADR) of the USRDS. Minneapolis, MN: USRDS;
Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). 1994. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Canada: Ottawa, ON;
Carson E. Success of “hospital without walls” depends on the systematic methodology. Virtual Medical Worlds Monthly, May 1999. (ISSN 1388-722X).
Cogny-Van Weydevelt F, Bacquaert-Dufour K, Benevent D, et al. 1999 A cost-effectiveness analysis of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis versus self-care in center hemodialysis in France. Dial & Transplantation. 28: 70– 74.Google Scholar
Cokal R. 1993 Quality of life in patients undergoing renal replacement therapy. Kidney Int. 43 (Suppl 40).Google Scholar
Cortelli P, Dahlof C, Bouchard J, et al. 1997 A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan. Pharmacoeconomics. 11 (Suppl 1): 35– 42.Google Scholar
De Wit A, Ramsteijn P, De Charro F. 1998 Economic evaluation of end stage renal disease treatment. Health Policy. 44: 215– 232.Google Scholar
Dobros NB. 1995 Renal replacement therapy in Greece. 1993-1995 Registry. Greek Nephrol. 7: 897– 900 (article in Greek).Google Scholar
Drummond M. 1992 Cost of illness studies: A major headache? Pharmacoeconomics. 2: 1– 4.Google Scholar
Drummond M, O'Brien B, Stoddart G, et al. 1998. Method for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications;
Evans RW. 1983 Health care technology and the inevitability of resource allocation and rationing decisions-part II. JAMA. 249: 2208– 2217.Google Scholar
Garella S. 1997 The costs of dialysis in the USA. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 12 (Suppl 1): 10– 21.Google Scholar
Gerard K, Donaldson C, Maynard AK. 1989 The cost of diabetes. Diabetic Med. 6: 164– 170.Google Scholar
Goeree R, Manalich J, Grootendorst P, et al. 1995 Cost analysis of dialysis treatments for end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Clin Invest Med. 18: 455– 464.Google Scholar
Goodenough GK. Home-based renal dialysis. AFP, February 1988.
Jacobs P, Bachynsky J, Hall E. 1995. A manual of standard costs for pharmacoeconomic studies in Canada: Feasibility study. Ottawa, ON;
Karlberg I. 1992 Cost Analysis of alternative treatments in end-stage renal disease. Transplant Proc. 24: 335.Google Scholar
Koopmanschap M, Rutten F, Van Ineveld M, et al. 1995 The friction method for measuring indirect cost of disease. J Health Econ. 14: 171– 189.Google Scholar
Koopmanschap M, Van Ineveld M. 1992 Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease. Soc Sci Med. 34: 1005– 1010.Google Scholar
Liaropoulos L, Kaitelidou D. 2000 Health technology assessment in Greece. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16: 429– 448.Google Scholar
Luce BR, Elixhauser A. 1990. Standards for socio-economic evaluations of health care products and services. Berlin: Springer-Verlag;
Mallick N. 1997 The costs of renal services in Britain. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 12 (Suppl 1): 25– 28.Google Scholar
Mantas J, Hasman A, eds. 2001. Textbook in health informatics, a nursing perspective. The Netherlands: IOS Press;
Murley DN, Koutsikos D, Cramp DG, Carson ER. 1996. Modeling of a telematic home haemodialysis service. 22nd Hellenic Medical Congress. Athens,
OECD. 1995/1 Health Care Reform: Controlling spending and increasing efficiency. OECD Economic Studies, No. 24, Paris, 9– 55.
Osterhaus J, Gutterman D, Plachetka J. 1992 Healthcare resource and lost labour costs of migraine headache in the US. Pharmacoeconomics. 2: 67– 76.Google Scholar
Piccoli G, Formica M, Mangiarotti G, et al. 1997 The cost of dialysis in Italy. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 12 (Suppl 1): 33– 44.Google Scholar
Prichard S. 1988; Workshop on comparisons of CAPD with hemodialysis and transplantation. The cost of dialysis. Adv Peritoneal Dial. 44: 66– 69.Google Scholar
Report on management of Renal Failure in Europe, XXIV, 1993. 1995; Nephrol Dial Transpl. 10 (Suppl 5).
Report on management of Renal Failure in Europe, XXV, 1994. 1996; Nephrol Dial Transpl. 11 (Suppl 1).
Roberts S, Maxwell D, Gross T. 1980 Cost-effective care of end–stage renal disease: A billion dollar question. Ann Intern Med. 92: 243– 248.Google Scholar
Sakellariou G. 1987 The cost of dialysis in Greece. Materia Medica Greca. 15: 270– 278 (article in Greek).Google Scholar
Suver J, Neuman B, Boles K. 1992. Management accounting for healthcare organizations. Chicago: Pluribus Press Inc;
Van Roijen L, Essink-Bot M, Koopmanschap M, et al. 1996 Labor and health status in economic evaluation of health care: The Health and Labor Questionnaire. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 12: 405– 415.Google Scholar
Waldman S. 1972 Effect of changing technology on hospital costs. Soc Security Bull. 35: 28– 30.Google Scholar