Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:39:25.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Review of a decision by the Medical Services Advisory Committee based on health technology assessment of an emerging technology: The case for remotely assisted radical prostatectomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2007

Sue P. O'Malley  and
Ernest Jordan
Sue P. O'Malley
Affiliation:
Macquarie Graduate School of Management and Medical Intelligence
Ernest Jordan
Affiliation:
Macquarie Graduate School of Management
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: In April 1998, the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) was established by the Australian federal government. Since that time, all new medical procedures must be evaluated for safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness as a condition of the surgeon receiving public funding by means of the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS). Over these first 8 years, a significant number of applications for the public funding of new procedures have been given negative recommendations by the MSAC based on insufficient clinical evidence or lack of cost-effectiveness. In August 2006, after almost 2 years of processing, the MSAC made the decision to fund the new procedure, laparoscopic remotely assisted radical prostatectomy (LRARP). However, they stated that there was still uncertainty about the comparative cost-effectiveness.

Methods: An observational study using provisional cost-utility data for LRARP based on a combination of costs taken from consecutive patients at the Epworth Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, and utilities from the prospectively collected data on all patients undergoing surgery for prostate cancer over a 4-year period at the Vattikuti Urology Institute, Michigan, United States.

Results: The incremental cost for LRARP compared with the open surgery alternative is A$2,264 or A$24,457 per quality-adjusted life-year, well below the range accepted by the Australian pharmaceutical equivalent of the MSAC (the PBAC) of A$42,000 and A$76,000. This figure does not take into account additional benefits such as reduced time away from employment, reduced blood loss, reduced possibility of infection, and reduced scarring.

Conclusions: This case study of LRARP demonstrates that there is sufficient crude evidence to show that this new procedure is likely to be superior to the existing procedure in terms of safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. The decision to allow MBS funding was correct and will allow for the collection of additional evidence, on both economic and clinical outcomes.

Keywords

Cost-effectivenessEvidenceHTASurgicalLaparoscopic
Type
RESEARCH REPORTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 286 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

REFERENCES

1.Australian Hospital Statistics 2002-03 Health Services Series No. 22. Available at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/hse/ahs02-03/ahs02-03-xd09.xls. Accessed 25 September 2005.Google Scholar
2.Costello, AJ, Haxhimolla, H, Crowe, H et al. , Installation of telerobotic surgery and initial experience with telerobotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2005; 96: 34–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Eastham, JA, Kattan, MW, Riedel, E et al. , Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2003; 170: 2292–2295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.El-Hakim, A, Tweari, A. Robotic prostatectomy – A review. MedGenMed. 2004; 6: 20.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Epstein, JI, Partin, AW, Sauvageot, J et al. , Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996; 20: 286–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.George, B, Harris, A, Mitchell, A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: Evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics. 2001; 19: 1103–1109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Kaul, S. Laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy. Last up-dated 28 February 2005. Available at: http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3723.htm. Accessed 16 September 2005.Google Scholar
8.Lotan, Y, Cadeddu, JA, Gettman, MT. The new economics of radical prostatectomy: Cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. J Urol. 2004; 172 (Pt 1): 1431–1435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Menon, M, Shrivastava, A, Tewari, A. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Conventional and robotic. Urology. 2005; 66 (Suppl): 101–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Menon, M, Tewari, A, Baize, B et al. , Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: The Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology. 2002; 60: 864–868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Meyer, JP, Gillatt, DA, Lockyer, R et al. , The effect of erectile dysfunction on the quality of life of men after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2003; 92: 929–931.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.O'Malley, SP. The Australian experiment: The use of evidence based medicine for the reimbursement of surgical and diagnostic procedures (1998-2004). Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2006; 3: 3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Powell, LL. Quality of life in men with urinary incontinence after prostate cancer surgery. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2000; 27: 174–178.Google Scholar
14.Walsh, PC, Lepor, H, Eggleston, JC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: Anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate. 1983; 4: 473–485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Wieder, JA, Soloway, MS. Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 1998; 160: 299–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed