Trends and Opportunities in Health Economic Evaluations of Prosthetic Care Innovations

Out-of-pocket costs and affordability of upper limb prostheses

BACKGROUND

Given the funding policies in the Department of Veterans Affairs, the affordability of prostheses may be less of a concern among Veterans as compared to civilians.

OBJECTIVES

Compare rates of out-of-pocket prosthesis-related payments for Veterans and non-Veterans with upper limb amputation (ULA), develop and validate a measure of prosthesis affordability, and evaluate the impact of affordability on prosthesis nonuse.

STUDY DESIGN

Telephone survey of 727 persons with ULA; 76% Veterans and 24% non-Veterans.

METHODS

Odds of paying out-of-pocket costs for Veterans compared with non-Veterans were computed using logistic regression. Cognitive and pilot testing resulted in a new scale, evaluated using confirmatory factor and Rasch analysis. Proportions of respondents who cited affordability as a reason for never using or abandoning a prosthesis were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty percent of those who ever used a prosthesis paid out-of-pocket costs. Veterans had 0.20 odds (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.30) of paying out-of-pocket costs compared with non-Veterans. Confirmatory factor analysis supported unidimensionality of the 4-item Prosthesis Affordability scale. Rasch person reliability was 0.78. Cronbach alpha was 0.87. Overall, 14% of prosthesis never-users said affordability was a reason for nonuse; 9.6% and 16.5% of former prosthesis users said affordability of repairs or replacement, respectively, was a reason for abandonment.

CONCLUSIONS

Out-of-pocket prosthesis costs were paid by 20% of those sample, with Veterans less likely to incur costs. The Prosthesis Affordability scale developed in this study was reliable and valid for persons with ULA. Prosthesis affordability was a common reason for never using or abandoning prostheses.

Loading characteristics data applied on osseointegrated implant by transfemoral bone-anchored prostheses fitted with state-of-the-art components during daily activities

The data in this paper are related to the research article entitled “Load applied on osseointegrated implant by transfemoral bone-anchored prostheses fitted with state-of-the-art prosthetic components” (Frossard et al. Clinical Biomechanics, 89 (2021) 105457. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2021.105457). This article contains the overall and individual loading characteristics applied on transfemoral press-fit osseointegrated implant generated by bone-anchored prostheses fitted with state-of-the-art components during daily activities (i.e., microprocessor-controlled Rheo Knee XC knee, energy-storing-and-returning Pro-Flex XC or LP feet (ÖSSUR, Iceland)). Confounders of the loads are presented. The load profiles are characterized by the loading patterns, loading boundaries and loading local extrema of the forces and moments applied during straight-level walking, ascending and descending ramp and stairs at self-selected comfortable pace. The confounders of the loading information as well as new insights into inter-participants variability of loading patterns, loading boundaries and loading local extrema can inform the design of subsequent cross-sectional and longitudinal studies as well as literature reviews and meta-analyzes. The loading datasets are critical to clinicians and engineers designing finite element models of osseointegrated implants (e.g., medullar and percutaneous parts) and prosthetic components, algorithms capable to recognize the loading patterns applied on a residuum during daily activities, as well as clinical trials assessing the effects of particular prosthetic care interventions. Altogether, these datasets provide promoters of prosthetic care innovations with valuable insights informing the prescription of advanced prosthetic components to the growing population of individuals suffering from lower limb loss choosing bionics solutions. Online repository contains the files: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/gmsyv97cpc/1

A Preliminary Cost-Utility Analysis of the Prosthetic Care Innovations: Basic Framework

A preliminary cost-utility analysis (CUA) of prosthetic care innovations can provide timely information during the early stage of product development and clinical usage. Concepts of preliminary CUAs are emerging. However, several obstacles must be overcome before these analyses are performed routinely. Disparities of methods and high uncertainty make the outcomes of usual preliminary CUAs challenging to interpret, appraise and share. These shortcomings create opportunities for a basic framework of preliminary CUAs. First, I introduced a basic framework of a preliminary CUA built around a series of constructs and hands-on recommendations. Then, I appraised this framework considering the strengths and weaknesses, barriers and facilitators, and return on investment. The design of the basic framework was determined through the review of health economic and prosthetic-specific literature. A preliminary CUA comparing the costs and utilities between usual intervention and an innovation could be achieved through a 15-step iterative process focusing on feasibility, constructs, analysis, and interpretation of outcomes. This CUA provides sufficient evidence to identify knowledge gaps and improvement areas, educate about the design of subsequent full CUAs, and obtain fast-track approval from governing bodies. Like previous CUAs, the main limitations were inherent to the constructs (e.g., narrow perspective, plausible scenarios, mid-term time horizon, substantial assumptions, data mismatch, high uncertainty). Key facilitators potentially transferable across preliminary CUAs of prosthetic care innovations included choosing abided constructs, capitalizing on prior schedules of expenses, and benchmarking baseline or incremental utilities. This new approach with preliminary CUA can simplify the selection of methods, standardize outcomes, ease comparisons between innovations, and streamline pathways for adoption. Further collegial efforts toward validating standard preliminary CUAs will facilitate access to economic prosthetic care innovations, improving the lives of individuals suffering from limb loss worldwide.

Health Service Delivery and Economic Evaluation of Limb Lower Bone-Anchored Prostheses: A Summary of the Queensland Artificial Limb Service's Experience

The emergence of skeletal prosthetic attachments leaves governmental organizations facing the challenge of implementing equitable policies that support the provision of bone-anchored prostheses (BAPs). In 2013, the Queensland Artificial Limb Service (QALS) started a five-year research project focusing on health service delivery and economic evaluation of BAPs. This paper reflects on the QALS experience, particularly the lessons learned. QALS' jurisdiction and drivers are presented first, followed by the impact of outcomes, barriers, and facilitators, as well as future developments of this work. The 21 publications produced during this project (e.g., reimbursement policy, role of prosthetists, continuous improvement procedure, quality of life, preliminary cost-utilities) were summarized. Literature on past, current, and upcoming developments of BAP was reviewed to discuss the practical implications of this work. A primary outcome of this project was a policy developed by QALS supporting up to 22 h of labor for the provision of BAP care. The indicative incremental cost-utility ratio for transfemoral and transtibial BAPs was approximately AUD$17,000 and AUD$12,000, respectively, per quality-adjusted life-year compared to socket prostheses. This project was challenged by 17 barriers (e.g., limited resources, inconsistency of care pathways, design of preliminary cost-utility analyses) but eased by 18 facilitators (e.g., action research plan, customized database, use of free repositories). In conclusion, we concluded that lower limb BAP might be an acceptable alternative to socket prostheses from an Australian government prosthetic care perspective. Hopefully, this work will inform promoters of prosthetic innovations committed to making bionic solutions widely accessible to a growing population of individuals suffering from limb loss worldwide.

A Preliminary Cost-Utility Analysis of the Prosthetic Care Innovations: Case of the Keep Walking Implant

Several obstacles must be overcome before preliminary cost-utility analyses (CUA) of prosthetic care innovations can be routinely performed. The basic framework of preliminary CUAs and hands- on recommendations suggested previously might contribute to wider adoption. However, a practical application for an emerging intervention is needed to showcase the capacity of this proposed preliminary CUA framework. This study presented the outcomes of preliminary CUA of the distal weight bearing Keep Walking Implant (KWI), an emerging prosthetic care innovation that may reduce socket fittings for individuals with transfemoral amputation. The preliminary CUAs compared the provision of prosthetic care without (usual intervention) and with the KWI (new intervention) using a 15-step iterative process focused on feasibility, constructs, analysis, and interpretations of outcomes from an Australia government prosthetic care perspective over a six-year time horizon. Baseline and incremental costs were extracted from schedules of allowable expenses. Baseline utilities were extracted from a study and converted into quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Incremental utilities were calculated based on sensible gains of QALY from baselines. The provision of the prosthetic care with the KWI could generate an indicative incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of -$36,890 per QALY, which was $76,890 per QALY below willingness-to-pay threshold, provided that the KWI reduces costs by $17,910 while increasing utility by 0.485 QALY compared to usual interventions. This preliminary CUA provided administrators of healthcare organizations in Australia and elsewhere with prerequisite evidence justifying further access to market and clinical introduction of the KWI. Altogether, this work suggests that the basic framework of the preliminary CUA of a prosthetic care innovation proposed previously is feasible and informative when a series of assumptions are carefully considered. This study further confirms that preliminary CUAs prosthetic care interventions might be a relevant alternative to full CUA for other medical treatments.