Endoscopist-directed propofol administration versus anesthesiologist assistance for colorectal cancer screening: A cost-effectiveness analysis

C. Hassan, Douglas Rex, G. S. Cooper, R. Benamouzig

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Propofol for colonoscopy is largely administered by anesthesiologists or anesthesiology nurses in the United States (US) and Europe. Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol (EDP) by nonanesthesiologists has recently been proposed, with potential savings of anesthetist reimbursement costs. We aimed to assess potential EDP-related benefit in a screening setting. Methods: In a Markov model the total number of screening and follow-up colonoscopies in a cohort of 100 000 US subjects were estimated. Anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy was compared with an EDP strategy. Model outputs were projected onto the 50 - 80-year-old US population, assuming 27 % as the current uptake for colonoscopy screening. Anesthetist costs were estimated using the mean reimbursement for the corresponding Medicare code ( 65-year-olds) and from commercial insurance information (50 - 64-year-olds). The proportion of colonoscopies with anesthesiologist assistance was estimated from the Medicare database. Mean nurse salary was used to estimate the cost of a 2-week EDP training. The absolute number of US endoscopists was estimated by inflating by 33 % the number of board-certified gastroenterologists. No EDP mortality was assumed in the reference scenario, and 0.0008 % mortality in the sensitivity analysis. US census data were adopted. Analogous inputs were used for France to assess EDP-related benefit in a European country. Results: EDP training for 17 166 nurses (one for each US endoscopist) showed a cost of $ 47 million. Cost estimates for anesthesiologist assistance for colonoscopy were $ 95 (Medicare) and $ 450 (non-Medicare commercial insurance), with 34.8 % of colonoscopies requiring anesthesiologist assistance. US implementation of an EDP policy showed a 10-year saving of $ 3.2 billion (Monte Carlo analysis 5 - 95 % percentiles $ 2.7 - $ 11.9 billion). In the sensitivity analysis, assuming 50 % of colonoscopies were anesthetist-assisted showed an EDP benefit of $ 4.6 billion. Assuming a 0.0008 % mortality rate, the incremental cost - effectiveness of anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy versus an EDP policy was $ 1.5 million per life-year gained, supporting EDP as the optimal choice. A 31-fold increase of EDP-related mortality or a 17-fold cost reduction for anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy was required for EDP to become not cost-effective in this scenario. Implementation of an EDP policy in France, within a guaiac-fecal occult blood test (g-FOBT) screening program, was estimated to save 0.8 billion in 10 years. Conclusions: The absolute economic benefit of EDP implementation in a screening setting is probably substantial with 10-year savings of $3.2 billion in the US and 0.8 billion in France. The impact of an eventual EDP-related mortality on EDP cost - effectiveness seems marginal. The huge economic and medical resources entailed by anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy could be more efficiently invested in other clinical fields.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)456-461
Number of pages6
JournalEndoscopy
Volume44
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2012

Fingerprint

Propofol
Early Detection of Cancer
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Colorectal Neoplasms
Colonoscopy
Costs and Cost Analysis
Medicare
Mortality
France
Anesthesiologists
Nurses
Insurance
Guaiac
Medical Economics
Occult Blood
Anesthesiology
Salaries and Fringe Benefits
Hematologic Tests
Censuses
Anesthetists

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Endoscopist-directed propofol administration versus anesthesiologist assistance for colorectal cancer screening : A cost-effectiveness analysis. / Hassan, C.; Rex, Douglas; Cooper, G. S.; Benamouzig, R.

In: Endoscopy, Vol. 44, No. 5, 2012, p. 456-461.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hassan, C. ; Rex, Douglas ; Cooper, G. S. ; Benamouzig, R. / Endoscopist-directed propofol administration versus anesthesiologist assistance for colorectal cancer screening : A cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Endoscopy. 2012 ; Vol. 44, No. 5. pp. 456-461.
@article{2f94b2498f054d3a8255d932accef382,
title = "Endoscopist-directed propofol administration versus anesthesiologist assistance for colorectal cancer screening: A cost-effectiveness analysis",
abstract = "Background: Propofol for colonoscopy is largely administered by anesthesiologists or anesthesiology nurses in the United States (US) and Europe. Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol (EDP) by nonanesthesiologists has recently been proposed, with potential savings of anesthetist reimbursement costs. We aimed to assess potential EDP-related benefit in a screening setting. Methods: In a Markov model the total number of screening and follow-up colonoscopies in a cohort of 100 000 US subjects were estimated. Anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy was compared with an EDP strategy. Model outputs were projected onto the 50 - 80-year-old US population, assuming 27 {\%} as the current uptake for colonoscopy screening. Anesthetist costs were estimated using the mean reimbursement for the corresponding Medicare code ( 65-year-olds) and from commercial insurance information (50 - 64-year-olds). The proportion of colonoscopies with anesthesiologist assistance was estimated from the Medicare database. Mean nurse salary was used to estimate the cost of a 2-week EDP training. The absolute number of US endoscopists was estimated by inflating by 33 {\%} the number of board-certified gastroenterologists. No EDP mortality was assumed in the reference scenario, and 0.0008 {\%} mortality in the sensitivity analysis. US census data were adopted. Analogous inputs were used for France to assess EDP-related benefit in a European country. Results: EDP training for 17 166 nurses (one for each US endoscopist) showed a cost of $ 47 million. Cost estimates for anesthesiologist assistance for colonoscopy were $ 95 (Medicare) and $ 450 (non-Medicare commercial insurance), with 34.8 {\%} of colonoscopies requiring anesthesiologist assistance. US implementation of an EDP policy showed a 10-year saving of $ 3.2 billion (Monte Carlo analysis 5 - 95 {\%} percentiles $ 2.7 - $ 11.9 billion). In the sensitivity analysis, assuming 50 {\%} of colonoscopies were anesthetist-assisted showed an EDP benefit of $ 4.6 billion. Assuming a 0.0008 {\%} mortality rate, the incremental cost - effectiveness of anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy versus an EDP policy was $ 1.5 million per life-year gained, supporting EDP as the optimal choice. A 31-fold increase of EDP-related mortality or a 17-fold cost reduction for anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy was required for EDP to become not cost-effective in this scenario. Implementation of an EDP policy in France, within a guaiac-fecal occult blood test (g-FOBT) screening program, was estimated to save 0.8 billion in 10 years. Conclusions: The absolute economic benefit of EDP implementation in a screening setting is probably substantial with 10-year savings of $3.2 billion in the US and 0.8 billion in France. The impact of an eventual EDP-related mortality on EDP cost - effectiveness seems marginal. The huge economic and medical resources entailed by anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy could be more efficiently invested in other clinical fields.",
author = "C. Hassan and Douglas Rex and Cooper, {G. S.} and R. Benamouzig",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1055/s-0032-1308936",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "456--461",
journal = "Endoscopy",
issn = "0013-726X",
publisher = "Georg Thieme Verlag",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endoscopist-directed propofol administration versus anesthesiologist assistance for colorectal cancer screening

T2 - A cost-effectiveness analysis

AU - Hassan, C.

AU - Rex, Douglas

AU - Cooper, G. S.

AU - Benamouzig, R.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Background: Propofol for colonoscopy is largely administered by anesthesiologists or anesthesiology nurses in the United States (US) and Europe. Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol (EDP) by nonanesthesiologists has recently been proposed, with potential savings of anesthetist reimbursement costs. We aimed to assess potential EDP-related benefit in a screening setting. Methods: In a Markov model the total number of screening and follow-up colonoscopies in a cohort of 100 000 US subjects were estimated. Anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy was compared with an EDP strategy. Model outputs were projected onto the 50 - 80-year-old US population, assuming 27 % as the current uptake for colonoscopy screening. Anesthetist costs were estimated using the mean reimbursement for the corresponding Medicare code ( 65-year-olds) and from commercial insurance information (50 - 64-year-olds). The proportion of colonoscopies with anesthesiologist assistance was estimated from the Medicare database. Mean nurse salary was used to estimate the cost of a 2-week EDP training. The absolute number of US endoscopists was estimated by inflating by 33 % the number of board-certified gastroenterologists. No EDP mortality was assumed in the reference scenario, and 0.0008 % mortality in the sensitivity analysis. US census data were adopted. Analogous inputs were used for France to assess EDP-related benefit in a European country. Results: EDP training for 17 166 nurses (one for each US endoscopist) showed a cost of $ 47 million. Cost estimates for anesthesiologist assistance for colonoscopy were $ 95 (Medicare) and $ 450 (non-Medicare commercial insurance), with 34.8 % of colonoscopies requiring anesthesiologist assistance. US implementation of an EDP policy showed a 10-year saving of $ 3.2 billion (Monte Carlo analysis 5 - 95 % percentiles $ 2.7 - $ 11.9 billion). In the sensitivity analysis, assuming 50 % of colonoscopies were anesthetist-assisted showed an EDP benefit of $ 4.6 billion. Assuming a 0.0008 % mortality rate, the incremental cost - effectiveness of anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy versus an EDP policy was $ 1.5 million per life-year gained, supporting EDP as the optimal choice. A 31-fold increase of EDP-related mortality or a 17-fold cost reduction for anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy was required for EDP to become not cost-effective in this scenario. Implementation of an EDP policy in France, within a guaiac-fecal occult blood test (g-FOBT) screening program, was estimated to save 0.8 billion in 10 years. Conclusions: The absolute economic benefit of EDP implementation in a screening setting is probably substantial with 10-year savings of $3.2 billion in the US and 0.8 billion in France. The impact of an eventual EDP-related mortality on EDP cost - effectiveness seems marginal. The huge economic and medical resources entailed by anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy could be more efficiently invested in other clinical fields.

AB - Background: Propofol for colonoscopy is largely administered by anesthesiologists or anesthesiology nurses in the United States (US) and Europe. Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol (EDP) by nonanesthesiologists has recently been proposed, with potential savings of anesthetist reimbursement costs. We aimed to assess potential EDP-related benefit in a screening setting. Methods: In a Markov model the total number of screening and follow-up colonoscopies in a cohort of 100 000 US subjects were estimated. Anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy was compared with an EDP strategy. Model outputs were projected onto the 50 - 80-year-old US population, assuming 27 % as the current uptake for colonoscopy screening. Anesthetist costs were estimated using the mean reimbursement for the corresponding Medicare code ( 65-year-olds) and from commercial insurance information (50 - 64-year-olds). The proportion of colonoscopies with anesthesiologist assistance was estimated from the Medicare database. Mean nurse salary was used to estimate the cost of a 2-week EDP training. The absolute number of US endoscopists was estimated by inflating by 33 % the number of board-certified gastroenterologists. No EDP mortality was assumed in the reference scenario, and 0.0008 % mortality in the sensitivity analysis. US census data were adopted. Analogous inputs were used for France to assess EDP-related benefit in a European country. Results: EDP training for 17 166 nurses (one for each US endoscopist) showed a cost of $ 47 million. Cost estimates for anesthesiologist assistance for colonoscopy were $ 95 (Medicare) and $ 450 (non-Medicare commercial insurance), with 34.8 % of colonoscopies requiring anesthesiologist assistance. US implementation of an EDP policy showed a 10-year saving of $ 3.2 billion (Monte Carlo analysis 5 - 95 % percentiles $ 2.7 - $ 11.9 billion). In the sensitivity analysis, assuming 50 % of colonoscopies were anesthetist-assisted showed an EDP benefit of $ 4.6 billion. Assuming a 0.0008 % mortality rate, the incremental cost - effectiveness of anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy versus an EDP policy was $ 1.5 million per life-year gained, supporting EDP as the optimal choice. A 31-fold increase of EDP-related mortality or a 17-fold cost reduction for anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy was required for EDP to become not cost-effective in this scenario. Implementation of an EDP policy in France, within a guaiac-fecal occult blood test (g-FOBT) screening program, was estimated to save 0.8 billion in 10 years. Conclusions: The absolute economic benefit of EDP implementation in a screening setting is probably substantial with 10-year savings of $3.2 billion in the US and 0.8 billion in France. The impact of an eventual EDP-related mortality on EDP cost - effectiveness seems marginal. The huge economic and medical resources entailed by anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy could be more efficiently invested in other clinical fields.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859933344&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84859933344&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1055/s-0032-1308936

DO - 10.1055/s-0032-1308936

M3 - Article

C2 - 22531982

AN - SCOPUS:84859933344

VL - 44

SP - 456

EP - 461

JO - Endoscopy

JF - Endoscopy

SN - 0013-726X

IS - 5

ER -