Cost-Effectiveness: Seeking Value for Money in Lower Extremity Wound Management

Abstract

This article discusses the different methods of evaluating cost in relation to the outcomes of treatment, and reviews the evidence of cost-effectiveness (CE) in the management of chronic leg ulceration. In essence, the CE argument revolves around the need to demonstrate outcomes of treatment in relation to particular levels of financial input by the health providers. High CE allows for either the same number of patients to be treatedmore efficiently (at a lower cost) ormore patients to be treated for the same financial input. Areview ofmedical and nursing databases (Medline, Embase, and Cinahl) identified studies of CE of dressing materials (n = 8), use of compression therapy (n = 4), and other treatments (n = 2). In addition, 5 research groups have undertaken studies to evaluate the relative CE of different systems of care. Overall conclusionsare that modern wound dressings provide a more costeffective alternative to saline gauze, whereas the evidence relating to the use of tissue-engineered skin is less clear. The use of compression bandaging is substantially more costeffective when compared with a system of care where compression is not systematically offered. The systems that offer compression are not only cost-effective but also lead to reductions in absolute cost. The evaluation of CE is likely to become an ever-increasing part of wound care evaluation as we strive to achieve greater efficiency in the use of scarce health resources.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Franks PJ, Morgan PA. Health related quality of life with chronic leg ulceration. Exp Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2003;3(5):89-100.

2. Ohlsson P, Larsson K, Lindholm C, Moller M. Acost-effectiveness study of leg ulcer treatment in primary care. Comparison of salinegauze and hydrocolloid treatment in a prospective, randomised study. Scand J Health Care 1994;12(4):295-299.

3. Harding K, Cutting K, Price P. The cost effectiveness of wound management protocols. Br J Nurs 2000;9(Suppl 19):S6-S24.

4. Meaume S, Gemmen E. Cost-effectiveness of wound management in France: pressure ulcers and venous leg ulcers. JWound Care 2002;11(6):219-224.

5. Kerstein MD, Gemmen E, van Rijswick L, et al. Cost and cost effectiveness of venous and pressure ulcer protocols of care. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2001;9(11):651-663.

6. Bale S, Hagelstein S, Banks V, Harding KG. Costs of dressings in the community. J Wound Care 1998;7(7):327-330.

7. Armstrong SH, Ruckley CV. Use of a fibrous dressing in exuding leg ulcers. J Wound Care 1997;6(7):322-324.

8. Harding KG, Price P, Robinson B, Thomas S, Hofman D. Cost and dressing evaluation of hydrofiber and alginate dressings in the management of community based patients with chronic leg ulceration. Wounds 2001;13(6):229-236.

9. Schonfeld WH, Villa KF, Fastenau JM, Mazonson PD, Falanga V. An economic assessment of Apligraf (Graftskin) for the treatment of hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers. Wound Repair Regen 2000;8:251-257.

10.

10. Sibbald RG, Torrance GW, Walker V, Attard C, Mac Neil P. Costeffectiveness of Apligraf in the treatment of venous leg ulcers. Ostomy/Wound Manage 2001;47(8):36-46.

11.

11. Cullum N, Nelson EA, Fletcher AW, Sheldon TA. Compression for venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;(2):CD000265.

12.

12. Carr L, Phillips Z, Posnett J. Comparative cost-effectiveness of four-layer bandaging in the treatment of venous ulceration. JWound Care 1999;8(5):243-248.

13.

13. O’Brien JF, Grace PA, Perry IJ, Hannigan A, Clarke Maloney M, Burke PE. Randomized clinical trial and economic analysis of fourlayer compression bandaging for venous ulcers. Br J Surg 2003;90:794-798.

14.

14. Moffatt CJ, Mc Cullagh L, O’Connor T, et al. Randomized trial of four layer and two-layer bandage systems in the management of chronic venous ulceration. Wound Repair Regen 2003;11:166-171.

15.

15. Korn P, Patel ST, Heller JA, et al. Why insurers should reimburse for compression stockings in patients with chronic venous statis ulcers. J Vasc Surg 2002;35(5):950-957.

16.

16. Glinski W, Chodynicka B, Roszkiewicz J, et al. The beneficial augmentative effect of micronised purified flavinoid fraction (MPFF) on the healing of leg ulcers: an open, multicentre, controlled, randomised study. Phlebology 1999;14:151-157.

17.

17. Wayman J, Nirojogi V, Walker A, Sowinski A, Walker MA. The cost effectiveness of larval therapy in venous ulcers. J Tissue Viabil 2000;10(3):91-94.

18.

18. Moffatt CJ, Franks PJ, Oldroyd M, et al. Community leg ulcer clinics and impact on healing. Br Med J 1992;305:1389-1392.

19.

19. Bosanquet N, Franks P, Moffatt C, et al. Community leg ulcer clinics: cost effectiveness. Health Trends 1993;25:146-148.

20.

20. Simon DA, Freak L, Kinsella A, et al. Community leg ulcer clinics: comparative study in two health authorities. Br Med J 1996;312:1648-1651.

21.

21. Ellison DA, Hayes L, Lane C, Tracey A, Mc Collum CN. Evaluating the cost and efficacy of leg ulcer care provided in two large UK health authorities. J Wound Care 2002;11(2):47-51.

22.

22. Morrell CJ, Walters SJ, Dixon S, et al. Cost effectiveness of community leg ulcer clinics: randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 1998;316:1487-1491.

23.

23. Kerstein MD, Gahtan V. Outcomes of venous ulcer care: results of a longitudinal study. Ostomy/Wound Manage 2000;46(6):22-29.

24.

24. Oien RF, Hakansson A, Ahnlide I, Bjellerup M, Hansen BU, Borgquist L. Pinch skin grafting in hospital and primary care: a cost analysis. J Wound Care 2001;10(5):164-169.

25.

25. Atun R, Shah S, Bosanquet N. The medical devices Sector: coming out of the shadow. Eur Bus J 2002;14:63-72.