Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of medical migration for chronic kidney disease: a national cross-sectional study in China.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The phenomenon of medical migration is common in China. Due to the limited capacity and substantial geographical variation in medical practice, patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) travel more frequently to seek medical care. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of medical migration for CKD patients in China and provide real-world evidence for the allocation of CKD resources.

Methods

Records of patients with CKD between January 2014 and December 2018 were extracted from a large national database. A patient is defined as a medical migrant if she travelled across the provincial border to a non-residential province to be admitted for inpatient care. The propensity score matching method is used to estimate the effect of medical migration on medical expenditure, length of hospital stay, and in-hospital mortality. The cost-effectiveness is evaluated by comparing the estimated cost per life saved with contemporaneous estimates of the value of a statistical life.

Results

Among 4,392,650 hospitalizations with CKD, medical migrants accounted for 4.9% in 2018. Migrant patients were estimated to incur a 26.35% increase in total medical expenditure, experience a 0.24-percentage-points reduction in in-hospital mortality rates, and a 0.49-days reduction in length of hospital stay compared to non-migrant patients. Overall, medical migration among CKD patients incurred an average of 1 million yuan per life saved, which accounted for 20-40% of contemporaneous estimates of the value of a statistical life. Compared with migrant patients with self-payment and commercial insurance, migrant patients with public health insurance (urban basic medical insurance and new rural co-operative medical care) incurred lower cost per life saved. Cost per life saved for CKD patients was similar between female and male, lower among older population, and varied substantially across regions.

Conclusions

The medical care seeking behaviors of CKD patients was prominent and medical resources of kidney care were unevenly allocated across regions. Medical migration led to a reduction in mortality, but was associated with higher medical expenditure. It is imperative to reduce the regional disparity of medical resources and improve the clinical capacity. Our study shows that it is imperative to prioritize resource allocation toward improving kidney health and regional health care planning.

SUBMITTER: Ao Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9281168 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the attitudes of physicians and trainees in regard to the roles of both cost-effectiveness and equity in clinical decision making.DesignIn this cross-sectional study, electronic surveys containing a hypothetical decision-making scenario were sent to medical professionals to select between two colon cancer screening tests for a population.SettingThree Greater Boston academic medical institutions: Tufts University School of Medicine, Tufts Medical Centre and Lahey Hospital and Medical Centre.Participants819 medical students, 497 residents-in-training and 671 practising physicians were contacted electronically using institutional and organisational directories.Main outcomes and measuresStratified opinions of medical providers and trainee subgroups regarding cost-effectiveness and equity.ResultsA total of 881 respondents comprising 512 medical students, 133 medical residents-in-training and 236 practising physicians completed the survey (total response rate 44.3%). Thirty-six per cent of medical students, 44% of residents-in-training and 53% of practising physicians favoured the less effective and more equitable screening test. Residents-in-training (OR 1.49, CI 1.01 to 2.21; p=0.044) and practising physicians (OR 2.12, CI 1.54 to 2.92; p<0.001) were more likely to favour the equitable option compared with medical students. Moreover, female responders across all three cohorts favoured the more equitable screening test to a greater degree than did male responders (OR 1.70, CI 1.29 to 2.24; p<0.001).ConclusionsCost-effectiveness analysis does not accurately reflect the importance that medical professionals place on equity. Among medical professionals, practising physicians appear to be more egalitarian than residents-in-training, while medical students appear to be most utilitarian and cost-effective. Meanwhile, female respondents in all three cohorts favoured the more equitable option to a greater degree than their male counterparts. Healthcare policies that trade off equity in favour of cost-effectiveness may be unacceptable to many medical professionals, especially practising physicians and women.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare professionals are exposed to advertisements for prescription drugs in medical journals. Such advertisements may increase prescriptions of new drugs at the expense of older treatments even when they have no added benefits, are more harmful, and are more expensive. The publication of medical advertisements therefore raises ethical questions related to editorial integrity.MethodsWe conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study of all medical advertisements published in the Journal of the Danish Medical Association in 2015. Drugs advertised 6 times or more were compared with older comparators: (1) comparative evidence of added benefit; (2) Defined Daily Dose cost; (3) regulatory safety announcements; and (4) completed and ongoing post-marketing studies 3 years after advertising.ResultsWe found 158 medical advertisements for 35 prescription drugs published in 24 issues during 2015, with a median of 7 advertisements per issue (range 0 to 11). Four drug groups and 5 single drugs were advertised 6 times or more, for a total of 10 indications, and we made 14 comparisons with older treatments. We found: (1) 'no added benefit' in 4 (29%) of 14 comparisons, 'uncertain benefits' in 7 (50%), and 'no evidence' in 3 (21%) comparisons. In no comparison did we find evidence of 'substantial added benefit' for the new drug; (2) advertised drugs were 2 to 196 times (median 6) more expensive per Defined Daily Dose; (3) 11 safety announcements for five advertised drugs were issued compared to one announcement for one comparator drug; (4) 20 post-marketing studies (7 completed, 13 ongoing) were requested for the advertised drugs versus 10 studies (4 completed, 6 ongoing) for the comparator drugs, and 7 studies (2 completed, 5 ongoing) assessed both an advertised and a comparator drug at 3 year follow-up.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of medical advertisements published in the Journal of the Danish Medical Association during 2015, the most advertised drugs did not have documented substantial added benefits over older treatments, whereas they were substantially more expensive. From January 2021, the Journal of the Danish Medical Association no longer publishes medical advertisements.

Project description:ImportanceBilling errors and healthcare fraud have been described by the WHO as 'the last great unreduced health-care cost'. Estimates suggest that 7% of global health expenditure (US$487?billion) is wasted from this phenomenon. Irrespective of different payment models, challenges exist at the interface of medical billing and medical practice across the globe. Medical billing education has been cited as an effective preventative strategy, with targeted education saving $A250?million in Australia in 1?year from an estimated $A1-3?billion of waste.ObjectiveThis study attempts to systematically map all avenues of medical practitioner education on medical billing in Australia and explores the perceptions of medical education stakeholders on this topic.DesignNational cross-sectional survey between April 2014 and June 2015. No patient or public involvement. Data analysis-descriptive statistics via frequency distributions.ParticipantsAll stakeholders who educate medical practitioners regarding clinical practice (n=66). 86% responded.ResultsThere is little medical billing education occurring in Australia. The majority of stakeholders (70%, n=40) did not offer/have never offered a medical billing course. 89% thought medical billing should be taught, including 30% (n=17) who were already teaching it. There was no consensus on when medical billing education should occur.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first attempt of any country to map the ways doctors learn the complex legal and administrative infrastructure in which they work. Consistent with US findings, Australian doctors may not have expected legal and administrative literacy. Rather than reliance on ad hoc training, development of an Australian medical billing curriculum should be encouraged to improve compliance, expedite judicial processes and reduce waste. In the absence of adequate education, disciplinary bodies in all countries must consider pleas of ignorance by doctors under investigation, where appropriate, for incorrect medical billing.