Cost Analysis and Utilization of Weight Bearing CT

• Published in: Foot & ankle orthopaedics Vol. 7; no. 1; p. 2473011421S00075
• Main Authors: Alexander, Nathaniel B., Bettin, Clayton C., Sarfani, Shumaila, Strickland, Carson D., Richardson, David R., Murphy, G. Andrew, Grear, Benjamin J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.01.2022; Sage Publications Ltd; SAGE Publishing
• Subjects: Ankle; Cost analysis; Medicare; Pathology; Reimbursement; Scanners; United States > US; Cost Effectiveness; Weight Bearing CT; Cost
• DOI: 10.1177/2473011421S00075
• ISSN: 2473-0114

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: Weightbearing Computed Tomography (WB CT) is becoming a valuable tool in the evaluation and understanding of foot and ankle pathology. With this, more practices may be interested in acquiring WB CT scanners and understanding cost effectiveness of acquisition. To date there are currently no US based reports of cost analysis of WB CT scanners. Our study is a cost analysis of WB CT at tertiary referral physician owned practice. Methods: Data was collected for all patients who underwent imaging utilizing a weight bearing CT scanner at our institution from the date of acquisition in 2016. For ease of analysis and applicability of information across orthopedic practices, Medicare reimbursement was used as a uniform estimation of reimbursement across all insurances at a rate of $163.50 per scan. We then compared the number of scans obtained per month to total costs related to acquiring and maintaining the WB CT machine. Secondary variables collected included patient demographic information, pathology location (forefoot, midfoot, hindfoot), and utilization of the device by subspecialty. Results: A WB CT scanner was acquired by a private group in 2016. A proforma analysis demonstrated $179,000 to acquire the machine, $30,000 for extended warranty, $995 for additional licenses. Between August 2016 and February 2021, 1702 unilateral studies and 100 bilateral studies were performed. Patients ranged in age from 6 to 92. Average age was 45 years with 45.9% male and 54.1% female. Forty-one staff utilized the CT scanner from various subspecialties with 5 Foot and Ankle (F&A) surgeons ordering 80% of scans. When dividing total costs by number of months since acquisition the monthly cost of the device is $3,318 which requires 20 scans per month when using Medicare reimbursement rates. Over a 55 month the average number of scans per month is 34. When dividing the cost of acquisition by reimbursement per scan, the breakeven point was 1,284 scans which occurred at approximately 3 years. Conclusion: As WB CT scans become a valuable tool for the analysis of foot and ankle pathology, groups may be interested in understanding the financial implications of such an investment. Our study is the only cost analysis based in the United States of WB CT. We found that WB CT is a cost-effective tool that can be used to evaluate a number or pathologies in the foot and ankle.