A performance and theoretical cost analysis of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration in a UK tertiary respiratory centre

• Published in: QJM : An International Journal of Medicine Vol. 102; no. 12; pp. 859 - 864
• Main Authors: Medford, A.R.L., Agrawal, S., Free, C.M., Bennett, J.A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Oxford University Press 01.12.2009
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Biopsy, Needle - methods; Bronchoscopy; Costs and Cost Analysis; Endosonography - economics; Endosonography - methods; Female; General aspects; Humans; Lung Neoplasms - diagnosis; Male; Medical sciences; Predictive Value of Tests; Prospective Studies; Sensitivity and Specificity; Ultrasonography, Interventional - economics; United Kingdom; United Kingdom; Europe; Sonography; Guidance; Medicine; Respiratory tract; Aspiration; Health economy; Needle; Echography; Performance analysis; Cost analysis; Respiratory system; Ultrasound
• ISSN: 1460-2725; 1460-2393
• DOI: 10.1093/qjmed/hcp136

Background: New innovative techniques can improve patient care but may not be appropriately funded. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS) offers a minimally invasive mediastinal staging and diagnostic method for suspected lung cancer. Aim: We report the performance and cost analysis of a newly established EBUS service in a prospective real world cohort of patients to assess the impact of Payment by Results (PbR). Design: Prospective cohort study. Methods: Fifty-four patients between June 2008 and April 2009 underwent EBUS for evaluation of unexplained mediastinal lymphadenopathy on CT. Cost analysis was performed from local Trust financial data and 2008–09 tariffs. Results: EBUS had an 89% sensitivity, 75% negative predictive value and 92% accuracy for malignancy. EBUS coding was inaccurate in 15.6% of cases. The actual cost of an EBUS is £1252–1433 but is coded as a standard bronchoscopy (£561). EBUS reduces health community costs by £107824/year, as a result of a Primary Care Trust cost saving of £113968/year and a Trust cost deficit of £6144/year. Coding inaccuracies further alter the Primary Care Trust costs. Conclusions: Medical innovation is fundamental to improved patient care. EBUS can potentially reduce morbidity for lung cancer patients and save health community costs. However, with PbR the service provider delivers this at a loss as the tariffs do not reflect innovation and because of coding inaccuracies. We suggest tariffs for innovative procedures need to reflect the true cost.