Muralikrishnan R, Venkatesh R, Prajna N Venkatesh, Frick Kevin D
Lions Aravind Institute of Community Ophthalmology 72, Kuruvikaran Salai Gandhi Nagar, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2004 Dec;11(5):369-80. doi: 10.1080/09286580490888762.
To estimate the direct and indirect costs of three cataract surgery procedures: extracapsular cataract extraction with intra-ocular lens implantation (ECCE-IOL), phacoemulsification (PHACO) and manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) using economic costing principles in a well-established eye care programme (Aravind Eye Hospital) in Tamil Nadu, South India during 2000-01. Previous literature suggests that PHACO and MSICS have similar effectiveness.
The average unit cost for each surgical procedure was calculated from the societal perspective using economic costing methods. Total annual provider's direct costs for each input to surgery were calculated and apportioned appropriately to different cataract surgery techniques using a 'micro-costing approach'. The patient's direct and indirect costs for each procedure were calculated by interviewing staff and patients and by using assumptions about prices for relevant cost items such as transportation, food, medicine, spectacles and economic productivity loss.
Average provider's direct costs were highest for PHACO procedures (25.55 US dollars) compared to MSICS (17.03 US dollars) and ECCE-IOL (16.25 US dollars). The difference can be attributed to the cost of equipment and materials. Average direct and indirect patient costs were highest for ECCE-IOL (19.85 US dollars), while the costs for PHACO and MSICS were identical (12.37 US dollars). ECCE-IOL had the highest total costs and MSICS had the lowest total costs from the societal perspective.
Our results suggest that MSICS may have a lower societal cost than other options. Government and NGO hospitals providing cataract surgeries should invest in regular cost analyses, reviews of the literature on effectiveness, and formal cost-effectiveness analyses in order to plan economically efficient interventions. Considering the small incremental cost for providers (less than 1 US dollar), improved outcomes, and lower patient costs, we also believe that MSICS is an important technique to use in efforts to eliminate cataract blindness in India and this result may be generalised to other developing countries.
运用经济成本核算原则,估算2000 - 2001年期间印度南部泰米尔纳德邦一家成熟的眼科护理项目(阿拉文德眼科医院)中三种白内障手术的直接和间接成本,这三种手术分别是:囊外白内障摘除联合人工晶状体植入术(ECCE - IOL)、超声乳化白内障吸除术(PHACO)和手法小切口白内障手术(MSICS)。既往文献表明,PHACO和MSICS的效果相似。
从社会角度,采用经济成本核算方法计算每种手术的平均单位成本。运用“微观成本核算方法”计算每年每种手术投入的供应商直接成本总额,并将其合理分摊到不同的白内障手术技术中。通过与工作人员和患者访谈,并对交通、食品、药品、眼镜等相关成本项目的价格以及经济生产力损失进行假设,计算每种手术患者的直接和间接成本。
与MSICS(17.03美元)和ECCE - IOL(16.25美元)相比,PHACO手术的供应商平均直接成本最高(25.55美元)。差异可归因于设备和材料成本。ECCE - IOL的患者平均直接和间接成本最高(19.85美元),而PHACO和MSICS的成本相同(12.37美元)。从社会角度看,ECCE - IOL的总成本最高,MSICS的总成本最低。
我们的结果表明,MSICS的社会成本可能低于其他选择。提供白内障手术的政府和非政府组织医院应定期进行成本分析、审查有效性文献,并进行正式的成本效益分析,以便规划经济高效的干预措施。考虑到供应商的增量成本较小(不到1美元)、效果改善以及患者成本降低,我们还认为MSICS是印度消除白内障致盲努力中一种重要的技术,这一结果可能适用于其他发展中国家。