Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Research Article
27 November 2019

Employer-perspective cost comparison of surgical treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding

Authors: Jeffrey D Miller [email protected], Machaon M Bonafede, Scott K Pohlman, Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh, and Kathleen A TroegerAuthor Info & Affiliations
Volume 9, Number 1
https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2019-0102
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: To estimate direct and indirect costs of surgical treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) from a self-insured employer's perspective. Methods: Employer-sponsored insurance claims data were analyzed to estimate costs owing to absence and short-term disability 1 year following global endometrial ablation (GEA), outpatient hysterectomy (OPH) and inpatient hysterectomy (IPH). Results: Costs for women who had GEA are substantially less than costs for women who had either OPH or IPH, with the difference ranging from approximately $7700 to approximately $10,000 for direct costs and approximately $4200 to approximately $4600 for indirect costs. Women who had GEA missed 21.8–24.0 fewer works days. Conclusion: Study results suggest lower healthcare costs associated with GEA versus OPH or IPH from a self-insured employer perspective.

Lay abstract

This study shows lower costs from an employer's perspective for treating abnormal uterine bleeding with global endometrial ablation versus inpatient and outpatient hysterectomy. Total direct and indirect cost savings associated with global endometrial ablation in the year following intervention are estimated to be as much as $15,000. Healthcare providers should be aware that choice about the type of surgical treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding impacts a woman's work attendance and the cost burden to her employer.

Formats available

You can view the full content in the following formats:

View PDFView Full Text

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Frequently asked questions, gynecologic problems: abnormal uterine bleeding. patient education pamphlet, FAQ095 (2017). www.acog.org/Patients/FAQs/Abnormal-Uterine-Bleeding
Google Scholar
2.
Liu Z, Doan QV, Blumenthal P, Dubois RW. A systematic review evaluating health-related quality of life, work impairment, and health-care costs and utilization in abnormal uterine bleeding. Value Health 10(3), 183–194 (2007).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Provides widely cited estimates of the annual direct costs of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) in the USA, ranging from $1 to $1.55 billion (2005 USD) and indirect costs ranging from $12 to $36 billion (2005 USD).
3.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Bleeding disorders in women: heavy menstrual bleeding (2017). www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/blooddisorders/women/menorrhagia.html
Google Scholar
4.
Whitaker L, Critchley HO. Abnormal uterine bleeding. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 34, 54–65 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.
Matteson KA, Raker CA, Clark MA, Frick KD. Abnormal uterine bleeding, health status, and usual source of medical care: analyses using the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey. J. Womens Health (Larchmt.) 22(11), 959–965 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Fraser IS, Langham S, Uhl-Hochgraeber K. The health-related quality of life and economic burden of abnormal uterine bleeding: a critical review. Expert Rev. Obstet. Gynecol. 4, 179–189 (2009).
Google Scholar
7.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Heavy menstrual bleeding: assessment and management. NICE Guideline NG88 (2018). www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng88/resources/heavy-menstrual-bleeding-assessment-and-management-pdf-1837701412549
Google Scholar
8.
Frick KD, Clark MA, Steinwachs DM et al. Financial and quality-of-life burden of dysfunctional uterine bleeding among women agreeing to obtain surgical treatment. Womens Health Issues 19(1), 70–78 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Estimates that women with AUB prior to surgery with hysterectomy or global endometrial ablation (GEA) miss about 4.5 h of paid work per month, resulting in an annual cost of $842 (2007 USD).
9.
Côté I, Jacobs P, Cumming D. Work loss associated with increased menstrual loss in the United States. Obstet. Gynecol. 100(4), 683–687 (2002).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Estimated that employed women with AUB would work 6.9% less, or 3.6 fewer weeks per year, with an average work loss cost attributable to AUB of $1692 (2000 USD) annually per woman.
10.
Miller JD, Bonafede MM, Cai Q, Pohlman SK, Troeger KA, Cholkeri-Singh A. Economic evaluation of global endometrial ablation versus inpatient and outpatient hysterectomy for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding: US commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives. Popul. Health. Manag. 21(S1), S1–S12 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Robust economic modeling analyses with results suggesting strong financial favorability for GEA versus outpatient hysterectomy or inpatient hysterectomy from both the commercial and Medicaid perspectives.
11.
Bonafede MM, Miller JD, Lukes A, Meyer NM, Lenhart GM. Comparison of direct and indirect costs of abnormal uterine bleeding treatment with global endometrial ablation and hysterectomy. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 4(2), 115–122 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Similar study using older data but drawing similar conclusions about the relative value of GEA compared with hysterectomy in terms of direct and indirect costs.
12.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG committee opinion no. 557: management of acute abnormal uterine bleeding in nonpregnant reproductive-aged women. Obstet. Gynecol. 121(4), 891–896 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Oehler MK, Rees MC. Menorrhagia: an update. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 82, 405–422 (2003).
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.
Apgar BS, Kaufman AH, George-Nwogu U, Kittendorf A. Treatment of menorrhagia. Am. Fam. Physician 75(12), 1813–1819 (2007).
PubMed
Google Scholar
15.
Stovall DW. Alternatives to hysterectomy: focus on global endometrial ablation, uterine fibroid embolization, and magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound. Menopause 18(4), 437–444 (2011).
PubMed
Google Scholar
16.
Munro MG. Endometrial ablation. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 46, 120–139 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
17.
Billow MR, El-Nashar SA. Management of abnormal uterine bleeding with emphasis on alternatives to hysterectomy. Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. N. Am. 43(3), 415–430 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
Laberge P, Leyland N, Murji A et al. Endometrial ablation in the management of abnormal uterine bleeding. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 37(4), 362–379 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
19.
Jensen JT, Lefebvre P, Laliberté F et al. Cost burden and treatment patterns associated with management of heavy menstrual bleeding. J. Womens Health (Larchmt.) 21, 539–547 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Estimated AUB-attributable work-loss cost (including sick leave and disability costs) at only $74 per year.
20.
Wasiak R, Filonenko A, Vanness DJ et al. Impact of estradiol-valerate/dienogest on work productivity and activities of daily living in European and Australian women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Int. J. Womens Health 4, 271–278 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.
Wasiak R, Filonenko A, Vanness DJ et al. Impact of estradiol valerate/dienogest on work productivity and activities of daily living in women with heavy menstrual bleeding. J. Womens Health (Larchmt.) 22(4), 378–384 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
IBM Watson Health. White paper: IBM MarketScan Research Databases for health services researchers (2019). www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/6KNYVVQ2
Google Scholar
24.
Berger ML, Murray JF, Xu J, Pauly M. Alternative valuations of work loss and productivity. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 43(1), 18–24 (2001).
PubMed
Google Scholar
25.
Pauly MV, Nicholson S, Xu J et al. A general model of the impact of absenteeism on employers and employees. Health Econ. 11(3), 221–231 (2002).
PubMed
Google Scholar
26.
Mattke S, Balakrishnan A, Bergamo G, Newberry SJ. A review of methods to measure health-related productivity loss. Am. J. Manag. Care 13(4), 211–217 (2007).
PubMed
Google Scholar
27.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. News Release (19 July 2017), ‘Usual weekly earnings of wage and salary workers, second quarter 2017’ (2017). www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/wkyeng_07192017.pdf
Google Scholar
28.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject: Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics Survey (National), Series CS0500000002, “Average weekly hours of all employees, total private, seasonally adjusted” (December 2017 data extracted on 13 March 2018) (2018). https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000002
Google Scholar
29.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employee benefits survey, ‘Table 26. Short-term disability plans: fixed percent of annual earnings, private industry workers’ (March 2017) (2017). www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2017/ownership/private/table26a.pdf
Google Scholar
30.
Famuyide AO, Laughlin-Tommaso SK, Shazly SA et al. Medical therapy versus radiofrequency endometrial ablation in the initial treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (iTOM Trial): a clinical and economic analysis. PLoS ONE 12(11), e0188176 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Estimated 1-year indirect costs (i.e., wages lost) specifically from reduced work days due to menstrual issues for women who had medical therapy or radiofrequency endometrial ablation were only $227 and $14, respectively.
31.
Cooper K, McCormack K, Breeman S et al. HEALTH: laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus second-generation endometrial ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 19(1), 63 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
32.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Women in the labor force: a databook. Report 1071 (November 2017) (2017). www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2017/home.htm
Google Scholar
33.
Fronstin P. Self-insured health plans: recent trends by firm size, 1996–2015. Employee Benefit Research Institute Notes 37(7), 2–6 (2016). www.ebri.org/pdf/notespdf/EBRI_Notes_07-no7-July16.Self-Ins.pdf
Google Scholar
34.
Spencer JC, Louie M, Moulder JK et al. Cost-effectiveness of treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 217(5), 574.e1–574.e9 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
35.
Roberts TE, Tsourapas A, Middleton LJ et al. Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation, and levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 342, d2202 (2011).
PubMed
Google Scholar
36.
Gibson TB, Maclean RJ, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM, Baigel C. Value-based insurance design: benefits beyond cost and utilization. Am. J. Manag. Care 21(1), 32–35 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
37.
Robinson JC. Applying value-based insurance design to high-cost health services. Health Aff. (Millwood) 29(11), 2009–2016 (2010).
PubMed
Google Scholar
|