Valenzuela-Flores AG, Valenzuela-Flores AA, Arreola-Ornelas H, Calderón-Orozco I, Valdés-Durón JC, Pérez-Campos JP

Language: Spanish
References: 30
Page: 175-181
PDF size: 134.43 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical care in a hospital under a socialized medicine system should be highly effective at the lowest expense possible. When myocardial perfusion studies are performed in well-selected patients, the costs decrease because of the need for fewer invasive studies. When patients are not selected properly, there is an increase-wasted resource, making it necessary to perform cost-effective studies. The goal of this study is to evaluate the economical impact of the diagnostic process in patients suspected of having coronary artery disease, referred to our service (Nuclear Medicine, Hospital de Cardiología CMN, IMSS) in 2002.
Methods: We analyzed 1966 reports of myocardial gammagrams. Patient reports were stratified according to their referring unit. The sum of the unitary fixed cost was converted to the unitary cost for each reason for referral. Kappa was used to evaluate concordance.
Results: Patients were 62 ± 11.39 years old, 52% male. Concordance between the referring diagnosis and the myocardial gammagram was ‹1% (p ‹0.001). The cost of cardiac gammagrams varied between $2,613.11 and $3,306.77 (Mexican pesos). Waste was calculated at 30%, which represented $1.8 million (Mexican pesos).
Conclusions: Cost-effective studies are important tools in the administration of resources. In this particular case the results indicate the necessity for systematic registration of financial information, periodic review of operation costs by service, and criteria for use of high-cost services.

REFERENCES

1. 1 Murray CJ, Lopez AD. Alternative projections of mortality and disability by cause 1990-2020: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 1997;349:1498-1504.

2. 2.American Heart Association 2002 Heart and Stroke Statistical Update. Dallas, TX: American Heart Association;2001.

3. 3.Philbin E, McCullough P, DiSalvo T, et al. Socioeconomic status is an important determinant of the use of invasive procedures after acute myocardial infarction in New York State. Circulation 2002;102 (suppl):107-115.

4. Deedwania P, Amsterdam E, Vagelos R. Evidence-based, cost-effective risk stratification and management after myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:273-280.

5. Montagne O, Chaniz C, Harf A, et al. Costs for acute myocardial infarction in a tertiary care centre and nationwide in France. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17:1-10.

6. Pharmaeconomic news from the European Society of Cardiology meeting. Inpharma Weekly 2001;1314: 6-7. Stockholm, Sweden. September 2001.

7. Cruz C, Álvarez F, Frenk J. Las cuentas nacionales de salud y el financiamiento de los servicios. México: Funsalud;1994.

8. Organización de Cooperación y Desarrollo Económico, Sistema de Cuentas Nacionales de Salud. OECD;2000.

9. http://www.salud.gob.mx

10. 10.Estadísticas de recursos financieros públicos para la salud en México;2001. Salud Pública Mex 2003;45:221-235.

11. 11.Arredondo A, Meléndez V. Modelos explicativos sobre la utilización de servicios de salud: revisión y análisis. Salud Publica Mex 1992;34:36-49.

12. 12.Wilson PW, D’Agostino RB, Levy D. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk categories. Circulation 1998;97:1837-1847.

13. 13.Eisentein E, Peterson E, Jollis J, et al. Evaluation the potential economic attractiveness of new therapies in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. Pharmaeconomics 2000;17: 263-272.

14. 14.Lázaro O, Pozo F, Rico JR. Una estrategia de investigación en el sistema nacional de salud. II. Investigación en servicios de salud. Med Clin (Barc) 1995;104:67-76.

15. 15.Gibbons RJ, Balady GJ, Bricker JT. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: summary article. A report of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Exercise Testing Guidelines. Circulation 2002;106:1883.

16. 16.Prvulovich E. Nuclear cardiology. Br J Health Med 1997;57:23-26.

17. 17.Drummond MF, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Métodos para la evaluación económica de los programas de asistencia sanitaria. Segunda edición. España: Díaz de Santos;2001.

18. 18.Tan-Torres T, Baltussen R, Adam T, et al. Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Geneva: WHO;2003.

19. 19.Drummond M, Stoddard G, Labelle R, et al. Health economics: an introduction for clinicians. Ann Intern Med 1987;107:88-92.

20. 20.Marteau SA, Perego LH. Modelo del costo basado en la actividad aplicado a consultas por trazadores de enfermedades cardiovasculares. Salud Publica Mex 2001;43:32-40.

21. 21.Borges-Yánez SA, Gómez-Dantes H. Uso de los servicios de salud por la población de 60 años y más en México. Salud Publica Mex 1998;40:13-23.

22. 22.Durán-Arenas L, Sánchez R, Vallejo M, Carreón J, Franco F. Financiamiento de la atención a la salud de la población de la tercera edad. Salud Publica Mex 1996;38:501512.

23. 23.Donabedian A. Prioridades para el progreso en la evaluación y monitoreo de la calidad de la atención. Salud Publica Mex 1993;35: 94-97.

24. 24.Ruelas BE, Zurita GB. Nuevos horizontes de la calidad de la atención a la salud. Salud Publica Mex 1993;35:3.

25. 25.Materson BJ, Quintana O. El costo de la garantía de calidad. Salud Publica Mex 1993;35:305-310.

26. 26.Ruelas-Barajas E. Calidad, productividad y costos. Salud Publica Mex 1993;35:298-304.

27. 27.Musgrove P. La eficacia en función de los costos y la reforma del sector salud. Salud Publica Mex 1995;37:363-374.

28. 28.Arredondo A, De Icaza E. Una aproximación al estudio de costos de servicios de salud en México. Salud Publica Mex 1995;37:437-445.

29. 29.Arredondo A, Damián T. Costos económicos en la producción de servicios de salud: del costo de los insumos al costo de manejo de caso. Salud Publica Mex 1997;39:117-124.

30. 30.Probstfield J. How cost-effective are new preventive strategies for cardiovascular disease? Am J Cardiol 2003;91(10A):22G-27G.