Second Opinions before Surgery Have the Potential to Reduce Costs – An Exploratory Analysis

Abstract

Aim In this study cost data of patientʼs first and second opinion of a German second opinion program of patients with orthopedic indications are raised and compared.

Methods Anonymized patient data were used from a second opinion program gathered in the period from 2013 to 2015. Costs of the first and second opinion were raised using DRG, the EBM catalog, the remuneration agreement on physical therapy and the price of drugs. In order to increase transferability, initial therapy recommendation and second opinion were compared in a cost analysis to determine a theoretical savings potential.

Results A total of 170 consecutive patients with orthopedic indication and first and second opinion were analyzed in this study. Only one out of three initial therapy recommendations was confirmed by the second opinion. In the second opinion, physiotherapy and pain therapy were often suggested for indications which received a surgery referral by the initial therapy recommendation. In scenario 1 (average resource use), the costs of the first therapy recommendation in median was 5020.96 € (IQR = 961.71 – 7342.66), the second opinion was 322.07 € (IQR = 146.39 – 1341.32). In median, the operation costs of the initial therapy recommendation were equal to 156.12 physiotherapeutic sessions and 26.02 N3 packs Ibuprofen 800.

Conclusion Therapy costs for the initial therapy recommendation are clearly exceeding the therapy costs of the second opinion. This assumes a potential to reduce therapy costs with the use of a second opinion. This study lays the foundation to carry out further conclusive analyses concerning this matter.

Key words

second opinion - second opinion program - agreement - cost analysis

Publication History

Article published online:
21 April 2020

• References/Literatur

• 1 Statistisches Bundesamt, Zweigstelle Bonn. Fallpauschalenbezogene Krankenhausstatistik (DRG-Statistik), Diagnosen und Prozeduren der vollstationären Patientinnen und Patienten in Krankenhäusern. Im Interne(Stand: 18.09.2019)t: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Gesundheit/Krankenhaeuser/Publikationen/Downloads-Krankenhaeuser/operationen-prozeduren-5231401187014.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
• 2 Schäfer T, Pritzkuleit R, Jeszenszky C. et al. Trends and geographical variation of primary hip and knee joint replacement in Germany. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013; 21: 279-288 doi:10.1016/j.joca.2012.11.006
• 3 Maybaum T. Ambulant und stationär: Einheitliche Preise für Operationen. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2017; 114: 35-36
• 4 Weyerstraß J, Prediger B, Neugebauer E. et al. [First results of a German second opinion program show high patient satisfaction and large discrepancies between initial therapy recommendations and second opinion]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2018; 133: 46-50 doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2018.01.009
• 5 Pieper D, Heß S, Mathes T. [Compilation of second opinion programs in the German statutory health insurance]. Gesundheitswesen 2018; 80: 859-863 doi:10.1055/s-0043-105576
• 6 Grandt D, Schubert I. Hrsg. Arzneimittelreport 2017. Schriftenreihe zur Gesundheitsanalyse Band 3, 2017. Online (last access: 13.11.2017): https://www.barmer.de/blob/121882/fb95b983d313c453d9ebaa01c2ac783d/data/dl-barmer-arzneimittelreport-2017.pdf
• 7 DRG-Research Group. Webgrouper. Online (last access: 14.02.2020): https://www.drg-research-group.de/index.php?option=com_webgrouper&view=webgrouper&Itemid=112
• 8 Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung. Online-Version des EBM 2017. Im Internet (Stand: 11.09.2017): http://www.kbv.de/html/online-ebm.php
• 9 Verband der Ersatzkassen (VdEK). Vergütungsvereinbarung gemäß § 125 SGB V für die Abrechnung physiotherapeutischer Leistungen, Massagen und medizinischer Bäder gültig ab 01.03.2016 für die Bundesländer Baden-Württemberg, Bayern, Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg, Hessen, Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Rheinland-Pfalz, Saarland, Schleswig-Holstein 2016. Online (last access: 11.09.2017): https://www.vdek.com/vertragspartner/heilmittel/rahmenvertrag/_jcr_content/par/download_19/file.res/Verg%25c3%25bctungsvereinbarung_West_2016_UF_160321.pdf
• 10 IntelliMed GmbH. http://
• 11 Heinert K. Langzeitergebnisse von zementierten Hüftendoprothesen. In: Blauth W, Ulrich H-W. Hrsg. Spätergebnisse in der Orthopädie. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1986: 153-156
• 12 Ali J, Pieper D. Kaum aktuelle Daten zu Zweitmeinungsverfahren vorhanden – eine systematische Übersichtsarbeit. Gesundheitswesen 2017; 79: 871-874 doi:10.1055/s-0042-108586
• 13 Ruetters D, Keinki C, Schroth S. et al. Is there evidence for a better health care for cancer patients after a second opinion? A systematic review. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2016; 142: 1521-1528 doi:10.1007/s00432-015-2099-7
• 14 Meyer AN, Singh H, Graber ML. Evaluation of outcomes from a national patient-initiated second-opinion program. Am J Med 2015; 128: 25-33 doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.04.020
• 15 Birkmeyer JD, Reames BN, McCulloch P. et al. Understanding of regional variation in the use of surgery. Lancet 2013; 382: 1121-1129 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61215-5
• 16 Lindsey PA, Newhouse JP. The cost and value of second surgical opinion programs: a critical review of the literature. J Health Polit Policy Law 1990; 15: 543-570 doi:10.1215/03616878-15-3-543
• 17 Gertman PM, Stackpole DA, Levenson DK. et al. Second opinions for elective surgery. The mandatory Medicaid program in Massachusetts. N Engl J Med 1980; 302: 1169-1174 doi:10.1056/NEJM198005223022103
• 18 Debono B, Lonjon G, Galovich LA. et al. Indication variability in degenerative lumbar spine surgery: a four-nation survey. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018; 43: 185-192 doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000002272