Logo image
Back
Cost-effectiveness of Two Types of Dysphagia Care in Head and Neck Cancer: A Preliminary Report
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Cost-effectiveness of Two Types of Dysphagia Care in Head and Neck Cancer: A Preliminary Report

Jonathan E. Aviv, Robert T. Sataloff, Manderly Cohen, Jaclyn Spitzer, Guoguang Ma, Rajendra Bhayani and Lanny G. Close
Ear, nose, & throat journal, v 80(8), pp 553-558
Aug 2001
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/014556130108000818
PMID: 11523474
url
https://doi.org/10.1177/014556130108000818View
Published, Version of Record (VoR)Maybe Open Access (Publisher Bronze),  Open

Abstract

We conducted a prospective, preliminary study to compare the cost-effectiveness of two different instrument-based techniques for diagnosing and managing dysphagia in 30 consecutive hospitalized patients with head and neck cancer. The two techniques are videofluoroscopy via modified barium swallow (MBS) and videoendoscopy via flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing with sensory testing (FEESST). Medicare was the primary insurer of all patients. Fifteen of these patients had their dysphagia diagnosed and managed by MBS and the other 15 by FEESST. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by determining the average Medicare reimbursement for each procedure. We found that the mean reimbursements were $451.01 (± $50.55) for MBS and $321.23 (± $3.01) for FEESST. The mean reimbursement for FEESST was significantly lower than that for MBS (p< 0.0001; Mann-Whitney U test). We conclude that FEESST appears to be more cost-effective than MBS for the inpatient management of dysphagia in patients with head and neck cancer.

Metrics

3 Record Views
27 citations in Scopus

Details

Logo image