4.6 Article

Cost analysis of the Spanish renal replacement therapy programme

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 26, 期 11, 页码 3709-3714

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfr088

关键词

cost analysis; end-stage renal disease; haemodialysis; kidney transplantation; peritoneal dialysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. A cost analysis of the Spanish Renal Replacement Therapy (RRT) programme in the year 2010, for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, was performed from the perspective of the Public Administration. Methods. The costs associated with each RRT modality [hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) and kidney transplantation (Tx)] were analysed. The Spanish ESRD incidence and prevalence figures in the year 2010 were forecasted in order to enable the calculation of an aggregate cost for each modality. Costs were mainly computed based on a review of the existing literature and of the Official Bulletins of the Spanish Autonomous Communities. Data from Oblikue Consulting eSalud health care costs database and from several Spanish public sources were also employed. Results. In the year 2010, the forecasted incidence figures for HD, PD and Tx were 5409, 822 and 2317 patients, respectively. The forecasted prevalence figures were 22 582, 2420 and 24 761 patients, respectively. The average annual per-patient costs (incidence and prevalence) were (sic)2651 and (sic)37 968 (HD), (sic)1808 and (sic)25 826 (PD) and (sic)38 313 and (sic)6283 (Tx). Indirect costs amounted to (sic)8929 (HD), (sic)7429 (PD) and (sic)5483 (Tx). The economic impact of the Spanish RRT programme on the Public Administration budget was estimated at similar to(sic)1829 million (indirect costs included): (sic)1327 (HD), (sic)109 (PD) and (sic)393 (Tx) million. Conclusions. HD accounted for > 70% of the aggregate costs of the Spanish RRT programme in 2010. From a costs minimization perspective, it would be preferable if the number of incident and prevalent patients in PD were increased.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据