R29 A Cost-Minimization Analysis of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Long Term Care Facilities

Ayoade Adeyemi, PhD, Health Economics, Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA and Curtis Waycaster, PhD, Smith & Nephew, Inc., Fort Worth, TX
Background: As healthcare costs continue to rise, the need for effective yet affordable interventions continues to grow. This study’s objective was to estimate through a cost-minimization analysis whether use of a single-use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (sNPWT)* system could result in cost-savings to healthcare facilities compared to traditional NPWT (tNPWT) systems.

Methods: An electronic wound management database focused on real-time assessment of wounds in long-term care facilities was used to identify the proportion of wounds on tNPWT amendable to sNPWT and the average treatment duration of NPWT. Assuming comparable treatment outcomes, costs between sNPWT and tNPWT were compared to estimate cost-savings associated with the use of sNPWT vs. tNPWT. sNPWT costs were extracted from the ECRI (Emergency Care Research Institute) 2016-2017 PriceGuide database.1 While the minimum cost for tNPWT was extracted from 2011 ECRI data, adjusted to 2016 US dollars based on the Medical Equipment & Supplies Consumer Price Index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.2,3 Sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for reductions in NPWT prices due to competitive bidding.4 Threshold analysis assessed the point at which model conclusions change.

Results: The database showed that the average treatment duration for the 88.3% of NPWT wounds identified amendable to sNPWT was 29 days. The use of sNPWT vs. tNPWT resulted in a daily cost-saving of $55, over an average treatment duration of 29 days, there was a potential cost-saving of $1,586 to healthcare facilities for each wound treated with sNPWT vs. tNPWT. Sensitivity analysis showed that sNPWT remained cost-saving after accounting for up to 41% NPWT price variations around base case tNPWT costs (e.g., competitive bidding). Threshold analysis showed that sNPWT remained cost-saving up to $88/day from the reported cost of $33/day.

Conclusion: The use of sNPWT vs. tNPWT has the potential to result in significant costs-savings to healthcare facilities.