What Is the Least Costly Strategy to Evaluate Cervical Abnormalities in Rural Women? Comparing Telemedicine, Local Practitioners, and Expert Physicians

David Bishai (), Daron G. Ferris and Mark S. Litaker

Medical Decision Making, 2003, vol. 23, issue 6, 463-470

Abstract: Objective. This study establishes the least costly strategy for evaluation of rural women in need of colposcopy among 3 alternatives: telemedicine, local practitioners, and referral experts. Methods. Women in rural Georgia who needed colposcopy were examined by an expert colposcopist on site, by a local practitioner, and by a distant expert colposcopist linked by telemedicine. Independent determinations of biopsy intent were used to model the differing biopsy costs of the 3 methods. Record reviewdetermined the average total cost of telemedicine. Reports of average cost in year 2000 dollars from societal perspective include medical costs and pain and suffering due to additional biopsies and curettage, telemedicine costs, and costs of potential diagnostic delay for a 1-year time horizon. Results: From the societal perspective in the baseline case, the average cost per patient evaluated was $270 for patients seen by referral experts. The cost was $38 less (e.g., $232) for patients seen by local practitioners, and $35 more (e.g., $305) for patients seen by telemedicine. From the societal perspective, local practitioners were less costly than referral experts because of lower travel costs for patients, but from the medical perspective, their average cost was $32 higher than referral experts because they performed more biopsies and curettage procedures than experts. Telemedicine assistance would have lowered the number of biopsies performed by local practitioners, but as of year 2000 the costs of this technology could not be justified by the savings. Conclusion. From the societal perspective, local practitioners performing colposcopy are the least costly way to evaluate cervical abnormalities in rural patients with substantial time and travel costs.

Date: 2003
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X03260136 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:23:y:2003:i:6:p:463-470

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X03260136

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().