Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery | 2021

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Ultrasonography in the Hand Clinic

 
 
 
 

Abstract


Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: Despite previous studies demonstrating the benefit of office-based ultrasonography for musculoskeletal evaluation, many hand surgery clinics have yet to adopt this practice. The authors conducted a cost-benefit analysis of establishing an ultrasound machine in a hand clinic. Methods: The authors used the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary, and Physician Compare National Downloadable File databases to estimate provider reimbursement and annual frequency of office-based upper extremity–related ultrasound procedures. Ultrasound machine cost, maintenance fees, and consumable supply prices were gleaned from the literature. The primary outcomes were net cost-benefit difference and benefit-cost ratio at 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years after implementation. Sensitivity analyses were performed by varying factors that influence the net cost-benefit difference. Results: The estimated total initial expense to establish ultrasonography in the clinic was $53,985. The overall cost-benefit difference was −$49,530 per practice at the end of the first year (benefit-cost ratio, 0.3), −$1049 after 5 years (benefit-cost ratio, 1.0), and $52,022 after 10 years (benefit-cost ratio, 1.4). Benefits primarily accrued because of physician reimbursements. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed machine price, annual procedure volume, and reimbursement rate as the most influential parameters in determining the benefit-cost ratio. Ultrasonography was cost beneficial when the machine price was less than $46,000 or if the billing frequency exceeded six times per week. A societal perspective analysis demonstrated a large net benefit of $218,162 after 5 years. Conclusions: Implementation of office-based ultrasound imaging can result in a positive financial return on investment. Ultrasound machine cost and procedural volume were the most critical factors influencing benefit-cost ratio.

Volume 147
Pages 894 - 902
DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007732
Language English
Journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Full Text