Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 151 No. 2526 (2021)

Free-flap breast reconstruction: cost analysis in the Swiss healthcare system

  • Matteo Scampa
  • Ilias G. Petrou
  • Ali Modarressi
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2021.20530
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2021;151:w20530
Published
23.06.2021

Summary

AIM OF THE STUDY

Breast cancer is the most common type of malignancy among women. Mastectomy maintains an essential role in oncological therapy and led to the development of breast reconstruction procedures. The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flap became in the last decade a popular approach for breast reconstruction. Although this procedure is known to be more complex than other techniques, it offers one of the highest patient satisfaction rates. However, the cost-effectiveness of this technique has rarely been assessed; and the real cost coverage by health insurance has never been studied. This study estimated the real cost of immediate DIEP free flap breast reconstruction after unilateral mastectomy and evaluated the cost coverage by healthcare insurers according to the diagnosis-related group (DRG) reimbursement scheme in Switzerland.

METHODS

Medical files of 20 consecutive patients who underwent immediate DIEP free-flap breast reconstruction between 2012 and 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Billing data according to DRG rates were compared with an estimation of the real cost generated by the procedure.

RESULTS

The mean charge according to the DRG model for one-stage DIEP free-flap reconstruction was CHF 29,573 (CHF 19,256–64,741). The mean real estimated cost was CHF 33,416 (CHF 20,633–47,036). Seven different DRG codes were used between 2012 and 2017, each offering a different definition and compensation.

CONCLUSION

The DRG pricing scheme evolves through annual revisions. Progressively, more specific codes were created and used, allowing a better cost coverage for the procedure. Since 2017, the use of the dedicated code J01B has resulted in adequate cost coverage of the procedure. Since it has been widely accepted that DIEP breast reconstruction has advantages such as high patient satisfaction, we encourage the inclusion of this procedure in the reconstructive arsenal of breast cancer centres in Switzerland.

References

  1. National Institute for Cancer Epidemiology and Registration. Switzerland | NICER [Internet]. [cited 2020 Feb 6]. Available from: https://www.nicer.org/en/
  2. Koçan S, Gürsoy A. Body Image of Women with Breast Cancer After Mastectomy: A Qualitative Research. J Breast Health. 2016;12(4):145–50. doi:.https://doi.org/10.5152/tjbh.2016.2913
  3. Homsy A, Rüegg E, Montandon D, Vlastos G, Modarressi A, Pittet B. Breast Reconstruction: A Century of Controversies and Progress. Ann Plast Surg. 2018;80(4):457–63. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000001312
  4. Howard-McNatt MM. Patients opting for breast reconstruction following mastectomy: an analysis of uptake rates and benefit. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2013;5:9–15. doi:.https://doi.org/10.2147/BCTT.S29142
  5. Felder DS, Merian-Weg P. Différences de tarif et de financement entre les hôpitaux publics et les cliniques privées. Faculty of Economics, University of Basel; 2016. Final report.
  6. Neyt MJ, Blondeel PN, Morrison CM, Albrecht JA. Comparing the cost of delayed and immediate autologous breast reconstruction in Belgium. Br J Plast Surg. 2005;58(4):493–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2004.12.002
  7. Paget JT, Young KC, Wilson SM. Accurately costing unilateral delayed DIEP flap breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66(7):926–30. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2013.03.032
  8. Koechlin F, Konijn P, Lorenzoni L, Schreyer P. Comparing Hospital and Health Prices and Volumes Internationally: Results of a Eurostat/OECD Project. 2014 Aug 26 [cited 2020 Feb 6]; Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/comparing-hospital-and-health-prices-and-volumes-internationally_5jxznwrj32mp-en
  9. Eurostat: Consumer price levels [Internet]. [cited 2020 Feb 6]. Available from: //ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/pricelevels/pricelevels_2018/index.html
  10. Pool SMW, Wolthuizen R, Mouës-Vink CM. Silicone breast prostheses: A cohort study of complaints, complications, and explantations between 2003 and 2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71(11):1563–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2018.07.010
  11. Lam TC, Hsieh F, Salinas J, Boyages J. Immediate and Long-term Complications of Direct-to-implant Breast Reconstruction after Nipple- or Skin-sparing Mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(11):e1977. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001977
  12. Collier W, Scheefer Van Boerum M, Kim J, Kwok AC. Are 30-Day Outcomes Enough? Late Infectious Readmissions following Prosthetic-Based Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(3):360e–8e. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005903
  13. Lemaine V, Schilz SR, Van Houten HK, Zhu L, Habermann EB, Boughey JC. Autologous Breast Reconstruction versus Implant-Based Reconstruction: How Do Long-Term Costs and Health Care Use Compare? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(2):303–11. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006422
  14. Durry A, Baratte A, Mathelin C, Bruant-Rodier C, Bodin F. Satisfaction des patientes après reconstruction mammaire immédiate : comparaison entre cinq techniques chirurgicales [Patients’ satisfaction after immediate breast reconstruction: Comparison between five surgical techniques]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2019;64(3):217–23. Article in French. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anplas.2018.12.002
  15. Toyserkani NM, Jørgensen MG, Tabatabaeifar S, Damsgaard T, Sørensen JA. Autologous versus implant-based breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of Breast-Q patient-reported outcomes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020;73(2):278–85. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2019.09.040
  16. Matros E, Albornoz CR, Razdan SN, Mehrara BJ, Macadam SA, Ro T, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of implants versus autologous perforator flaps using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(4):937–46. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001134
  17. Thoma A, Veltri K, Khuthaila D, Rockwell G, Duku E. Comparison of the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap and free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap in postmastectomy reconstruction: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113(6):1650–61. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000117196.61020.FD
  18. Grover R, Padula WV, Van Vliet M, Ridgway EB. Comparing five alternative methods of breast reconstruction surgery: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132(5):709e–23e. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a48b10
  19. Damen THC, Wei W, Mureau MA, Tjong-Joe-Wai R, Hofer SO, Essink-Bot ML, et al. Medium-term cost analysis of breast reconstructions in a single Dutch centre: a comparison of implants, implants preceded by tissue expansion, LD transpositions and DIEP flaps. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64(8):1043–53. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2010.12.028
  20. Lagares-Borrego A, Gacto-Sanchez P, Infante-Cossio P, Barrera-Pulido F, Sicilia-Castro D, Gomez-Cia T. A comparison of long-term cost and clinical outcomes between the two-stage sequence expander/prosthesis and autologous deep inferior epigastric flap methods for breast reconstruction in a public hospital. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(2):196–205. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.11.027
  21. Fischer JP, Wes AM, Nelson JA, Basta M, Rohrbach JI, Wu LC, et al. Propensity-matched, longitudinal outcomes analysis of complications and cost: comparing abdominal free flaps and implant-based breast reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219(2):303–12. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.02.028
  22. Khajuria A, Prokopenko M, Greenfield M, Smith O, Pusic AL, Mosahebi A. A Meta-analysis of Clinical, Patient-Reported Outcomes and Cost of DIEP versus Implant-based Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(10):e2486. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002486