Background: This article investigates the hospital costs related to the management of COVID-19 positive patients, requiring a hospitalization (from the positivity confirmation to discharge, including rehabilitation activities). Methods: A time-driven activity-based costing analysis, grounding on administrative and accounting flows provided by the management control, was implemented to define costs related to the hospital management of COVID-19 positive patients, according to real-word data, derived from six public Italian Hospitals, in 2020. Results: Results reported that the higher the complexity of care, the higher the hospitalization cost per day (low-complexity = €475.86; medium-complexity = €700.20; high-complexity = €1,401.65). Focusing on the entire clinical pathway, the overall resources absorption, with the inclusion of rehabilitation costs, ranged from 6,198.02€ to 32,141.20€, dependent from the patient’s clinical condition. Conclusions: Data could represent the baseline cost for COVID-19 hospital management, thus being useful for the further development of proper reimbursement tariffs devoted to hospitalized infected patients.

Lumbar arthrodesis is a common surgical technique that consists of the fixation of one or more motion segments with pedicle screws and rods. However, spinal surgery using these techniques is expensive and has a significant impact on the budgets of hospitals and Healthcare Systems. While reusable and disposable instruments for laparoscopic interventions have been studied in literature, no specific information exists regarding instrument kits for lumbar arthrodesis. The aim of the present study was to perform a complete health technology assessment comparing a disposable instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis (innovative device) with the standard reusable instrument. A prospective and observational study was implemented, by means of investigation of administrative records of patients undergoing a lumbar arthrodesis surgical procedure. The evaluation was conducted in 2013, over a 12- month time horizon, considering all the procedures carried out using the two technologies. A complete health technology assessment and a multi-criteria decision analysis approach were implemented in order to compare the two alternative technologies. Economic impact (with the implementation of an activity based costing approach), social, ethical, organisational, and technology-related aspects were taken into account. Although the cost analysis produced similar results in the comparison of the two technologies (total cost equal to € 4,279.1 and € 4,242.6 for reusable instrument kit and the disposable one respectively), a significant difference between the two instrument kits was noted, in particular concerning the organisational impact and the patient safety. The replacement of a reusable instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis, with a disposable one, could improve the management of this kind of devices in hospital settings.

Aims. The study aimed to present the experience of a screening programme for early detection of diabetic retinopathy (DR) using a nonmydriatic fundus camera, evaluating the feasibility in terms of validity, resources absorption, and future advantages of a potential application, in an Italian local health authority. Methods. Diabetic patients living in the town of Ponzano, Veneto Region (Northern Italy), were invited to be enrolled in the screening programme. The “no prevention strategy” with the inclusion of the estimation of blindness related costs was compared with screening costs in order to evaluate a future extensive and feasible implementation of the procedure, through a budget impact approach. Results. Out of 498 diabetic patients eligible, 80% was enrolled in the screening programme. 115 patients (34%) were referred to an ophthalmologist and 9 cases required prompt treatment for either proliferative DR or macular edema. Based on the pilot data, it emerged that an extensive use of the investigated screening programme, within the Greater Treviso area, could prevent 6 cases of blindness every year, resulting in a saving of €271,543.32 (−13.71%). Conclusions. Fundus images obtained with a nonmydriatic fundus camera could be considered an effective, cost-sparing, and feasible screening tool for the early detection of DR, preventing blindness as a result of diabetes.

Purpose: To investigate the glycated albumin (GA) introduction implications, as an add-on strategy to traditional glycemic control (Hb1Ac and fasting plasma glucose – FPG) instruments, considering insulin-naïve individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), treated with oral therapies. Methods: A Health Technology Assessment was conducted in Italy, as a multi-dimensional approach useful to validate any innovative technology. The HTA dimensions, derived from the EUnetHTA Core Model, were deployed by means of literature evidence, health economics tools and qualitative questionnaires, filled-in by 15 professionals. Results: Literature stated that the GA introduction could lead to a higher number of individuals achieving therapeutic success after 3 months of therapy (97.0% vs 71.6% without GA). From an economic point of view, considering a projection of 1,955,447 T2DM insulin-naïve individuals, potentially treated with oral therapy, GA introduction would imply fewer individuals requiring a therapy switch (− 89.44%), with a 1.06% in costs reduction, on annual basis, thus being also the preferable solution from a cost-effectiveness perspective (cost-effectiveness value: 237.74 vs 325.53). According to experts opinions, lower perceptions on GA emerged with regard to equity aspects (0.13 vs 0.72, p-value> 0.05), whereas it would improve both individuals (2.17 vs 1.33, p-value=0.000) and caregivers quality of life (1.50 vs 0.83, p-value=0.000). Even if in the short term, GA required additional investments in training courses (− 0.80 vs 0.10, p-value = 0.036), in the long run, GA could become the preferable technology (0.30 vs 0.01, p-value=0.018) from an organisational perspective. Conclusion: Adding GA to traditional glycaemic control instruments could improve the clinical pathway of individuals with T2DM, leading to economic and organisational advantages for both hospitals and National Healthcare Systems.

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare 2 clinical assessment tools, the Modified Barthel Index (currently administered to patients admitted into inpatient rehabilitation units after elective hip or knee arthroplasty) with the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 scale, in order to identify which tool is more suitable for assessing the disability and the “recovery rate”. Patients and methods: A perspective multicenter observational study was developed, involving 2 hospital authorities in Italy. Eighty consecutive cases of inpatients were enrolled. Patient’s disability was evaluated using both of the aforementioned tools, before and after the rehabilitation program. Results: The WHODAS 2.0 score was, on average, 12.21% higher than the Modified Barthel Index, before the surgical intervention. Modified Barthel Index measures could be considered as a determinant and a predictor of length of stay. Conclusion: The Modified Barthel Index is limited, since it does not consider a patient’s perspective. The WHODAS 2.0 scale fully considers a patient’s perception of disability. Therefore, both assessment scales should be administered in clinical practice, in order to provide integration of clinical information with a patient’s reported outcome measures.