Is Cataract Surgery Cost-Effective Among Older Patients with a Low Predicted Probability for Improvement in Reported Visual Functioning

Published in: Medical Care, v. 44, no. 11, Nov. 2006, p. 982-989

Posted on RAND.org on December 31, 2005

by Arash Naeim, Emmett B. Keeler, Peter R. Gutierrez, M. Roy Wilson, David Reuben, Carol Mangione

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.lww-medicalcare.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

INTRODUCTION: Although cataract surgery has been demonstrated to be effective and cost-effective, 5% to 20% of patients do not benefit functionally from the procedure. This study examines the cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery versus watchful waiting in a subgroup of patients who had less than a 30% predicted probability of reporting improvements in visual function after surgery. METHODS: Randomized trial (first eye surgery vs. watchful waiting) of 250 patients who based on a cataract surgery index (CSI) were felt to have less than a 30% probability of reporting improvements in visual functioning after surgery. Cost was estimated using monthly resource utilization surveys and Medicare billing and payment data. Effectiveness was evaluated at 6 months using the Activities of Daily Vision Scale (ADVS) and the Health Utilities Index, Mark 3 (HUI3). RESULTS: In terms of overall utility, the incremental cost-effectiveness of surgery was $38,288/QALY. In the subgroup of patients with a CSI score >11 (<20% probability of improvement), the cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery was $53,500/QALY. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that often this population of patients may not derive a utility benefit with surgery. CONCLUSION: Cataract surgery is cost-effective even in a subpopulation of patient with a lower, <30%, predicted probability of reporting improved visual functioning after surgery. There may be a subgroup of patients, CSI >11, for whom a strategy of watchful waiting may be equally effective and considerably less expensive.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.