Economic Evaluation of Telerobotic Ultrasound Technology to Remotely Provide Ultrasound Services in Rural and Remote Communities. (30th July 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Adams, Scott J.; Penz, Erika; Imeah, Biaka; Burbridge, Brent; Obaid, Haron; Babyn, Paul; Mendez, Ivar
• Is Part Of: Journal of ultrasound in medicine. Volume 42:Number 1(2023)
• Page Start: 109
• Page End: 123
• Publication Date: 2022-07-30
• Subjects: cost analysis -- economic evaluation -- health equity -- robotics -- rural and remote -- ultrasound; Ultrasonics in medicine -- Periodicals; Ultrasonics; Ultrasonography; Ultrasonics in medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; 616.07543
• DOI: 10.1002/jum.16070
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0278-4297

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Telerobotic ultrasound technology allows radiologists and sonographers to remotely provide ultrasound services in underserved areas. This study aimed to compare costs associated with using telerobotic ultrasound to provide ultrasound services in rural and remote communities to costs associated with alternate models. Methods: A cost‐minimization approach was used to compare four ultrasound service delivery models: telerobotic ultrasound (Model 1), telerobotic ultrasound and an itinerant sonographer (Model 2), itinerant sonographer without telerobotic ultrasound (Model 3), and travel to another community for all exams (Model 4). In Models 1–3, travel was assumed when exams could not be successfully performed telerobotically or by an itinerant sonographer. A publicly funded healthcare payer perspective was used for the reference case and a societal perspective was used for a secondary non‐reference case. Costs were based on the literature and experience using telerobotic ultrasound in Saskatchewan, Canada. Costs were expressed in 2020 Canadian dollars. Results: Average cost per ultrasound exam was $342, $323, $368, and $478 for Models 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, from a publicly funded healthcare payer perspective, and $461, $355, $447, and $849, respectively, from a societal perspective. In one‐way sensitivity analyses, Model 2 was the lowest cost from a payer perspective for communities with population >2075 people, distance >350 km from the nearest ultrasound facility, or >47% of the population eligible for publicly funded medical transportation. Conclusion: Health systems may wish to consider solutions such as telerobotic ultrasound and itinerant sonographers to reduce healthcare costs and improve access to ultrasound in rural and remote communities.