Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 29, 2026

Point-Of-Care Ultrasound Screening for Proximal Lower Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis
Published on: February 10, 2023
The economics of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: a primer for clinicians
Bruce L Davidson1, Sean D Sullivan, Susan R Kahn
1Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Division, Swedish Medical Center and University of Washington School of Medicine, 801 Broadway, Suite 915, Seattle, WA 98122, USA. brucedavidson@pobox.com
Insights
Cost-effectiveness analysis aids decisions on expensive innovations but not on "sufficient" cheaper options. Modeling prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) after surgery can compare costs and outcomes to guide preferable choices.
Area of Science:
- Health Economics
- Clinical Decision Making
- Pharmacoeconomics
Background:
- Health systems face challenges in choosing between costly innovations and less expensive alternatives.
- Formulary committees often select medications based on cost when deemed "mostly equivalent" in efficacy and safety, potentially conflicting with clinician judgment.
- Numerous preventive modalities exist for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following orthopedic surgery, each with varying costs, safety, and efficacy profiles.
Purpose of the Study:
- To explore the limitations of cost-effectiveness analyses in certain healthcare decision-making scenarios.
- To highlight the need for methods to evaluate the "sufficiency" of less expensive medical interventions.
- To demonstrate a modeling approach for comparing different VTE prophylaxis strategies after hip and knee replacement and hip fracture surgery.
Main Methods:
- Reviewing the role of cost-effectiveness information in health system decision-making.
- Identifying the limitations of current analyses regarding "sufficient" interventions.
- Developing a framework to model and compare safety, efficacy, and cost outcomes of various VTE prophylaxis modalities.
Main Results:
- Cost-effectiveness analysis is valuable for incremental innovations but insufficient for determining the "sufficiency" of lower-cost options.
- A gap exists in decision-making tools when interventions are considered "mostly equivalent" but differ in cost.
- Modeling allows for the systematic comparison of safety and efficacy outcomes against costs for VTE prophylaxis.
Conclusions:
- Health system decision-making requires methods beyond traditional cost-effectiveness to evaluate "sufficient" interventions.
- A structured approach to modeling prophylaxis options can inform preferable choices by integrating safety, efficacy, and cost.
- Understanding the rationale behind formulary decisions is crucial for clinician buy-in and optimal patient care in VTE prevention.
Abstract:
Cost-effectiveness information can help health-system participants make decisions about diagnostic or therapeutic innovations that are more expensive but incrementally safe and effective. However, these analyses cannot help decide whether a less expensive approach is "sufficient" and funds ought to be allocated to other medical issues entirely. At present, formulary committees are commonly determining that medications are "mostly equivalent" in efficacy and safety and choosing individual medications or classes of medications based on cost. Clinicians may not agree with these decisions and will need to understand their rationale. For prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism after hip and knee replacement and hip fracture surgery, many preventive modalities are available with different safety and efficacy profiles and different costs. It is possible to list the important safety and efficacy outcomes of prophylaxis, estimate their incidences and costs, and "model" comparisons of one modality vs another, in order to help decide whether one is preferable.
Related Concept Videos
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care
Venous Thrombosis IV: Nursing Management
Venous Thrombosis I: Introduction
Venous Thrombosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Pulmonary Embolism III: Nursing Management
Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care