OBJECTIVE: This study determined the economic burden for nonfatal uncomplicated acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using 100% compliance to certain a) non-invasive or b) invasive and non-invasive diagnostic and therapeutic interventions with class I recommendations in the American College of Cardiology-American Heart Association (ACC-AHA) clinical practice guidelines for ACS in three tertiary hospitals using the societal perspective. It also determined the costs using the patient perspective in the setting of one private tertiary hospital.

METHODS: This study was a cost analysis that included a) costs of patient resources, b) production losses, and c) costs of other resources or sectors, from hospitalization to one month post-discharge for ACS. Several models were constructed due to variations in the costs of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the three settings.

RESULTS: Using the societal perspective, one model for non-invasive options yielded the following (costs as of January 31, 2009): hospital A, Php87,014 - 124,799; hospital B, Php75,592 - 96,072; hospital C, Php71,969 - 92,148. Excluding fibrinolytic therapy, the lowest total cost would be Php65,000. However, if coronary angiography was added to the models for hospital C, the cost was Php107,154 - 134,574 (coronary angiography was not available in hospitals A and B). Using the patient perspective, the adjusted mean cost for the model which used the least expensive medication was Php96,421 (Standard Deviation = 34,076).

CONCLUSION: The economic burden for nonfatal uncomplicated ACS may range from Php65,000 - 134,574.

INTRODUCTION

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS), specifically myocardial infarction, accounted for approximately 41% of deaths due to coronary artery disease in 2013. A large number of Filipinos are affected by ACS; thus, it is important to determine its hospitalization cost. The study objectives were to (1) define the hospital care pathways for ACS; (2) determine the resources used; (3) estimate the hospitalization cost for uncomplicated ACS; and (4) determine the difference between the estimated hospitalization cost and the coverage provided by the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (Philhealth).

A cost analysis study was done. Mixed qualitative and quantitative data collection tools consisted of consultations with local cardiologists, key informant interviews, and self-administered survey forms. Sensitivity analysis was performed through scenario analysis.

The ACS hospital care pathway was derived after consultative meetings with invasive and noninvasive cardiologists. Using this pathway, the resources used for ACS hospitalization were identified, and the total hospitalization costs were calculated. For medical treatment alone, the costs were approximately Philippine peso (₱) 67,000 to ₱90,000, whereas for medical treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the costs were approximately ₱265,000 to ₱425,500. In comparison, Philhealth's maximum coverage for ACS with PCI is ₱39,750.

There is variation in the ACS hospitalization cost, depending on the management strategy used and the type of hospital where a patient is confined. Medical plus reperfusion with PCI increases the cost four to five times when compared with medical treatment alone. Huge out-of-pocket expense is demonstrated because of the large discrepancy between the actual hospitalization costs to Philhealth's ACS coverage.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death in the Philippines and can present as acute coronary syndrome. Hospitalization for ACS has epidemiologic and economic burden. In fact, last 2017, there were 1.52% or 152 admissions for every 10,000 hospitalized patients for medical conditions in PhilHealth-accredited hospitals locally. However, coronary angioplasty was performed in only less than 1% of these cases mainly because of its cost and the out-of-pocket expense that the treatment entail, when primary percutaneous intervention has been proven to be effective in reducing mortality in STEMI and early invasive intervention performed during index hospitalization for NSTEMI is likewise recommended. Moreover, there is a big disparity between the current case rates for ACS for medical therapy alone and for invasive intervention compared to the actual ACS hospitalization cost.

OBJECTIVES: 1) To propose revisions to the current PhilHealth case rates for acute coronary syndrome (ACS); and 2) To determine the budget impact of the proposed ACS case rates.

METHODS: The Philippine Heart Association with the assistance of a technical working group undertook the study. A panel of experts composed of general and invasive cardiologists from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao was formed. The ACS hospitalization costs based on the recent study by Mendoza were presented and discussed during the focus group discussions with the panelists. Issues pertinent to their localities that may affect the costs were discussed. The proposed revised costs on the particular ACS conditions and therapeutic regimens were then voted and agreed upon. A budget impact analysis of the proposed case rates was then performed.

RESULTS: The proposed case rates for ACS ranged from Php 80,000 (for low risk unstable angina given medical treatment) to Php 530,000 (for ST-elevation myocardial infarction initially given a thrombolytic agent then underwent PCI which necessitated the use of three stents). The budget impact analysis showed that the proposed ACS rates would require an additional PHP 1.5 billion to 2.3 billion during the first year of a 3- versus 5-year implementation period, respectively. The period of implementation will be affected by budgetary constraints as well as the availability of cardiac catheterization facilities in the country.

CONCLUSION: The proposed revised PhilHealth hospitalization coverage for ACS is more reflective or realistic of the ACS hospitalization costs in contrast with the current PhilHealth case rates. The corresponding budget impact analysis of these proposed case rates showed that PHP 7.6 billion is needed for full implementation. However, given the budget constraints, the percentage of the total costs for the first and subsequent years of implementation may be modified.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has epidemiologic and economic burden. The coverage for hospitalization in the local setting is much less than the actual costs. Many patients do not consent to or avail of the optimal and timely management because of financial challenges.

OBJECTIVES: The paper aimed to propose revised PhilHealth case rates/packages for ACS, namely: 1) unstable angina (UA), 2) non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and 3) STelevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS: A consensus panel was organized to provide inputs such as cost and other matters pertaining to the revision of the PhilHealth ACS case rates/packages. The results of the cost of hospitalization of the different ACS conditions derived from a study on hospitalization cost for ACS were presented to the panel. Several focused group discussions were held afterward for propositioning new case rates through votation and by nominal group technique, using the costs from the study as the bases of rate adjustment.

RESULTS: Final costs agreed upon by the consensus panel for medical management alone for UA, NSTEMI, and STEMI were adjusted or amended in increments of Php 20,000, (80,000, 100,000, and 120,000, respectively). Thrombolysis of a patient admitted for STEMI increased the cost to Php 140,000. An additional cost of Php 150,000 was added on top of the cost for medical management and coronary angiogram for NSTE- ACS for PCI with use of a single stent. For STEMI, the same category had an additional cost of Php 180,000. For each additional stent used for all clinical scenarios undergoing PCI, Php 65,000 was added, to cover up to a total of 3 stents.

CONCLUSION: Based on the consensus process with Philippine Heart Association ACS panelists, the cost proposed ranges from 80,000 pesos to 530,000 pesos depending on the clinical scenarios.

KEYWORDS: case rates, PhilHealth, acute coronary syndrome, economic impact

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the budget impact of the proposed revised PhilHealth case rate packages for acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHODS: This budget impact analysis used the static approach or cost calculator modeling method. The prevalence of hospitalization for coronary artery disease in all PhilHealth-accredited hospitals in the country in 2017 and the data from the ACS registry project of the Philippine Heart Association were used in this study. The study multiplied the present PhilHealth coverage with the number of ACS hospitalization claims to come up with the total cost of ACS hospitalization in the next three years with the assumptions that the eligible population and the ACS PhilHealth case rates will remain constant for these years. The future ACS hospitalization costs were also determined if the proposed case rates were used rather than the current PhilHealth case rates. The cost of re-admissions was considered as savings in hospitalization cost (due to prevention of admissions if the appropriate interventions were given) and were deducted from the future total cost of ACS hospitalizations.

RESULTS: The annual total ACS hospitalization cost using the current case rates was Php 1,134,683,000. Using the proposed case rates, the total hospitalization costs over five years was Php 2,653,019,000 in the first year (proposed case rates implemented to only 20% of the ACS patients) and increased to Php 8,726,364,000 by year 5 (full implementation of the proposed case rates or to 100% of ACS patients). This resulted in a lower incremental cost in the first year of implementation compared with a less gradual implementation over 3 years. The total incremental costs would amount to PHP7.6 billion for full implementation.

CONCLUSION: The study provided the budget impact of the proposed revised ACS case rates. The incremental cost is relatively huge, however the benefits of providing coverage of guidelinedirected therapy including invasive strategies for ACS must be considered.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is the therapy of choice in the prevention of SCD. The ICD has been proven to improve survival among survivors of cardiac arrest, patients who are at risk of having one because of myocardial scarring and low left ventricular ejection fraction, and those with primary inherited arrhythmia syndromes. The insertion of an ICD is indicated for survivors of cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation or hemodynamically unstable sustained ventricular tachycardia after the exclusion of any reversible cause. At present, there are no nationwide data regarding the prevalence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias requiring an ICD. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the (1) total hospitalization claims per year (2017 and 2018) for arrhythmias requiring an ICD, (2) total number of cardioverter-defibrillator insertions done for patients mentioned in (1), (3) prevalence of hospitalization for cardiac arrhythmias requiring insertion of ICD among patients admitted for medical conditions for 2017 and 2018, (4) the demographic profile of patients who were hospitalized for cardiac arrhythmias requiring insertion of ICD, (5) type of facilities (primary, secondary, or tertiary; government or private) where the patients were confined, and (6) duration of hospitalization and mortality rate of patients admitted for the above conditions. METHODS: This is a descriptive study using the database of Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) on hospital claims of admitted patients 19 years or older in PhilHealth-accredited hospitals from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018. Anonymized records were reviewed using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) of the World Health Organization. The codes relevant to the study question were chosen and used. The PhilHealth Relative Value Scale (RVS) codes were used to determine the procedures that the patients underwent for their cardiac arrhythmias. Patients’ demographic profile, diagnosis, region, hospitalization stay and status on discharge, and type of facility of admission were collected. Descriptive statistics using median value and interquartile range for quantitative data and frequency and percentage for categorical data were reported. RESULTS: In 2017 and 2018, among patients 19 years or older, there were 1282 and 1480 claims of cases of cardiac arrhythmias requiring an ICD (based on ICD-10 codes), whereas those who underwent placement of an ICD (based on RVS codes) numbered 50 and 45, respectively. The prevalence of hospitalization for cardiac arrhythmias related to ICD among patients who were admitted for medical conditions was 0.05% and 0.06%, for the same years. The overall in-hospital mortality rates were 10.84% and 9.46% in each year for those who were admitted for cardiac arrhythmias that required an ICD; however, there were no recorded mortalities for those who underwent implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator. For patients with arrhythmias requiring an ICD (based on ICD-10 and RVS codes), the median (first quartile [Q1], third quartile [Q3]) age was 59 (43, 72) years. In 2018, the median (Q1, Q3) age was 57 (38, 71) years. There were similar proportions of males (53%) and females (47%) in both years. The majority of cases based on ICD-10 codes of cardiac arrhythmias requiring an ICD were confined in government hospitals, whereas most of the claims for procedures based on RVS codes were in private hospitals. Most of the procedures were done in the National Capital Region. The duration of hospitalization was 3 to 4 days. CONCLUSION Based on PhilHealth claims, the admission due to cardiac arrhythmias requiring ICD is common in both private and government hospitals. Cardioverter-defibrillator implantation is being done mostly in the National Capital Region and private hospitals. There is a wide gap between the prevalence of cardiac arrhythmias requiring an ICD and the frequency of implantation of the lifesaving device.
implantable cardioverter-defibrillator ; Defibrillators, Implantable ; Death, Sudden, Cardiac ; Brugada Syndrome

INTRODUCTION: Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) is an interventional cardiac electrophysiologic procedure that uses heat energy for definitive management of supraventricular tachycardias. It is a class I recommendation for chronic management of most supraventricular arrhythmias. No local data exist in the incidence hospitalization for SVT and utilization of RFA for this condition. The study aimed to obtain the prevalence of hospitalization of patients with supraventricular tachycardias where RFA is utilized, including the patients’ demographic profile, length of hospitalization, and mortality rate. METHODOLOGY: Philippine Health Insurance Corporation claims for hospitalization from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018, were reviewed. Data analysis was done using median and interquartile range for continuous data, and frequency and percentage distribution for categorical data. RESULTS: There were 1121 and 1149 claims for hospitalization for SVTs (atrial paroxysmal tachycardia, atrioventricular paroxysmal tachycardia, nodal paroxysmal tachycardia, and junctional tachycardia) in 2017 and 2018, respectively. This represents four hospitalization claims for SVT per 10,000 of the total PHIC claims. The majority of patients were female with median age of 52 years. Only 25 and 19 patients underwent radiofrequency ablation in 2017 and 2018, respectively. The majority of these patients were male and younger with a median age of 31 years. No mortality was recorded among patients admitted for catheter ablation. CONCLUSION In 2017 and 2018, hospitalization claims for SVT requiring catheter ablation were 0.04% (four hospitalization claims for SVT per 10,000 of the total claims) in both years. The majority of patients were admitted with pharmacologic therapy on discharge with very low utilization of radiofrequency ablation for long-term management.
Arrhythmias, Cardiac ; Tachycardia, Supraventricular ; Radiofrequency Ablation ; prevalence ; Hospitalization

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic bradycardia, commonly attributed to sinus node dysfunction/ sick sinus syndrome, or atrioventricular (AV) blocks or conduction disorders from chronic fascicular blocks, is treated by implantation of a permanent pacemaker. Despite it being a class 1 recommendation, there is a perception based on informal surveys that permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) is underutilized. The Philippines showed slow growth in the volume of implantation from 1049 in 2015 to 1225 in 2016. The Philippine pacemaker data after 2016 are incomplete and unreliable because of the lack of a national registry. It is the aim of this study to ascertain the prevalence of cardiac arrhythmias requiring PPI and the volume of its utilization in the Philippines. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to (1) to determine the prevalence of hospitalization claims in 2017 and 2018 for cardiac arrhythmias requiring PPI, (2) to determine the regional distribution of arrhythmias requiring PPI, (3) to determine the regional distribution of hospitalization claims for PPI, (4) to determine the number of hospitalization claims for specific cases requiring PPI and the corresponding mortality rate, (5) to determine the number of hospitalization claims for PPI and the corresponding mortality rate, and (6) to describe the demographic profile of patients with indications and with claims for PPI, as well as the duration of hospitalization and type of facilities where the hospital claims were filed. METHODS: This is a descriptive study of Filipino patients 19 years or older, admitted for cardiac arrhythmias requiring PPI in the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth)–accredited hospitals in 2017 and 2018. The data for disease prevalence were gathered from the database of PhilHealth using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) of the World Health Organization. The procedures that the patients underwent were determined using the latest PhilHealth Relative Value Scale (RVS) codes. Other variables gathered were the demographic data, diagnosis, region, duration of hospital stay, type of facility on admission, and the status on discharge. Qualitative data were tabulated and presented as frequency and percent distribution. Quantitative data were reported as median with corresponding quartiles (Q1 and Q3). RESULTS: Based on the 2017 and 2018 database of PhilHealth, out of the nationwide total medical admissions, there were 958 total claims for arrhythmias requiring pacemaker implantation in 2017 and 1144 total claims in 2018. The prevalence in both years was similar (0.04%). There were 549 and 683 total claims for PPI, in 2017 and 2018, respectively, and preponderantly done in the National Capital Region. Sick sinus syndrome/tachycardia–bradycardia syndrome had the greatest number of total claims for both years. More than half of the patients who had PPI were females. The median age was similar (67 and 68 years old for both years and 73 and 75 years old in 2017 and 2018, based on ICD-10 and RVS codes, respectively). The duration of hospitalization was a median of 4 days (ICD-10 codes) and 5 to 6 days (RVS codes). Most of the hospital claims for cardiac arrhythmias (76%–79%) requiring PPI were filed in private facilities. Mortality among those diagnosed was 3.6% for complete atrioventricular block and 0.3% for sick sinus syndrome but was low among those who underwent PPI (0.8%–2.2%). CONCLUSION The prevalence of hospitalization claims for arrhythmias requiring PPI was 0.04%, both in 2017 and 2018. There is a big gap between the number of cases requiring a permanent pacemaker and the number that underwent the procedure. Hospitalization claims, based on ICD-10 codes and RVS codes, were centralized in the National Capital Region and private hospitals. The mortality rate among those who had the procedure was low.
Arrhythmias, Cardiac ; prevalence ; Hospitalization

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is the recommended treatment of choice for supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), whereas implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is recommended for patients at high risk for sudden death due to ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation. Radiofrequency ablation has been proven to improve the quality of life of patients with SVT, whereas an ICD has been shown to reduce mortality among patients at risk for sudden cardiac death. Both procedures are expensive and usually beyond the reach of the average Filipino patient. OBJECTIVES: The objectives are to (1) determine the cost of hospitalization for cardiac arrhythmias that require RFA and cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in the Philippines, (2) propose revised Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) benefit packages for both procedures, and (3) determine the budget impact of the proposed revised packages. METHODS: Hospitalization costs were obtained for both RFA and cardioverter-defibrillator implantation from two government tertiary care hospitals. A range of hospitalization costs involving possible lower and higher cost scenarios was estimated. Based on these estimates and the yearly number of arrhythmias that require these procedures, revised benefit packages for both RFA and cardioverter-defibrillator implantation were proposed to PhilHealth. The budget impact analysis for the first 3 and 5 years of implementation of these revised packages was subsequently calculated. RESULTS: The estimated hospitalization costs for RFA ranged from Philippine pesos (PHP) 248,485 to 310,480, whereas for cardioverter-defibrillator implantation, the costs ranged from PHP 509,122 to 581,940. These amounts are greatly disparate from the present PhilHealth coverages, which are PHP 9700 and 18,000 for RFA and cardioverter-defibrillator implantation, respectively. Based on these hospitalization costs, the proposed RFA benefit package is PHP 275,000 to 310,000, whereas for an ICD benefit package, PHP 513,000 to 576,000 is proposed. The incremental cost of more than PHP 300 million for RFA and more than PHP 700 million for an ICD is distributed for the next 3 or 5 years of implementation for these benefit packages, respectively. CONCLUSION The present PhilHealth case rates for both RFA and cardioverter-defibrillator implantation are greatly underestimated, which probably is the reason for their underutilization. There is a need to revise these case rates with due consideration of their actual hospitalization costs to lessen inequity in accessing these procedures.
Radiofrequency Ablation ; Defibrillators, Implantable