<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Geertsma, A.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/10019/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Cost-effectiveness of lung transplantation in The Netherlands: a scenario analysis (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/8762/</link>
      <pubDate>1998-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>STUDY OBJECTIVES: To calculate cost-effectiveness of scenarios concerning
          lung transplantation in The Netherlands. DESIGN: Microsimulation model
          predicting survival, quality of life, and costs with and without
          transplantation program, based on data of the Dutch lung transplantation
          program of 1990 to 1995. SETTING: Netherlands, University Hospital
          Groningen. PATIENTS: Included were 425 patients referred for lung
          transplantation, of whom 57 underwent transplantation. INTERVENTION: Lung
          transplantation. RESULTS: For the baseline scenario, the costs per
          life-year gained are G 194,000 (G=Netherlands guilders) and the costs per
          quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained are G 167,000. Restricting
          patient inflow ("policy scenario") lowers the costs per life-year gained:
          G 172,000 (costs per QALY gained: G 144,000). The supply of more donor
          lungs could reduce the costs per life-year gained to G 159,000 (G 135,000
          per QALY gained; G1 =US $0.6, based on exchange rate at the time of the
          study). CONCLUSIONS: Lung transplantation is an expensive but effective
          intervention: survival and quality of life improve substantially after
          transplantation. The costs per life-year gained are relatively high,
          compared with other interventions and other types of transplantation.
          Restricting the patient inflow and/or raising donor supply improves
          cost-effectiveness to some degree. Limiting the extent of inpatient
          screening or lower future costs of immunosuppressives may slightly improve
          the cost-effectiveness of the program.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>