Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is Mohs Surgery Cost-Effective versus Traditional Surgical Excision?

  • Medical Surgery (J Thiele, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Dermatology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There have been rapid increases in the number of skin cancers diagnosed in the USA and worldwide. In the USA, the utilization of Mohs micrographic surgery for the treatment of skin cancer has increased dramatically from use in 1 of 10 skin cancer cases in 1996 to 1 in 4 cases today. Despite numerous advantages ascribed to Mohs surgery as the “gold standard” of skin cancer treatment, the cost-effectiveness of this procedure has been questioned. Understanding the relative costs and cost-effectiveness of skin cancer treatments including Mohs surgery will be critical as insurers, regulators, and patients seek to reduce healthcare expenditures and promote cost-effective care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Rogers HW, Weinstock MA, Harris AR, Hinckley MR, Feldman SR, Fleischer AB, et al. Incidence estimate of nonmelanoma skin cancer in the United States, 2006. Arch Dermatol. 2010 Mar;146(3):283–7.

  2. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al., editors. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2010. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2013. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2010/.

  3. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2013. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brewster DH, Bhatti LA, Inglis JH, Nairn ER, Doherty VR. Recent trends in incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancers in the East of Scotland, 1992–2003. Br J Dermatol. 2007 Jun;156(6):1295–300.

  5. Staples MP, Elwood M, Burton RC, Williams JL, Marks R, Giles GG. NMSC in Australia: the 2002 national survey and trends since 1985. Med J Aust. 2006;184(1):6–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hayes RC, Leonfellner S, Pilgrim W, Liu J, Keeling DN. Incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer in New Brunswick, Canada, 1992 to 2001. J Cutan Med Surg. 2007;11(2):45–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Demers AA, Nugent Z, Mihalcioiu C, Wiseman MC, Kliewer EV. Trends of nonmelanoma skin cancer from 1960 through 2000 in a Canadian population. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 Aug;53(2):320–8.

  8. Wassberg C, Thörn M, Johansson AM, Bergström R, Berne B, Ringborg U. Increasing incidence rates of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin in Sweden. Acta Derm Venereol. 2001;81(4):268–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Housman TS, Feldman SR, Williford PM, Fleischer AB, Goldman ND, Acostamadiedo JM, et al. Skin cancer is among the most costly of all cancers to treat for the Medicare population. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003 Mar;48(3):425–9.

  10. Joseph AK, Mark TL, Mueller C. The period prevalence and costs of treating nonmelanoma skin cancers in patients over 65 years of age covered by medicare. Dermatol Surg. 2001 Nov;27(11):955–9.

  11. Rogers HW, Coldiron BM. Analysis of skin cancer treatment and costs in the United States Medicare population, 1996–2008. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39(1 Pt 1):35–42. This study examines patterns of utilization and costs of skin cancer treatments focusing on treatment modality, physician specialty, and site of service.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stern RS. Cost effectiveness of Mohs micrographic surgery. J Invest Dermatol. 2013;133(5):1129–31. This editorial comments on the perceived overutilization of Mohs surgery and questions the cost effectiveness of this procedure for primary cutaneous malignancies.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Neville JA, Welch E, Leffell DJ. Management of nonmelanoma skin cancer in 2007. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2007;4(8):462–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen S, Bayoumi AM, Goldstein MK. Cost-comparison analysis versus cost-effectiveness analysis: an important difference. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999;41(6):1050.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Frick KD. Microcosting quantity data collection methods. Med Care. 2009;47(7 Suppl 1):S76–81.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Folland S, Goodman AC, Stano M. Chapter 4: Economic efficiency and cost-benefit analysis. In: The economics of health and health care. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall; 2010.

  17. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.

  18. Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, Mavros P, Jönsson B. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health. 2004;7(5):518–28.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cook J, Zitelli JA. Mohs micrographic surgery: a cost analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1998 Nov;39(5 Pt 1):698–703.

  20. Ravitskiy L, Brodland DG, Zitelli JA. Cost analysis: Mohs micrographic surgery. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38(4):585–94. The most recent skin cancer treatment cost comparison study reinforcing the low cost of Mohs surgery compared to traditional surgical excision.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bialy TL, Whalen J, Veledar E, Lafreniere D, Spiro J, Chartier T, et al. Mohs micrographic surgery vs traditional surgical excision: a cost comparison analysis. Arch Dermatol. 2004 Jun;140(6):736–42.

  22. Rogers HW, Coldiron BM. A relative value unit-based cost comparison of treatment modalities for nonmelanoma skin cancer: Effect of the loss of the Mohs multiple surgery reduction exemption. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009 Jul;61(1):96–103.

  23. Wilson LS, Pregenzer M, Basu R, Bertenthal D, Torres J, Asgari M, et al. Fee comparisons of treatments for non-melanoma skin cancer in a private practice academic setting. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38(4):570–84. This study examines the costs associated with treatment of skin cancers diagnosed and treated at the University of California at San Francisco Department of Dermatology.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Essers BA, Dirksen CD, Nieman FH, Smeets NW, Krekels GA, Prins MH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of mohs micrographic surgery vs surgical excision for basal cell carcinoma of the face. Arch Dermatol. 2006 Feb;142(2):187–94.

  25. Mosterd K, Krekels GA, Nieman FH, Ostertag JU, Essers BA, Dirksen CD, et al. Surgical excision versus Mohs' micrographic surgery for primary and recurrent basal-cell carcinoma of the face: a prospective randomised controlled trial with 5-years' follow-up. Lancet Oncol. 2008 Dec;9(12):1149–56.

  26. Seidler AM, Bramlette TB, Washington CV, Szeto H, Chen SC. Mohs versus traditional surgical excision for facial and auricular nonmelanoma skin cancer: an analysis of cost-effectiveness. Dermatol Surg. 2009 Nov;35(11):1776–87.

  27. Rogers HW, Coldiron BM, Dinehart SM, Hendi A, Hruza G, Fosko SW, et al. Letter: Skin cancer treatment fee comparisons inaccurate. Dermatol Surg. 2012 Dec;38(12):2038–9.

  28. Otley CC. Cost-effectiveness of Mohs micrographic surgery vs surgical excision for basal cell carcinoma of the face. Arch Dermatol. 2006 Sep;142(9):1235.

  29. Leibovitch I, Huilgol SC, Selva D, Richards S, Paver R. Basal cell carcinoma treated with Mohs surgery in Australia II. Outcome at 5-year follow-up. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 Sep;53(3):452–7.

  30. Hruza GJ. Mohs micrographic surgery local recurrences. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1994 Sep;20(9):573–7.

  31. Rowe DE, Carroll RJ, Day Jr CL. Long-term recurrence rates in previously untreated (primary) basal cell carcinoma: Implications for patient follow-up. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1989 Mar;15(3):315–28.

  32. Murphy ME, Brodland DG, Zitelli JA. Errors in the interpretation of Mohs histopathology sections over a 1-year fellowship. Dermatol Surg. 2008 Dec;34(12):1637–41.

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

ᅟ

Conflict of Interest

HW Rogers declares no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

All studies by HW Rogers involving animal and/or human subjects were performed after approval by the appropriate institutional review boards. When required, written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Advanced Dermatology, 111 Salem Turnpike, Suite 7, Norwich, CT, 06360, USA

    Howard W. Rogers

Authors
  1. Howard W. Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Howard W. Rogers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rogers, H.W. Is Mohs Surgery Cost-Effective versus Traditional Surgical Excision?. Curr Derm Rep 3, 91–97 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13671-014-0079-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13671-014-0079-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation