Aims. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for patients with a proximal humerus fracture, using time-driven activity based costing (TDABC), and to compare treatment costs with reimbursement under the Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs). Methods. TDABC analysis based on the principles outlined by Kaplan and a clinical pathway that has previously been validated for this institution was used. Staffing cost, consumables, implants, and overheads were updated to reflect 2019/2020 costs. This was compared with the HRG reimbursements. Results. The mean cost of a RSA is £7,007.46 (£6,130.67 to £8,824.67). Implants and staffing costs were the primary cost drivers, with implants (£2,824.80) making up 40% of the costs. Staffing costs made up £1,367.78 (19%) of overall costs. The total tariff, accounting for market force factors and high comorbidities, reimburses £4,629. If maximum cost and minimum reimbursement is applied the losses to the trust are £4,828.67. Conclusion. RSA may be an effective and appropriate surgical option in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures; however, a cost analysis at our centre has demonstrated the financial burden of this surgery. Given its increasing use in trauma, there is a need to work towards generating an HRG that adequately reimburses providers. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2020;1-12:731–736

Aims. A pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled trial, UK FROzen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), was conducted in the UK NHS comparing the cost-effectiveness of commonly used treatments for adults with primary frozen shoulder in secondary care. Methods. A cost utility analysis from the NHS perspective was performed. Differences between manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic capsular release (ACR), and early structured physiotherapy plus steroid injection (ESP) in costs (2018 GBP price base) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at one year were used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatments using regression methods. Results. ACR was £1,734 more costly than ESP ((95% confidence intervals (CIs) £1,529 to £1,938)) and £1,457 more costly than MUA (95% CI £1,283 to £1,632). MUA was £276 (95% CI £66 to £487) more expensive than ESP. Overall, ACR had worse QALYs compared with MUA (-0.0293; 95% CI -0.0616 to 0.0030) and MUA had better QALYs compared with ESP (0.0396; 95% CI -0.0008 to 0.0800). At a £20,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, MUA had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0.8632) then ESP (0.1366) and ACR (0.0002). The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusion. While ESP was less costly, MUA was the most cost-effective option. ACR was not cost-effective. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):685–695