The aging population means more men are diagnosed with prostate cancer, resulting in greater demand for treatment. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) claims to offer additional benefits to patients and providers. The independent Victorian Health Technology Program Advisory Committee assessed safety, clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness evidence and financial impact to inform policy, access and reimbursement decision-making by state government policy makers and public hospital providers.

Public and private hospital activity and costs for 2008–09 to 2012–13 from the Victorian Admitted Episodes Database (VAED) and the Victorian Cost Data Collection (VCDC) were identified. Data were extracted and reviewed based on (i) DRGs M01A and B, (ii) primary diagnostic code C61 (ICD-10-AM), and (iii) Australian Classification of Health Interventions procedure codes for open (ORP), laparoscopic (LRP) and RARP, supplemented by Victorian Prostate Cancer Clinical Registry data. English language Health Technology Assessments (HTAs)/systematic reviews published January 2009 to January 2015 were identified and analysed with comparative clinical outcomes data for RARP vs. ORP and RARP vs. LRP analysed. Not all reported the same data and most outcomes data presented were odds ratios and risk ratios.

RARP offers patients a shorter length of stay (LOS) compared with ORP or LRP, but the procedure takes longer to perform. While RARP has similar safety and clinical effectiveness profiles compared with ORP and LRP, published data do not unequivocally demonstrate that RARP is superior to ORP or LRP in terms of clinical outcomes. RARP is more expensive than ORP and LRP. The cost differential increases when capital costs are taken into account. Cost offsets from a reduced LOS are insufficient to justify the higher cost.

Since RARP produces similar clinical outcomes to ORP and LRP but at a higher cost, the Victorian Health Technology Program Advisory Committee considered the case for public sector support of RARP is weak and provided two recommendations: (i) State Government resources are not used to procure RARP capital equipment; (ii) public hospitals can refer patients to a RARP provider, provided costs are negotiated prior to patient transfer and fully covered by the referring hospital.