Search

Objectives: Infants born to mothers who are hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive are at risk for perinatal hepatitis B infection. As prevention, these infants receive a series of 3 or 4 doses of hepatitis B vaccine starting at birth and postvaccination serologic testing. Infants with antibody levels <10 mIU/mL are considered vaccine nonresponders and should be revaccinated. The objective of this cost analysis was to assess a single-dose revaccination strategy among infant nonresponders. Methods: We used a decision analytic tree to compare the costs of a single-dose revaccination strategy with the costs of a 3-dose revaccination strategy. The analysis consisted of 3 epidemiologic scenarios that varied levels of previous protection among infants indicated for revaccination. We assumed health outcomes in each strategy were the same, and we evaluated costs from the societal perspective using 2016 US dollars. We conducted sensitivity analyses on key variables, including the minimum required efficacy of a single revaccination dose. Results: In all analyses, the single-dose revaccination strategy was a lower-cost option than the 3-dose revaccination strategy. Under the assumption that all revaccination visits were previously unscheduled, single-dose revaccination reduced the cost per infant by $119.81 to $155.72 (depending on the scenario). Across all scenarios, the most conservative estimate for the threshold efficacy (the minimum efficacy required to result in a lower-cost option) value of single-dose revaccination was 67%. Conclusions: For infants who were born to HBsAg-positive mothers and who were not responding to the initial vaccine series, a single-dose revaccination strategy, compared with a 3-dose revaccination strategy, reduced costs across several scenarios. These results helped inform the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' vote in February 2017 to recommend single-dose revaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As economic considerations become more important in healthcare reimbursement, decisions about the further development of medical innovations need to take into account not only medical need and potential clinical effectiveness, but also cost-effectiveness. Already early in the innovation process economic evaluations can support decisions on development in specific indications or patient groups by anticipating future reimbursement and implementation decisions. One potential concept for early assessment is value-based pricing.Methods: The objective is to assess the feasibility of value-based pricing and product design for a hypothetical vascular closure device in the pre-clinical stage which aims at decreasing bleeding events. A deterministic decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of established vascular closure devices from the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance system. To identify early benchmarks for pricing and product design, three strategies of determining the product's value are explored: 1) savings from complications avoided by the new device; 2) valuation of the avoided complications based on an assumed willingness-to-pay-threshold (the efficiency frontier approach); 3) value associated with modifying the care pathways within which the device would be applied.Results: Use of established vascular closure devices is dominated by manual compression. The hypothetical vascular closure device reduces overall complication rates at higher costs than manual compression. Maximum cost savings of only about €4 per catheterization could be realized by applying the hypothetical device. Extrapolation of an efficiency frontier is only possible for one subgroup where vascular closure devices are not a dominated strategy. Modifying care in terms of same-day discharge of patients treated with vascular closure devices could result in cost savings of €400-600 per catheterization.Conclusions: It was partially feasible to calculate value-based prices for the novel closure device which can be used to inform product design. However, modifying the care pathway may generate much more value from the payers' perspective than modifying the device per se. Manufacturers should thus explore the feasibility of combining reimbursement of their product with arrangements that make same-day discharge attractive also for hospitals. Due to the early nature of the product, the results are afflicted with substantial uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Secondary prevention involves monitoring and screening to prevent negative sequelae from chronic diseases such as cancer. Breast cancer treatment sequelae, such as lymphedema, may occur early or late and often negatively affect function. Secondary prevention through prospective physical therapy surveillance aids in early identification and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). Early intervention may reduce the need for intensive rehabilitation and may be cost saving. This perspective article compares a prospective surveillance model with a traditional model of impairment-based care and examines direct treatment costs associated with each program. Intervention and supply costs were estimated based on the Medicare 2009 physician fee schedule for 2 groups: (1) a prospective surveillance model group (PSM group) and (2) a traditional model group (TM group). The PSM group comprised all women with breast cancer who were receiving interval prospective surveillance, assuming that one third would develop early-stage BCRL. The prospective surveillance model includes the cost of screening all women plus the cost of intervention for early-stage BCRL. The TM group comprised women referred for BCRL treatment using a traditional model of referral based on late-stage lymphedema. The traditional model cost includes the direct cost of treating patients with advanced-stage lymphedema. The cost to manage early-stage BCRL per patient per year using a prospective surveillance model is $636.19. The cost to manage late-stage BCRL per patient per year using a traditional model is $3,124.92. The prospective surveillance model is emerging as the standard of care in breast cancer treatment and is a potential cost-saving mechanism for BCRL treatment. Further analysis of indirect costs and utility is necessary to assess cost-effectiveness. A shift in the paradigm of physical therapy toward a prospective surveillance model is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the cost of two treatment regimens for moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS): conservative inpatient versus outpatient management with paracentesis.Design: A decision-tree mathematical model comparing conservative inpatient versus outpatient management of moderate to severe OHSS was created. The common final pathway of either management was resolution of OHSS. Sensitivity analyses were performed over the range of variables.Main Outcome Measure(s): Total management cost of OHSS.Result(s): The cost of conservative therapy including first-tier complications was $10,099 (range $9,655-$15,044). The cost of outpatient management with paracentesis was $1954 (range $788-$12,041). This resulted in an estimated cost savings of $8145 with outpatient management with paracentesis. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Varying the probability of admission after outpatient treatment still indicated that outpatient treatment was the most cost-effective (probability = 1.0, cost = $6110). Varying the duration of hospitalization with primary inpatient treatment was equal to outpatient treatment costs only at a stay of 0.71 days or shorter.Conclusion(s): Our model suggests early outpatient paracentesis for moderate to severe OHSS is the most cost-effective management plan when compared with traditional conservative inpatient therapy. The cost savings for outpatient management persisted throughout a variety of outcome probabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]