Search

To compare the cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions for BPH.Using a Markov model, a cost-utility analysis was performed comparing HoLEP, B-TURP, WVTT, and PUL for prostate size80cc (index patient 1) and HoLEP and SP for prostate size80cc (index patient 2). Model probabilities and utility values were drawn from the literature. Analysis was performed at a 5-year time horizon with extrapolation to a lifetime horizon. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), 2021 Medicare costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.At 5 years, costs per patient for index patient 1 were $3292 (WVTT), $6532 (HoLEP), $6670 (B-TURP), and $10,257 (PUL). HoLEP resulted in the highest QALYs (4.66), followed by B-TURP (4.60), PUL (4.38), and WVTT (4.38). This translated to HoLEP being most cost-effective (ICER $11,847). For index patient 2, HoLEP was less costly ($6,585 vs $15,404) and more effective (4.654 vs 4.650) relative to SP. On sensitivity analysis for index patient 1, B-TURP became most cost-effective if cost of HoLEP increased two-fold or chronic stress incontinence following HoLEP increased ten-fold. When follow-up time was varied, WVTT was preferred at very short follow up (1 year), and HoLEP became more strongly preferred with longer follow up.At 5 years follow up, HoLEP is a cost-effective surgical treatment for BPH- independent of gland size.

To evaluate care utilization, cost, and mortality among high-risk patients enrolled in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remote patient monitoring (RPM) program.This retrospective analysis included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at risk for severe disease who enrolled in the RPM program between March 2020 and October 2021. The program included in-home technology for symptom and physiologic data monitoring with centralized care management. Propensity score matching established matched cohorts of RPM-engaged (defined as ≥1 RPM technology interactions) and non-engaged patients using a logistic regression model of 59 baseline characteristics. Billing codes and the electronic death certificate system were used for data abstraction from the electronic health record and reporting of care utilization and mortality endpoints.Among 5796 RPM-enrolled patients, 80.0% engaged with the technology. Following matching, 1128 pairs of RPM-engaged and non-engaged patients comprised the analysis cohorts. Mean patient age was 63.3 years, 50.9% of patients were female, and 81.9% were non-Hispanic White. Patients who were RPM-engaged experienced significantly lower rates of 30-day, all-cause hospitalization (13.7% vs 18.0%, P=.01), prolonged hospitalization (3.5% vs 6.7%, P=.001), intensive care unit admission (2.3% vs 4.2%, P=.01), and mortality (0.5% vs 1.7%; odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.78; P=.01), as well as cost of care ($2306.33 USD vs $3565.97 USD, P=0.04), than those enrolled in RPM but non-engaged.High-risk COVID-19 patients enrolled and engaged in an RPM program experienced lower rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mortality, and cost than those enrolled and non-engaged. These findings translate to improved hospital bed access and patient outcomes.

biIntroduction:/i/bTeleneonatology (TN) allows remote neonatologists to provide real-time audio-video telemedicine support to community hospitals when neonates require advanced resuscitation or critical care. Currently, there are no published economic evaluations of U.S. TN programs.biObjective:/i/bTo evaluate the cost of TN from the perspective of the health care system.biMethods:/i/bWe constructed a decision tree comparing TN to usual care for neonates born in hospitals without a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) who require consultation. Our outcome of interest was total cost per patient, which included the incremental cost of a TN program, the cost of medical transport, and the cost of NICU or non-NICU hospitalization. We performed threshold sensitivity analyses where we varied each parameter to determine whether the base-case finding reverted.biResults:/i/bFor neonates requiring consultation after birth in a hospital without a NICU, TN was less costly ($16,878) than usual care ($28,047), representing a cost-savings of $11,168 per patient. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that at least one of the following conditions would need to be met for TN to no longer be cost saving compared to usual care: transfer rate with usual carelt;12% (base-case = 82%), TN reducing the odds of transfer bylt;8% (base-case = 52%), or TN cost exceeding $12,989 per patient (base-case = $1,821 per patient).biConclusions:/i/bEconomic modeling from the health system perspective demonstrated that TN was cost saving compared to usual care for neonates requiring consultation following delivery in a non-NICU hospital. Understanding the cost savings associated with TN may influence organizational decisions regarding implementation, diffusion, and retention of these programs.

The legitimacy of findings from cancer health economics research depends on study design and methods. A breakout session, Methods and Study Design for Cancer Health Economics Research, was convened at the Future of Cancer Health Economics Research Conference to discuss 2 commonly used analytic tools for cancer health economics research: observational studies and decision-analytic modeling. Observational studies include analysis of data collected with the primary purpose of supporting economic evaluation or secondary use of data collected for another purpose. Modeling studies develop a parametrized structure, such as a decision tree, to estimate hypothetical impact. Whereas observational studies focus on what has happened and why, modeling studies address what may happen. We summarize the discussion at this breakout session, focusing on 3 key elements of high-quality cancer health economics research: study design, analytical methods, and addressing uncertainty.

BACKGROUND Irreparable rotator cuff tears (IRCTs) pose treatment challenges both clinically and financially. As cost-effectiveness initiatives are prioritized, value-based health care delivery models are becoming increasingly common. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive analysis of the cost, complications, and readmission rates of 3 common surgical treatment options for IRCTs: superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), arthroscopically assisted lower trapezius tendon transfer (LTTT), and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). METHODS Between 2018 and 2020, 155 patients who underwent shoulder surgery at a single institution for IRCT with minimal to no arthritis were identified. Procedures performed included 20 SCRs, 47 LTTTs, and 88 RSAs. A cost analysis was designed to include a period of 60 days preoperatively, the index surgical hospitalization, and 90 days postoperatively, including costs of any readmission or reoperation. RESULTS Mean standardized costs were as follows: preoperative evaluation SCR $507, LTTT $507, and RSA $730; index surgical hospitalization SCR $19,675, LTTT $15,722, and RSA $16,077; and postoperative care SCR $655, LTTT $686, and RSA $404. Significant differences were observed in the index surgical costs (P < .001), with SCR incurring an additional average cost of $3953 and $3598 compared with LTTT and RSA, respectively. The 90-day complication, reoperation, and readmission rates were 0%, 0%, and 0% in the SCR group; 2.1%, 0%, and 0% in the LTTT group; and 3.4%, 0%, and 1.1% in the RSA group, respectively. With the numbers available, differences among the 3 surgical procedures with respect to complication (P = .223), reoperation (P = .999), and readmission rates (P = .568) did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS The mean standardized costs for the treatment of 3 common IRCT procedures inclusive of 60-day workup and 90-day postoperative recovery were $16,915, $17,210, and $20,837 for LTTT, RSA (average added cost $295), and SCR (average added cost $3922), respectively. This information may provide surgeons and institutions with cost-related information that will become increasingly relevant with the expansion of value-based surgical reimbursements.

Objective The evaluation of women with perimenopausal abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) and postmenopausal bleeding (PMB) to detect endometrial cancer (EC) and its precursors is not standardized and can vary widely. Consequently, costs associated with the workup and management undoubtedly vary. This study aimed to quantify costs of AUB/PMB evaluation to understand the healthcare burden associated with securing a pathologic diagnosis. Methods Women ≥45 years of age presenting to a single institution gynecology clinic with AUB/PMB for diagnostic workup were prospectively enrolled February 2013–October 2017 for a lower genital tract biospecimen research study. Clinical workup of AUB/PMB was determined by individual provider discretion. Costs of care were collected from administrative billing systems from enrollment to 90 days post enrollment. Costs were standardized and inflation-adjusted to 2017 US Dollars (USD). Results In total, there were 1017 women enrolled with 5.6% diagnosed with atypical hyperplasia or endometrial cancer (EC). Within the full cohort, 90-day median cost for AUB/PMB workup and management was $2279 (IQR $512–4828). Among patients with a diagnostic biopsy, median 90-day costs ranged from $2203 (IQR $499–3604) for benign or disordered proliferative endometrium (DPE) diagnosis to $21,039 (IQR $19,084-24,536) for a diagnosis of EC. Conclusions The costs for diagnostic evaluation of perimenopausal AUB and PMB vary greatly according to ultimate tissue-based diagnosis. Even reassuring benign findings that do not require further intervention—the most common in this study's cohort—yield substantial costs. The development of sensitive, specific, and more cost-effective diagnostic strategies is warranted.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of an interdisciplinary remote patient monitoring (RPM) program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Adult patients receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020, were included. RPM was composed of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nursing and physician oversight. RESULTS: During the study timeframe, 224 patients with cancer were diagnosed with COVID-19. Of the 187 patients (83%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM. Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity score weighting, rates of hospitalization for RPM and non-RPM patients were 2.8% and 13%, respectively, implying that the use of RPM was associated with a 78% relative risk reduction in hospital admission rate (95% CI, 54 to 102; P = .002). Furthermore, when hospitalized, these patients experienced a shorter length of stay and fewer prolonged hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths, although these trends did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The use of RPM and a centralized virtual care team was associated with a reduction in hospital admission rate and lower overall acute care resource utilization among cancer patients with COVID-19.

To compare perioperative costs and morbidity between open and robotic sacrocolpopexy after Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) implementation.This retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing open or robotic sacrocolpopexy (January 1, 2014, through November 30, 2017) used ERAS protocol with liposomal bupivacaine infiltration of laparotomy incisions. Primary outcomes were costs associated with index surgery and hospitalization, determined with Medicare cost-to-charge ratios and reimbursement rates and adjusted for variables expected to impact costs. Secondary outcomes included narcotic use, length of stay (LOS), and complications from index hospitalization to postoperative day 30.For the total 231 patients (open cohort, 90; robotic cohort, 141), adjusted mean cost of robotic surgery was $3,239 higher compared to open sacrocolpopexy (95% CI, $1,331-$5,147; P.001). Rates were not significantly different for intraoperative complications (robotic, 4.3% [6/141]; open, 5.6% [5/90]; P=.754); 30-day postoperative complications (robotic, 11.4% [16/141]; open, 16.7% [15/90]; P=.322); or readmissions (robotic, 5.7% [8/141]; open, 3.3% [3/90]; P=.535). The percentage of patients dismissed on postoperative day 1 was greater in the robotic group (89.4% [126/141] vs 48.9% [44/90], P.001).Decreased LOS associated with ERAS provided significant cost savings with open sacrocolpopexy vs robotic sacrocolpopexy without adverse impacts on perioperative complications or readmissions.

The Merlin assay for melanoma-risk assessment has become commercially available to reduce the rate of unnecessary sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNB) in SLNB-eligible patients with cutaneous melanoma. Merlin low-risk patients are recommended to undergo wide local excision (WLE) of the primary tumor, whereas Merlin high-risk patients are recommended to undergo both SLNB and WLE. Here, we compared the cost of a Merlin testing strategy to that of a no-testing strategy (usual care) before prescribing SLNB.We identified T1 and T2 patients who underwent WLE and SLNB but not completion lymph node dissection between 2007 and 2018. Controls were T1 patients who only underwent WLE. Costs for WLE and SLNB were calculated by converting institutional cost data to standardized Medicare reimbursement rates. We then developed a decision tree to compare the cost of Merlin testing to that of a no-testing strategy (usual care).The average standardized cost of WLE was $2066, whereas the cost of WLE and SLNB was $11,976 based on Medicare rates. At a cost below $7350 for T1b melanoma and $4600 for T1b to T2 melanoma, Merlin testing was cost-saving compared to a no-testing strategy (usual care), assuming Medicare reimbursement rates.Merlin testing for T1b and T2 melanoma is potentially cost saving depending on the cost of the molecular assay and SLNB reimbursement rates. In addition to being cost saving, Merlin is expected to improve health-related quality of life.

Out-of-pocket costs represent an important component of financial toxicity and may impact patients' receipt of care. Herein, we evaluated patient-level factors associated with out-of-pocket costs for contemporary advanced prostate cancer treatment options.We identified all commercially insured men receiving treatment for advanced prostate cancer between 2007 and 2019 within the OptumLabs Data Warehouse®. Patients were categorized into 3 treatment groups: androgen deprivation monotherapy, novel hormonal therapy, and nonandrogen systemic therapy. The primary outcome was out-of-pocket costs in the first year of treatment. The associations of treatment and patient variables with out-of-pocket costs were assessed using multivariable regression models. All costs were adjusted to reflect 2019 U.S. dollars using the Consumer Price Index.In a cohort of 13,409 men 81% (n = 10,926) received androgen deprivation monotherapy, 6% (n = 832) novel hormonal therapy, and 12% (n = 1,651) nonandrogen systemic therapy. Mean treatment-related out-of-pocket costs in the first year were $165, $4,236, and $994 for androgen deprivation monotherapy, novel hormonal therapy, and nonandrogen systemic therapy, respectively. The adjusted difference in annual treatment-related out-of-pocket costs for novel hormonal therapy and nonandrogen systemic therapy were $2,581 (95% CI: $1,923-$3,240) and $752 (95% CI: $600-$903) higher than androgen deprivation monotherapy, respectively. Patient characteristics associated (Patients receiving novel hormonal therapy for advanced prostate cancer had substantially higher treatment-related out-of-pocket costs. In addition to raising awareness among prescribers, these data support the inclusion of treatment associated financial toxicity in shared decision making for advanced prostate cancer and call attention to subgroups of patients particularly vulnerable to financial toxicity.

The KEYNOTE-564 trial demonstrated that adjuvant pembrolizumab after nephrectomy for clear cell renal cell carcinoma decreased the risk of disease progression and potentially overall mortality as well. Herein, we used a Markov model to weigh the costs, toxicities, and efficacy of pembrolizumab to further investigate its utility.Decision-analytic Markov modeling was used to conduct a cost-utility analysis of adjuvant pembrolizumab versus observation after nephrectomy for high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma, using data from KEYNOTE-564 to inform model probabilities. Primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years, Medicare costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The willingness-to-pay threshold utilized was $100,000/quality-adjusted life year.At 5 years, adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab resulted in 0.3 additional quality-adjusted life years at an additional cost of $99,484 relative to observation. Pembrolizumab was found not to be cost-effective at a 5-year time horizon (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio=$326,534). On sensitivity analysis, pembrolizumab became cost-effective if its per cycle cost was$5,064 (base=$10,278) or its 5-year progression benefit was18.8% (base 9%). Upon simulation, pembrolizumab was cost-effective for 29% of patients at 5 years. Specifically, we found that pembrolizumab would be cost-effective at 5 years for patients with at least a 59% 5 year risk of progression, which corresponds to a Mayo Progression-free Survival Score ≥10.At current prices, adjuvant pembrolizumab was found to be cost-effective only for the highest risk subset of clear cell renal cell carcinoma patients 5 years after treatment, including patients with complete metastasectomy, regional lymph node involvement, or ≥7cm pT3 tumors with sarcomatoid features. Longer-term trial data, including overall survival results, are necessary to confirm these extrapolations.

Pleural and pericardial involvements are well recognized in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) but considered rare manifestations of the other forms of antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV).What are the frequency and clinical characteristics of pleuritis and pericarditis in AAV?and Methods: Using an institutional database of 1,830 patients with AAV, we analyzed clinical notes and diagnosis codes for key words related to pleuritis and pericarditis. Chart review to confirm these findings was performed.Eighty-eight of 1,058 patients (8.3%) with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), 27 of 267 (10.1%) with microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and 35 of 201 (17.4%) with EGPA had a manifestation of pleuritis and/or pericarditis attributable to vasculitis. There was a higher frequency of pericarditis in EGPA compared with that in the other AAVs (P .01). There was no difference in the frequency of pleuritis in GPA, MPA, or EGPA. In the 156 patients with AAV with pleuritis and/or pericarditis, this was a presenting feature in 127 (81.4%). Overall, it was a presenting feature in 6.9% of all patients with AAV, including 6.5% with GPA, 8.6% with MPA, and 15.9% with EGPA.Pleuritis and pericarditis occur across all the AAVs and, when present, are commonly presenting features of these diseases. Patients with EGPA have a higher proportion of pericardial involvement compared with pleural involvement, whereas this distribution is more equal in patients with GPA and MPA. Pleuritis and pericarditis are underrecognized features of AAV. All forms of AAV should be considered in the differential diagnosis when evaluating a patient with pleuritis or pericarditis.

OBJECTIVE Despite the growing emphasis on healthcare costs, limited data address this aspect of care within the vestibular schwannoma (VS) literature. We sought to determine which strategy confers the lowest lifetime cost and greatest quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients with small- to medium-sized sporadic VS tumors. STUDY DESIGN A Markov model was created to determine the most cost-effective management algorithm. Tumor characteristics, magnetic resonance imaging surveillance schedule, treatment outcomes, and health-related quality of life values were derived from previously published data. Cost estimates were based on CMS Fee Schedule reimbursement rates. SETTING Economic Evaluation Service within the Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery. PATIENTS Patients diagnosed with small- to medium-sized sporadic VS. INTERVENTIONS Upfront microsurgery following diagnosis, upfront radiosurgery following diagnosis, observation with microsurgery reserved for observed tumor growth, and observation with radiosurgery reserved for observed tumor growth. RESULTS Across patient ages at time of diagnosis ranging from 18 to 70 years, observation with subsequent radiosurgery used for tumor growth was the most cost-effective management algorithm while upfront microsurgery was the least. When presented with a hypothetical 50-year-old patient, the strategy with the lowest lifetime cost and highest QALYs was observation with subsequent radiosurgery reserved for tumor growth ($32,161, 14.11 QALY), followed by observation with microsurgery reserved for tumor growth ($34,503, 13.94 QALY), upfront radiosurgery ($43,456, 14.02 QALY), and lastly, upfront microsurgery ($47,252, 13.60 QALY). Sensitivity analyses varying mortality rates, estimated costs, health-related quality of life, and progression to nonserviceable hearing demonstrated consistent ranking among treatments. CONCLUSIONS When considering initial management of small- and medium-sized sporadic VSs, neither lifetime cost nor QALYs support upfront microsurgery or radiosurgery, even for younger patients. Initial observation with serial imaging, reserving radiosurgery or microsurgery for patients exhibiting tumor growth, confers the greatest potential for optimized lifetime healthcare cost and QALY outcomes.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an artificial intelligence electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) algorithm under various clinical and cost scenarios when used for universal screening at age 65.We used decision analytic modeling to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of AI-ECG to screen for asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction (ALVD) once at age 65 compared with no screening. This screening consisted of an initial screening decision tree and subsequent construction of a Markov model. One-way sensitivity analysis on various disease and cost parameters to evaluate cost-effectiveness at both $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $100,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold.We found that for universal screening at age 65, the novel AI-ECG algorithm would cost $43,351 per QALY gained, test performance, disease characteristics, and testing cost parameters significantly affect cost-effectiveness, and screening at ages 55 and 75 would cost $48,649 and $52,072 per QALY gained, respectively. Overall, under most of the clinical scenarios modeled, coupled with its robust test performance in both testing and validation cohorts, screening with the novel AI-ECG algorithm appears to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000.Universal screening for ALVD with the novel AI-ECG appears to be cost-effective under most clinical scenarios with a cost of$50,000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness is particularly sensitive to both the probability of disease progression and the cost of screening and downstream testing. To improve cost-effectiveness modeling, further study of the natural progression and treatment of ALVD and external validation of AI-ECG should be undertaken.

Importance: A postoperative video telemedicine follow-up program was introduced by the Mayo Clinic. An attempt was made to understand the potential cost savings to patients before contemplating full-scale expansion across all potentially eligible surgical patients and practices. Objective: The primary purpose was to estimate potential cost savings to patients with video telemedicine follow-up to home compared with face-to-face follow-up in a standard clinic setting. Design: The research was designed collaboratively by the Center for Connected Care and the surgical practice to address the question of estimated cost savings of postoperative video telemedicine visits. The intervention arm is the postoperative video telemedicine follow-up visit to home setting and the comparator is the face-to-face visit at Mayo Clinic. Setting: Large, integrated, academic multispecialty practice supporting patient care delivery, research, and education. Participants: The population under study comprised routine uncomplicated postoperative patients who underwent video telemedicine or face-to-face follow-up visits that fell within the 90-day global period across multiple (general, neurosurgery, plastic, thoracic, transplant, and urology) surgical specialties. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Economic outcomes were cost of travel, accommodations, meals, and missed work. Additional outcomes included time expenditure and patient satisfaction. Cost/benefit analysis unit was US dollars (USD). All costs were inflated to 2018 USD, using the Gross Domestic Product Implicit price deflator. Results: Patients who utilized video telemedicine rather than face-to-face clinic visit for postoperative follow-up were estimated to save $888 per visit on average. More specifically, patients residing more than 1,635 miles round trip from clinic saved an estimated $1,501 per visit and patients not needing accommodation still saved an estimated $256 per visit. Patient satisfaction over video telemedicine postoperative follow-up visits remained high over the 6-year period of study. Conclusions and Relevance: The use of video telemedicine for routine uncomplicated postoperative follow-up visits to replace face-to-face follow-up visits has the potential to be financially advantageous for patients. Key points Question: For postoperative patients, what are the health economic outcomes associated with video telemedicine follow-up to home compared with face-to-face follow-up in a standard clinic setting? Findings: Video telemedicine offers a cost benefit for patients through avoidance of travel costs and missed work. Meaning: For uncomplicated routine postoperative follow-up visits, video telemedicine is a less costly alternative for most patients.

PURPOSE De-escalated treatment for human papillomavirus (HPV)+ oropharynx squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has shown promising initial results. Health-care policy is increasingly focusing on high-value care. This analysis compares the cost of care for HPV+ OPSCC treated with definitive chemoradiation (CRT), surgery and adjuvant radiation (RT), and surgery and de-escalated CRT on MC1273. METHODS AND MATERIALS MC1273 is a prospective, phase 2 study evaluating adjuvant CRT to 30 to 36 Gy plus docetaxel for HPV+ OPSCC after surgery for high-risk patients. Matched standard-of-care control groups were retrospectively identified for patients treated with definitive CRT or adjuvant RT. Standardized costs were evaluated before radiation, during treatment (during RT), and at short-term (6 month) and long-term (7-24 month) follow-up periods. RESULTS A total of 56 definitive CRT, 101 adjuvant RT, and 66 MC1273 patients were included. The CRT arm had more T3-4 disease (63% vs 17-21%) and higher N2c-N3 disease (52% vs 20-24%) vs both other groups. The total treatment costs in the CRT, adjuvant RT, and MC1273 groups were $47,763 (standard deviation [SD], $19,060], $57,845 (SD, $17,480), and $46,007 (SD, $9019), respectively, and the chemotherapy and/or RT costs were $39,936 (SD, $18,480), $26,603 (SD, $12,542), and $17,864 (SD, $3288), respectively. The per-patient, per-month, average short-term follow-up costs were $3860 (SD, $10,525), $1072 (SD, $996), and $972 (SD, $833), respectively, and the long-term costs were $978 (SD, $2294), $485 (SD, $1156), and $653 (SD, $1107), respectively. After adjustment for age, T-stage, and N-stage, treatment costs remained lower for CRT and MC1273 versus adjuvant RT ($45,450 and $47,114 vs $58,590, respectively; P < .001), whereas the total per-patient, per-month follow-up costs were lower in the MC1273 study group and adjuvant RT versus CRT ($853 and $866 vs $2030, respectively; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS MC1273 resulted in 10% and 20% reductions in global costs compared with standard-of-care adjuvant RT and definitive CRT treatments. Substantial cost savings may be an added benefit to the already noted low toxicity and maintained quality of life of treatment per MC1273.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive tests for Barrett's esophagus (BE) detection have raised the prospect of broader nonreflux-based testing. Cost-effectiveness studies have largely studied men aged 50 years with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. We evaluated the comparative cost effectiveness of BE screening tests in GERD-based and GERD-independent testing scenarios. METHODS: Markov modeling was performed in 3 scenarios in 50 years old individuals: (i) White men with chronic GERD (GERD-based); (ii) GERD-independent (all races, men and women), BE prevalence 1.6%; and (iii) GERD-independent, BE prevalence 5%. The simulation compared multiple screening strategies with no screening: sedated endoscopy (sEGD), transnasal endoscopy, swallowable esophageal cell collection devices with biomarkers, and exhaled volatile organic compounds. A hypothetical cohort of 500,000 individuals followed for 40 years using a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was simulated. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing each strategy with no screening and comparing screening strategies with each other were calculated. RESULTS: In both GERD-independent scenarios, most non-sEGD BE screening tests were cost effective. Swallowable esophageal cell collection devices with biomarkers were cost effective (

The VESPER trial demonstrated improved progression-free (PFS) and (preliminarily) overall survival (OS) with six cycles of neoadjuvant dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (ddMVACx6) versus four cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GCx4) before radical cystectomy (RC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but with increased toxicity. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of these regimens.A cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant ddMVACx6 and GCx4 was performed using a decision-analytic Markov model with 5-year, 10-year, and lifetime horizons. Probabilities were derived from reported VESPER data. Utility values were obtained from the literature. Primary outcomes were effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model.At 5 years, ddMVACx6 improved QALYs by 0.30 at an additional cost of $16,100, rendering it cost-effective relative to GCx4 (ICER: $53,284/QALY). Additionally, probabilistic sensitivity analysis found ddMVACx6 to be cost-effective in 79% and 81% of microsimulations at10-year and lifetime horizons, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated a minimum difference in 5-year progression of 0.9% and progression mortality of 0.7% between ddMVACx6 and GCx4 was necessary for ddMVACx6 to remain cost-effective.Neoadjuvant ddMVACx6 was more cost-effective than GCx4 for MIBC. These data, together with the improved PFS and (albeit preliminary) OS noted in VESPER, support use of this regimen in appropriate candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy before RC.We performed a benefit-to-cost analysis using evidence from a randomized controlled trial that compared two different chemotherapy treatments before bladder removal for bladder cancer that had invaded into the bladder muscle. Despite being more expensive and having a greater likelihood of toxicity, six cycles of dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin was more cost-effective (or had higher value) than four cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin.

Hypothesis/Background Value-based healthcare delivery models are becoming increasingly common and are driving cost effectiveness initiatives. Rotator cuff repair (RCR) is a commonly performed procedure with some variations on the specific surgical technique. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive analysis of the cost, complications, and readmission rates of 3 categories of RCR techniques (open [oRCR], combined arthroscopically assisted and mini-open [CRCR], and all arthroscopic [ARCR]) at a high-volume institution. Methods All RCR procedures performed by 2 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons at a single institution between 2012 and 2017 were retrospectively identified. These consisted of oRCR, CRCR, and ARCR repair techniques. One surgeon performed oRCR and CRCR, and the second surgeon performed ARCR. A cost analysis was designed to include a period of 60 days preoperatively, the index surgical hospitalization, and 90 days postoperatively, including costs of any readmission or reoperation. Results The cohort consisted of 95 oRCR, 233 CRCR, and 287 ARCR. Median standardized costs were as follows: preoperative evaluation $486.03; index surgical hospitalization oRCR $9,343.10, CRCR $10,057.20, and ARCR $10,330.60; and postoperative care $875.02. Preoperative and postoperative costs did not vary based on the type of RCR performed. However, significant differences were observed among index surgical costs (P = .0008). The highest standardized cost for hospitalization for both the CRCR group and the ARCR group was related to the cost of the operating room and the implants. The 90-day complication, reoperation, and readmission rates were 1.1%, 1.1%, and 2.1% in the open group; 0.8%, 0.8%, and 1.7% in the combination group; 0%, 0%, and 1.7% in the all arthroscopic group, respectively. There were no significant differences among the 3 surgical procedures with respect to complication (P = .26), reoperation (P = .26), and readmission rates (P = .96). Discussion/Conclusions In this investigation, the median standardized costs for RCR inclusive of 60-day workup and 90-day postoperative care were $10,704.15, $11,418.25, and $11,691.65 for oRCR, CRCR (average added cost $714.10), and ARCR (added cost $987.50), respectively. The group complication, reoperation, and readmission rate were 0.5%, 0.5%, and 1.8% with no significant differences between the varying techniques, respectively. This retrospective cost analysis and complication profile may serve as a useful reference as surgeons consider engaging in bundled payment for RCR. As value based initiatives continue to progress, implant cost may serve as an actionable area for cost reduction.

Objective To estimate the cost-effectiveness of multitarget stool DNA testing (MT-sDNA) compared with colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for Alaska Native adults. Patients and Methods A Markov model was used to evaluate the 3 screening test effects over 40 years. Outcomes included colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The study incorporated updated evidence on screening test performance and adherence and was conducted from December 15, 2016, through November 6, 2019. Results With perfect adherence, CRC incidence was reduced by 52% (95% CI, 46% to 56%) using colonoscopy, 61% (95% CI, 57% to 64%) using annual FIT, and 66% (95% CI, 63% to 68%) using MT-sDNA. Compared with no screening, perfect adherence screening extends life by 0.15, 0.17, and 0.19 QALYs per person with colonoscopy, FIT, and MT-sDNA, respectively. Colonoscopy is the most expensive strategy: approximately $110 million more than MT-sDNA and $127 million more than FIT. With imperfect adherence (best case), MT-sDNA resulted in 0.12 QALYs per person vs 0.05 and 0.06 QALYs per person by FIT and colonoscopy, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported the base-case analysis. Under varied adherence scenarios, MT-sDNA either dominates or is cost-effective (ICERs, $1740-$75,868 per QALY saved) compared with FIT and colonoscopy. Conclusion Each strategy reduced costs and increased QALYs compared with no screening. Screening by MT-sDNA results in the largest QALY savings. In Markov model analysis, screening by MT-sDNA in the Alaska Native population was cost-effective compared with screening by colonoscopy and FIT for a wide range of adherence scenarios.

Objective To assess the potential impact of Pharmacogenomic (PGx) variation in cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) enzyme function, using loss in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with treatment problems, and the willingness to pay to avoid treatment problems from patients’ and payers’ perspectives. Patients and Methods The study included patients prescribed tramadol or codeine, or both, between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2017. Demographic information and adverse drug events, including adverse drug events and poor pain control, were collected from the electronic health records using natural language processing techniques and review by trained abstractors. Patients’ willingness to pay and QALY estimates were based on comprehensive literature review. The CYP2D6 phenotypes were divided into 4 groups: ultra-rapid metabolizers, normal metabolizers, intermediate metabolizers, and poor metabolizers. Results Among the 2860 identified patients, 63 (2%) were ultrarapid metabolizers, 1449 (50%) were normal metabolizers, 1155 (40%) were intermediate metabolizers, and 193 (7%) were poor metabolizers. The patients’ average estimated willingness-to-pay value to avoid treatment problems was $23 per month; poor metabolizers developed problems with the highest estimated willingness-to-pay value ($32 per month). The mean QALY loss among all patients was 0.024 QALYs (8.8 healthy days); poor metabolizers had the highest loss (0.027 QALYs, 9.9 healthy days). Conclusion Patients with various phenotypes developed different treatment problem profiles. Poor CYP2D6 metabolizers developed problems with highest willingness to pay, and they might potentially benefit most from PGx-guided treatment and problem prevention.

To assess the effect of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) with and without liposomal bupivacaine (LB) on opioid use, hospital length of stay (LOS), costs, and morbidity of women undergoing sacrocolpopexy.Retrospective cohort of women who underwent abdominal sacrocolpopexy between April 1, 2009 and November 30, 2017. Costs for relevant healthcare services were determined by assigning 2017 charges multiplied by 2017 Medicare Cost Report's cost to charge ratios. Outcomes were compared among periods with multivariable regression models adjusted for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and concurrent hysterectomy and posterior repair.Patients were subdivided into pre-ERAS (G1, n = 128), post-ERAS (G2, n = 83), and post-ERAS plus LB (G3, n = 91). The proportion of patients needing opioids during postoperative days 0-2 was significantly less for G3 (75.8%) compared with G1 (97.7%) and G2 (92.8%); P 0.001). The median morphine equivalent units (MEU) with interquartile ranges, mean LOS, and adjusted mean standardized costs were significantly lower in G3 compared with the other two groups (35 [20-75] vs. 67 [31-109], and 60 [30-122] MEUs; 1.8 vs. 2.3 vs. 2.9 days; and $2391, $2975, and $3844, for G3, G2, and G1, respectively; P 0.001).Implementation of an ERAS pathway led to significant decreases in opioid use, LOS, and costs. Supplementation with LB further improved these measures.

Evidence of preventive dental care impacting healthcare costs among diabetes or coronary artery disease (CAD) patients is sparse.This study examined the association between healthcare costs and adherence with preventive dental care protocols among diabetes and CAD patients in a dental plan affiliated with a large commercial health plan in Arkansas. These patients were auto-enrolled in a program with additional benefits at no cost, and support from medical and dental care management teams was evaluated. All-cause cost was defined as the total amount paid by the health plan.Adherence with preventive dental care was associated with significant average yearly cost savings. The ranges of these savings were progressively higher for patients with only diabetes ($515 to $574), only CAD ($548 to $675), and CAD + diabetes ($866 to $1,718). Most of these savings originated in costs associated with inpatient admissions, which were between 25% and 36% for all disease classifications for all years.Preventive dental care is strongly associated with significant savings for diabetes and CAD patients, and such savings were highest for diabetes + CAD patients, followed by patients with only CAD and only diabetes.Health plans should include dental coverage in their benefits package and incentivize adherence with preventive dental care to improve health and lower costs for enrollees with diabetes and CAD.

Purpose To evaluate the impact of a collaborative intervention by pharmacists and primary care clinicians on total cost of care, including costs of inpatient readmissions, emergency department visits, and outpatient care, at 30, 60, and 180 days after hospital discharge in a population of patients at high risk for readmission due to polypharmacy. Methods A retrospective study of cost outcomes in a cohort of adult patients discharged from a single institution from July 1, 2013 to March 25, 2016, was conducted. All patients had at least 10 medications listed on their discharge list, including at least 1 drug frequently associated with adverse events leading to hospital readmission. About half of the cohort (n = 496) attended a postdischarge visit involving both a pharmacist and a primary care clinician (a physician, physician assistant, or licensed nurse practitioner); this was designated the pharmacist/clinician collaborative (PCC) group. The remainder of the cohort (n = 500) attended a visit without pharmacist involvement; this was designated as the usual care (UC) group. Costs were compared using a quantile regression to assess the potential heterogeneous impacts of the PCC intervention across different parts of the cost distribution. All outcomes were adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics. Results At 30 days post index discharge, there was a significant decrease in total costs in the 10th and 90th cost quantiles in the PCC cohort vs the UC cohort, without a statistically significant decrease in the 25th, 50th or 75th quantiles. The difference was significant in the 75th and 90th quantiles at 60 days and in the 25th, 50th, and 75th quantiles at 180 days. There was a nonsignificant cost reduction in all other quantiles. Conclusion Medically complex patients had a significantly lower total cost of care in approximately half of the adjusted cost quantiles at 30, 60, and 180 days after hospital discharge when they had a PCC visit. PCC visits can improve patient clinical outcomes while improving cost metrics.