Analysis of Medicare Patients Treated with Pimavanserin versus Other Atypical Antipsychotics: A Cost-Offset Model Evaluating Skilled Nursing Facility Stays and Long-Term Care Admissions in Parkinson's Disease Psychosis.

Abstract

Background: Patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP) treated with pimavanserin (PIM) versus other atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) including quetiapine (QUE) may have health-care cost savings due to fewer skilled nursing facility-stays (SNF-stays) and long-term care admissions (LTCA).

Methods: A decision analytic model was developed using the 2019 Medicare Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM) to estimate SNF-stays and LTCA associated per-patient- per-year (PPPY) facility and rehabilitation costs among patients that initiated PIM vs QUE or vs other-AAPs (i.e, quetiapine, risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole). Model inputs were derived for: (i) annual SNF-stay and LTCA rates from an analysis of Medicare beneficiaries with PDP, and (ii) annual mean rehabilitation and resident care-stay costs from PDPM case-mix adjusted value-based payment rates for 5 rehabilitation components (ie, physical-therapy, occupational-therapy, nursing, speech-language pathology, non-therapy ancillary), and an additional variable-per-diem for room/board services. PPPY costs were estimated from (i) SNF-stay and (ii) LTCA rates multiplied by annual mean costs of stay in 2022 USD. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed using 1000 Monte Carlo simulations.

Results: Overall SNF-stay rates of 20.2%, 31.4%, and 31.7%, and LTCA rates of 23.2%, 33.8%, 34.6% were observed for PIM, QUE, and other-AAPs, respectively. Based on annual mean costs, PPPY SNF-stay rehabilitation and resident related costs for PIM ($41,808) vs QUE ($65,172) or vs other-AAPs ($65,664), resulted in $23,364 and $23,856 PPPY cost savings, respectively. Similarly, PPPY LTCA rehabilitation and resident related costs for PIM ($47,957) vs QUE ($70,091) or vs other-AAPs ($71,566) resulted in $22,134 and $23,609 PPPY cost-savings for PIM, respectively. PSA suggested PIM would provide cost-savings vs QUE or other-AAPs in >99% of iterations.

Conclusion: In this analysis, PIM demonstrated nearly 36% and 32% lower PPPY SNF-stays and LTCA costs, respectively, vs QUE or other-AAPs. Research examining additional cost-offsets (i.e., fewer falls/fractures) associated with SNF-stay or LTCA may be needed.