Journal of Medical Economics最新文献

Objective: Describe the economic burden of COVID-19 on employers and employees in the United States (US).

Methods: A targeted literature review was conducted to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on US-based employers and employees in terms of healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), medical costs, and costs associated with work-loss. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit using a combination of disease terms, populations, and outcomes to identify articles published from January 2021 to November 4, 2022. As data from the employer perspective were lacking, additional literature related to influenza were included to contextualize the impact of COVID-19, as it shifts into an endemic state, within the existing respiratory illness landscape.

Results: A total of 41 articles were included in the literature review. Employer and employee perspectives were not well represented in the literature, and very few articles overlapped on any given outcome. HCRU, costs, and work impairment vary by community transmission levels, industry type, population demographics, telework ability, mitigation implementation measures, and company policies. Work-loss among COVID-19 cases were higher among the unvaccinated and in the week following diagnosis and for some, these continued for 6 months. HCRU is increased in those with COVID-19 and COVID-19-related HCRU can also continue for 6 months.

Conclusions: COVID-19 continues to be a considerable burden to employers. The majority of COVID-19 cases impact working age adults. HCRU is mainly driven by outpatient visits, while direct costs are driven by hospitalization. Productivity loss is higher for unvaccinated individuals. An increased focus to support mitigation measures may minimize hospitalizations and work-loss. A data-driven approach to implementation of workplace policies, targeted communications, and access to timely and appropriate therapies for prevention and treatment may reduce health-related work-loss and associated cost burden.

Objective: The availability of targeted therapies for oncology patients is increasing. Available genomic tests to identify treatment-eligible patients include single gene tests and gene panel tests, including the whole-exome, whole-transcriptome OncoExTra test. We assessed the costs and clinical benefits of test choice.

Methods: A Microsoft Excel-based model was developed to evaluate test choice in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Treatment pathways were based on NCCN guidelines and medical expert opinion. Inputs were derived from published literature. Annual economic results and lifetime clinical results with OncoExTra testing were projected per-tested-patient and compared with single gene testing and no testing. Separately, results were estimated for a US health plan without the OncoExTra test and with its use in 5% of patients.

Results: Compared with no genomic testing, OncoExTra test use increased costs by $4,915 per patient; however, 82%-92% of individuals across tumour types were identified as eligible for targeted therapy or a clinical trial. Compared with single gene testing, OncoExTra test use decreased costs by $9,966 per-patient-tested while increasing use of approved or investigational targeted therapies by 20%. When considering a hypothetical health plan with 1 million members, 858 patients were eligible for genomic testing. Using the OncoExTra test in 5% of those eligible, per-member per-month costs decreased by $0.003, ranging from cost-savings of $0.026 in NSCLC patients to a $0.009 increase in prostate cancer patients. Cost-savings were driven by reduced treatment costs with increased clinical trial enrolment and reduced direct and indirect medical costs associated with targeted treatments.

Limitations: Limitations include the required simplifications in modelling complex conditions that may not fully reflect evolving real-world testing and treatment patterns.

Conclusions: Compared to single-gene testing, results indicate that using next generation sequencing test such as OncoExTra identified more actionable alterations, leading to improved outcomes and reduced costs.

Objectives: This study investigates the utilization of work absence benefits among United States (US) employees diagnosed with COVID-19, examining frequency, duration, cost, and types of work loss benefits used.

Methods: This retrospective analysis of the Workpartners Research Reference Database (RRDb) included employees eligible for short- and long-term disability (STD and LTD employer-sponsored benefits, respectively), and other paid work absence benefits from 2018 to 2022. Workpartners RRDb includes over 3.5 million employees from over 500 self-insured employers across the US. Employees were identified by codes from adjudicated medical and disability claims for COVID-19 (2020-2022) and influenza, as well as prescription claims for COVID-19 treatments. Associated payments were quantified for each absence reason.

Results: Approximately 1 million employees were eligible for employer-sponsored paid leave benefits between January 2018 and December 2022. The mean age was 37 years (22% >50 years), and 49.4% were females. COVID-19 was the 2nd most common reason for an STD claim (6.9% of all STD claims) and 13th for an LTD claim (1.7% of all LTD claims) from 2020-2022. The mean duration for COVID-19 STD claims was 24 days (N = 3,731, mean claim=$3,477) versus 10 days for influenza (N = 283, mean claim=$1,721). The mean duration for an LTD claim for COVID-19 was 153 days (N = 11, mean claim=$19,254). Only 21.5% of employees with STD claims in the COVID-19 cohort had prior COVID-19-associated medical or pharmacy claims; over half (range 53%-61%) had documented high risk factors for severe COVID-19.

Conclusion: COVID-19 and influenza have the potential to cause work loss in otherwise healthy employees. In this analysis, COVID-19 was the second most frequent reason for an STD claim at the start of the pandemic and remained high (ranked 5th) in 2022. These results highlight the impact of COVID-19 on work loss beyond the acute phase. Comprehensively evaluating work loss implications may help employers prioritize strategies, such as vaccinations and timely treatments, to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on employees and their companies.

Aims: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) causes severe lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) in infants and adults. While the clinical burden was recently estimated in adults in Germany, little is known about the economic burden. To fill this gap, this study aimed to assess hospital and outpatient healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of RSV infections in adults in Germany.

Methods: In this retrospective, observational study on nationwide, representative, anonymized claims data (2015-2018), we identified patients ≥18 years with ICD-10-GM-codes specific to RSV ("RSV-specific"). To increase sensitivity, patients with unspecified LRTIs (including unspecified bronchitis, bronchiolitis, bronchopneumonia, and pneumonia) during RSV seasons were also included as cases potentially caused by RSV ("RSV-possible"). RSV-related HRU (hospital days, ICU and ventilation treatment, drug dispensation) and direct costs were estimated per episode. Excess costs per episode and for follow-up periods were compared to a matched control cohort. All outcomes were reported per healthcare sector and stratified by age and risk groups as well as disease severity (ICU admission/ventilation).

Results: Direct inpatient and outpatient mean episode costs were 3,473€ and 82€, respectively, with substantially higher costs for severe cases requiring intensive care and/or ventilation (10,801€). Direct costs for RSV-specific cases were higher than for RSV-possible cases (inpatients: 6,247€ vs. 3,450€; outpatients: 127€ vs. 82€). Moreover, costs were significantly higher for RSV patients than for controls and increased over time (inpatients: 5,140€ per episode vs 10,093€ per year; outpatients: 46€ per quarter vs 114€ per year).

Limitations: While the number of RSV-specific cases was low, inclusion of seasonal LRTI cases likely increased the sensitivity to detect RSV cases and allowed a better estimation of the total costs of RSV.

Conclusions: The economic burden of RSV-LRTI in adults in Germany is substantial, persists long-term, and is particularly high in the elderly. This highlights the need for cost-effective prevention measures.

Aims: Fruquintinib is a selective small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-1, -2, and -3 recently approved in the United States (US) for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who have previously been treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF biological therapy, and if RAS wild-type and medically appropriate, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. This study aimed to estimate the 5-year budget impact of fruquintinib from a US payer perspective (commercial and Medicare).

Materials and methods: A budget impact model was developed to compare two scenarios: a reference scenario in which patients received regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, or trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab and an alternative scenario in which patients received reference scenario treatments or fruquintinib. Market shares were evenly divided across available options. A 5-year time horizon and a hypothetical health plan of 1 million members was assumed. The model included epidemiological inputs to estimate the eligible population; clinical inputs for treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival, and adverse event (AE) frequency; and cost inputs for treatment, AEs, disease management, subsequent therapy, and terminal care costs. Budget impact was reported as total, per member per year (PMPY), and per member per month (PMPM).

Results: The model estimated an eligible population of 194 patients (39 per year) over 5 years. In the base case, the estimated 5-year budget impact of fruquintinib was $4,077,073 ($0.82 PMPY and 0.07 PMPM) for a commercial health plan. During the first year, the estimated budget impact was $627,570 ($0.63 PMPY and 0.05 PMPM). Results were robust across sensitivity analyses. PMPM costs from the Medicare perspective were greater than the base-case (commercial) ($0.17 vs. $0.07) due to higher incidence of CRC in that population.

Conclusions: Fruquintinib is associated with a low budget impact for payers based on proposed thresholds in the US.

The Vaccines Task Force was established by the UK government in March 2020, with the objective of securing early access to effective COVID-19 vaccines for the UK population and internationally. The VTF was successful in securing the earliest access to the Oxford/Astra Zeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines, allowing the UK to be the first country in the world to deploy an approved COVID-19 vaccine. The VTF also played a critical role in supporting efforts to distribute vaccines globally, as one of COVAX's earliest and largest donors. This article presents the perspectives of senior members of the VTF on the features of the task force model which enabled this success, and considers lessons for when and how a similar approach should be applied to other public health and public policy challenges. We seek to identify principles for mission led government, and implications for how the structure and apparatus of governance can be organised to support this, including the application of the Task Force model where appropriate.

Aims: Patients with medication-refractory restless legs syndrome (RLS) have limited therapeutic options available for symptom relief. Tonic motor activation (TOMAC) presents a novel, non-invasive therapy for this patient population. The aim of this study was to conduct an updated cost-effectiveness analysis of TOMAC therapy based on recently available longer-term follow-up data.

Materials and methods: A previously published decision-analytic Markov model was utilized to project strategy-specific costs and outcomes over three-years and lifetime for TOMAC compared to status quo treatment (control). Cohort characteristics were based on 24-week clinical data from the extension cohort of the RESTFUL study, which included longer-term follow-up of RESTFUL completers who were assigned to continue or discontinue TOMAC use (TOMAC and control, respectively). The primary analysis outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in $ per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, calculated using change in International RLS Study Group Rating Scale (IRLS) score as the effect measure. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: TOMAC treatment improved IRLS by 5.9 versus control, resulting in estimated utility improvement of +0.05. Over three-years and lifetime, TOMAC added 0.14 and 0.73 QALYs, at incremental costs of $6,751 and $27,440, resulting in projected ICERs of $47,609 and $37,823 per QALY gained, respectively. TOMAC was found to be cost-effective across all tested sensitivity analyses.

Limitations and conclusion: The inclusion of longer follow-up data in the current analysis confirms earlier exploratory cost-effectiveness findings and suggest TOMAC therapy may provide a high-value treatment option for patients with medication-refractory RLS.

Aims: The aim of this study is to examine the characteristics and quality of economic evaluations for reimbursed medical devices in Japan.

Materials and methods: A pragmatic review of cost-effectiveness evaluations (CEA) and other economic evaluations for medical devices reimbursed in Japan published between January 2010 and December 2023 was conducted using the PubMed (Medline), Japan Medical Abstracts Society (ICHUSHI Web), and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry of the Tufts Medical Center databases-as well as Google Scholar. Evaluations for devices assessed under the health technology assessment system in Japan were also reviewed.

Results: Thirty-nine published studies were included with 20 studies (51%) for devices used to treat cardiovascular conditions, 7 studies (18%) for devices used to treat neurological/neurovascular conditions and orthopedic conditions, respectively, and 5 studies (13%) for devices used to treat other types of conditions. The number of published studies for reimbursed medical devices increased from 2017. Nearly 60% of the studies were cost-utility analyses and many were cost-consequence analyses (26%). Although the quality of the studies conducted were good, lack of data was mentioned as a key limitation of nearly all studies-with limited data in general (33%), lack of long-term outcomes data (33%), and lack data for Japan (21%) being key issues. Moreover, lack of cost data was mentioned as a limitation for nearly half (49%) of studies.

Limitations: As this was not a systematic literature review, some relevant studies may have been excluded. Moreover, some databases that are known to cover other journals were not used.

Conclusions: Despite concerns about lack of sufficient outcomes data, good quality CEAs have been published for reimbursed devices in Japan. However, lack of data may still be an issue and the impact of the learning curve effect on cost-effectiveness may need to be considered more.