American Health and Drug Benefits最新文献

Background: Several nonoperative options have been recommended for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA), with varying degrees of evidence. Adhering to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guidelines has been suggested to decrease direct treatment costs by 45% in the year before knee arthroplasty, but this does not consider the cost of the entire episode of care, including the cost of surgery and postsurgery care.

Objectives: To analyze the total treatment costs after a diagnosis of knee OA, as well as the proportion of arthroplasty interventions as part of the total knee OA-related costs, and whether the total costs differed for patients who received intra-articular hyaluronic acid and/or had knee arthroplasty.

Methods: We identified patients newly diagnosed with knee OA using the 5% Medicare data sample from January 2010 to December 2015. Patients were excluded if they were aged <65 years, had incomplete claim history, did not reside in any of the 50 states, had claim history <12 months before knee OA diagnosis, or did not enroll in Medicare Part A and Part B. The study analyzed knee OA-related costs from a payer perspective in terms of reimbursements provided by Medicare, as well as the time from the diagnosis of knee OA to knee arthroplasty for patients who had knee arthroplasty, and the time from the first hyaluronic acid injection to knee arthroplasty for those who received the injection. We compared patients who received hyaluronic acid and those who did not receive hyaluronic acid injections. Patients who received hyaluronic acid injection who subsequently had knee arthroplasty were also compared with those who did not have subsequent knee arthroplasty.

Results: Of the 275,256 patients with knee OA, 45,801 (16.6%) received a hyaluronic acid injection and 35,465 (12.9%) had knee arthroplasty during the study period. The median time to knee arthroplasty was 16.4 months for patients who received hyaluronic acid versus 5.7 months for those who did not receive hyaluronic acid. Non-arthroplasty-related therapies and knee arthroplasty accounted for similar proportions of knee OA-related costs, with hyaluronic acid injection comprising 5.6% of the total knee OA-related costs. For patients who received hyaluronic acid injections and subsequently had knee arthroplasty, hyaluronic acid injection contributed 1.8% of the knee OA-related costs versus 76.6% of the cost from knee arthroplasty. Patients who received hyaluronic acid injections and did not have knee arthroplasty incurred less than 10% of the knee OA-related costs that patients who had surgery incurred.

Conclusion: Although limiting hyaluronic acid use may reduce the knee OA-related costs, in this study hyaluronic acid injection only comprised a small fraction of the overall costs related to knee OA. Among patients who had knee arthroplasty, those who

Background: Although the significant burden of heart failure (HF) is well recognized, the relative contributions of systolic HF versus diastolic HF are less defined.

Objective: To explore the differential burden between patients with systolic and diastolic HF in terms of treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), costs, and mortality risk.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data from a large US commercial health insurer integrated with mortality data. Patients newly diagnosed with HF between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2016, were identified and grouped according to systolic HF or diastolic HF diagnosis and were followed up to 4 years after diagnosis. Treatment patterns, HCRU, costs, and mortality were compared between the 2 groups of patients.

Results: Overall, 46,885 patients with systolic HF and 21,854 with diastolic HF were identified and included in the study. Patients with systolic HF had less HCRU than those with diastolic HF during the first year after HF diagnosis, including hospital admissions (70.2% vs 82.4%, respectively; P <.001) and emergency department visits (30.5% vs 39.1%, respectively; P <.001). The average per-patient costs for patients with systolic HF during the 1-year follow-up were higher than for those with diastolic HF ($64,154 vs $59,652, respectively; P <.001), but lower during years 2 through 4 (approximately $23,000-$25,000 annually vs approximately $28,000-$29,000 annually; P <.001). Patients with diastolic HF had a higher adjusted hospitalization risk (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-1.69), but comparable adjusted costs (exponentiated estimate, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.02) and slightly lower mortality risk (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99) versus patients with systolic HF. The number of HF-related medication classes received for other diagnoses during the year preceding an HF diagnosis was associated with lower risks for hospitalization, mortality, and lower costs, with a trend in benefits toward patients with systolic HF. Of note, 21.9% of patients with systolic HF and 25% of patients with diastolic HF filled no HF-related prescriptions in the year after diagnosis.

Conclusion: This real-world analysis confirms a high disease burden associated with HF and provides insight across the systolic HF and diastolic HF phenotypes. HF-related medication use after diagnosis was suboptimal and underscores a gap in patient care.

Background: Health technology assessment is becoming increasingly important to healthcare payers' decision-making. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is the most established US-based research group performing value assessments. ICER provides opportunities for stakeholder engagement, including a window of opportunity for public comments on the draft evidence report. Those public comments were reviewed in this study.

Objectives: To determine which stakeholders are most often commenting on ICER technology appraisal reports and to examine what aspects of the reports are the topics of these comments.

Method: We reviewed 7 ICER reports, which were used to extract stakeholder comments. All the identified comments were evaluated by 2 trained reviewers independently for stakeholder type, comment nature (positive or negative), and focus of comments (eg, methodology, data, real-world experience). Statistical analyses were used to analyze the reports for any associations between the frequency of the comments and the stakeholder type by therapeutic area.

Results: A total of 463 comments were identified within the 55 letter submissions identified across the 7 ICER reviews that were included in the study. The quantity of the comments generally reflected the quantity of therapies that were included in the review. Drug manufacturers (63.1%), patients or patient advocacy groups (18.1%), and providers or provider groups (9.7%) were the stakeholders most often engaged in the public comments. The comments most often addressed the methodology of the value assessment (53.8%). Comments about missing data (14%), general criticism (8.2%), and general support (2.2%) were less common.

Conclusion: ICER is committed to engaging stakeholders in their value assessment process and adapting their strategies to improve such communications. Although ICER aims to influence payer decision-making, drug manufacturers were the most involved stakeholder in the assessment process, and they were most concerned with ICER's methodology. These results show the impact that ICER may have on decision-making in healthcare, emphasize the incentives that ICER drives for certain stakeholders, and highlight areas for further investigation.

Background: Hospital-based, nutrition-focused interventions have significantly lowered the cost-associated burden of poor nutrition through a reduction in healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). However, for patients at risk for poor nutrition who receive nutritional care at home, limited evidence exists on the economic impact of nutrition-focused interventions.

Objective: To estimate the 30-day cost-savings associated with an at-home nutrition-focused quality improvement program in the postacute care setting for patients at risk for poor nutrition from the perspective of a hospital system.

Methods: We compared the HCRU of 1546 patients enrolled in a quality improvement program during 1 year versus 7413 patients in a pre-program historical cohort who received care during the 1 year before the quality improvement program implementation. The analysis included the number of 30-day hospitalizations, emergency department and outpatient visits for both cohorts, and the associated costs. The main analysis included the fixed and variable costs for the program, and the costs of oral nutritional supplement and delivery. The costs for hospitalization, emergency department, and outpatient visit costs were based on the 2013 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

Results: Based on the 2013 survey, the baseline costs for hospitalization, emergency department, and outpatient visit costs were $18,296, $1312, and $535, respectively. Our health economic analysis about the 30-day overall HCRU has shown that the quality improvement program group resulted in a total cost-savings of $2,408,668 for the 1546 patients in the program and a net savings of $1558 per patient compared with the costs for the pre-quality improvement program historical cohort.

Conclusion: The use of a nutrition-focused quality improvement program led to significant 30-day cost-savings, by reducing HCRU for adults who received nutritional-based care at home. The improvements in HCRU highlight the importance of implementing nutrition-focused quality improvement programs for hospital systems that provide care for patients who are at risk for poor nutrition across a variety of care settings.

Background: Diagnostic tests, including US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved tests and laboratory-developed tests, are frequently used to guide care for patients with cancer, and, recently, have been the subject of several policy discussions and insurance coverage determinations. As the use of diagnostic testing has evolved, stakeholders have raised questions about the lack of standardized test performance metrics and the risk this poses to patients.

Objectives: To describe the use of diagnostic testing for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), to analyze the utilization of FDA-approved versus laboratory-developed diagnostic tests, and to evaluate the impact of existing regulatory and coverage frameworks on diagnostic test ordering and physician treatment decision-making for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Methods: We conducted a 2-part study consisting of an online survey and patient chart review from March 1, 2019, to March 25, 2019, of physicians managing patients with advanced NSCLC. Respondents qualified for this study if they managed at least 5 patients with advanced NSCLC per month and had diagnosed at least 1 patient with advanced NSCLC in the 12 months before the survey. A total of 150 physicians completed the survey; before completing the survey, they were instructed to review between 4 and 8 charts of patients with stage IV NSCLC from their list of active patients.

Results: A total of 150 practicing oncologists who manage patients with advanced NSCLC responded to the survey and reviewed a total of 815 patient charts. Of these 815 patients, 812 (99.6%) were tested for at least 1 biomarker, including 73% of patients who were tested for EGFR, 70% tested for ALK, 58% tested for BRAF V600E, and 38% of patients tested for ROS1, by FDA-approved diagnostic tests. In all, 185 (83%) patients who tested positive for EGFR and 60 (83%) patients who tested positive for ALK received an FDA-approved targeted therapy for their biomarker. A total of 98 (65%) physicians responded that the patient's insurance coverage factored into their decision to order diagnostic tests and 69 (45%) physicians responded that cost or the patient's insurance coverage could influence them not to prescribe an indicated targeted therapy.

Conclusion: The survey results indicate that diagnostic testing has become routine in the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC, the use of FDA-approved diagnostic tests has increased, and insurance coverage and cost influence patient access to diagnostic testing as well as to targeted treatment options.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in April 2020 the Association for Value-Based Cancer Care (AVBCC) introduced a series of webcasts titled "COVID-19 Impact on the Cancer Care Delivery Ecosystem." The following articles highlight some of the presentations that addressed the impact of the novel coronavirus on healthcare stakeholders during and beyond this pandemic.