Financial return-on-investment of ophthalmic interventions: a new paradigm.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although the patient value gain (improvement in quality-of-life and/or length-of-life) has been highlighted in Value-based Medicine cost-utility analyses, the financial value gain associated with healthcare interventions has received less emphasis. It is important for professional healthcare providers to realize their interventions often confer a large financial return-on-investment (ROI) to society. RECENT FINDINGS: The societal costs associated with vitreoretinal and other ophthalmic interventions include: direct ophthalmic medical costs expended (hospital, physician, drug, diagnostic testing and so forth), direct medical costs saved (decreased costs for depression, injury, skilled nursing facility, nursing home and others), direct nonmedical costs saved (decreased costs for caregivers, transportation, residence costs, moving costs, and others), and indirect medical costs saved (improving employment incidence and wages). The financial ROI for direct ophthalmic medical costs expended for ranibizumab therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration is 450%, whereas that for cataract surgery is 4500% and for medical open-angle glaucoma therapy is 4000%. Many costs gained add to the Gross Domestic Product and increase the wealth of the nation. SUMMARY: Many vitreoretinal and other ophthalmologic interventions confer considerable patient value, but also result in a large financial ROI to society. This financial ROI increases the wealth of the nation.

Preference-based comparative effectiveness and cost­effectiveness: a review and relevance of value-based medicine for vitreoretinal interventions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This analysis discusses the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vitreoretinal interventions, measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and percentage patient value (PPV gain, or improvement in quality of life and/or length of life). The material is relevant since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enacted by Congress with the support of the President has emphasized the critical importance of patient-based preferences. RECENT FINDINGS: The majority of preference-based, comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness vitreoretinal interventions assessed in the US healthcare literature are Value-Based Medicine analyses, thus comparable. These interventions confer a mean patient (human) value gain (improvement in quality of life) of 8.3% [SD 6.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) + 2.6%]. The average cost-utility of these vitreoretinal interventions is US$23 026/QALY (SD US$24 508, 95% CI + US$8770). Most vitreoretinal interventions are very cost effective using a conventional US standard of US$50 000/QALY as the upper anchor for a very cost-effective intervention, and the World Health Organization of approximately US$142 200/QALY as the upper anchor for a cost-effective intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Most vitreoretinal interventions confer considerable patient value and are very cost effective. Further standardization across healthcare is needed in the preference-based, comparative and cost-utility (cost-effectiveness) arena. The metrics of PPV (percentage patient value) gain and US$/PPV (dollars expended per percentage patient value gain) or financial value gain may be more user-friendly than the QALY.

Healthcare costs, buyer alert.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To assess the direct medical cost perspective versus the societal cost perspective associated with a vitreoretinal intervention. RECENT FINDINGS: Most insurers, physicians, hospital administrators, legislators and the general public refer to direct medical costs when assessing the costs associated with healthcare interventions. The direct medical cost perspective, which is the same as the third-party insurer cost perspective, includes the costs an insurer might be expected to pay, including those for physicians, hospitals, drugs, durable goods, skilled nursing facilities and others. The societal cost perspective includes direct medical costs; direct nonmedical costs (caregiver, transportation, residence); and indirect medical costs (employment and salary). When assessing the costs associated with a healthcare intervention, the societal cost perspective generally yields a greater financial return-on-investment (ROI) to society and to the gross domestic product than does the utilization of direct medical costs alone. Consequently, the use of societal costs in cost-utility analysis typically results in more cost-effective interventions than when direct medical costs alone are employed. SUMMARY: A societal cost perspective is more likely than the third-party insurer cost perspective to demonstrate a greater financial ROI to society.