A retrospective cohort study of intra-corporeal versus extra-corporeal anastomosis for right hemicolectomy with cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare outcomes and cost effectiveness of extra-corporeal anastomosis (ECA) versus intra-corporeal anastomosis (ICA) for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme data. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer from January 2018 to December 2022 were identified. Non-cancer diagnoses, emergency procedures or synchronous resection of other organs were excluded. Surgical characteristics, peri-operative outcomes, long-term survival and hospitalisation costs were compared. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 223 patients (175 ECA, 48 ICA) were included in the analysis. Both cohorts exhibited comparable baseline patient, comorbidity, and tumour characteristics. Distribution of pathological TMN stage, tumour largest dimension, total lymph node harvest and resection margin lengths were statistically similar. ICA was associated with a longer median operative duration compared with ECA (255 min vs. 220 min, P < 0.001). There was a quicker time to gastrointestinal recovery, with a shorter median hospital stay in the ICA group (4.0 versus 5.0 days, P = 0.001). Overall complication rates were comparable. ICA was associated with a higher surgical procedure cost (£6301.57 versus £4998.52, P < 0.001), but lower costs for ward accommodation (£1679.05 versus £2420.15, P = 0.001) and treatment (£3774.55 versus £4895.14, P = 0.009), with a 4.5% reduced overall cost compared with ECA. The ICER of -£3323.58 showed ICA to be more cost effective than ECA, across a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSION: ICA in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy is associated with quicker post-operative recovery and may be more cost effective compared with ECA, despite increased operative costs.

Budget Impact Analysis of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing for Colon Cancer in Commercial Health and Medicare Advantage Plans.

Importance: In a randomized clinical trial, treatment guided by tumor-informed circulating tumor (ct)DNA testing reduced adjuvant chemotherapy use without compromising recurrence-free survival in patients with stage II colon cancer. The potential effects of adopting ctDNA testing into routine patient care is unknown. Objective: To compare the total cost of patient care scenarios with and without the adoption of ctDNA testing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This budget impact analysis was conducted from the perspectives of US commercial health and Medicare Advantage payers. A decision-analytical model was populated with age-specific incidence of colon cancer, use of adjuvant chemotherapy, and use of single-agent or multiagent regimens. Total cost was estimated with the costs of ctDNA testing, drug acquisition, administration, surveillance, and adverse events. The analysis was conducted from September 2023 to January 2024. Exposures: The adoption of ctDNA testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The incremental cost in the first year following the adoption of ctDNA testing, where testing will affect patient treatment and costs. Results: In hypothetical plans with 1 million individuals covered, 35 commercial health plan members and 102 Medicare Advantage members aged 75 years and younger were eligible for ctDNA testing. In the base case with a 50% adoption rate, total cost savings were $221 684 (equivalent to $0.02 per member per month [PMPM]) for a commercial payer and $116 720 (equivalent to $0.01 PMPM) for a Medicare Advantage payer. Cost savings were robust to variations in assumptions of all parameters in the commercial population but sensitive to variations in assumptions of adjuvant chemotherapy use rates in the Medicare Advantage population. The number needed to test to avoid 1 patient receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was 4 in the commercial population and 10 in the Medicare Advantage population. The budget-neutral cost for ctDNA testing was $16 202 for a commercial payer and $5793 for a Medicare Advantage payer. Conclusions and Relevance: Use of tumor-informed ctDNA testing to guide adjuvant chemotherapy in postsurgery patients with stage II colon cancer was projected to result in cost savings for both commercial and Medicare Advantage payers. Adoption of ctDNA testing is therefore advantageous from a budgetary perspective.

Costs in Colectomy Episodes of Care: Opportunities to Prevent Emergency Operations and Decrease Costs.

INTRODUCTION: Payment structured around Episodes of Care is a method for incentivizing decreased care utilization after major procedures. We examined Major Bowel Episodes of Care (MB-EoC)-the focus among general surgery procedures-within a large health system to determine the contribution of emergency bowel surgery to higher costs of care. METHODS: Adult MB-EoC cases from July 2018 to June 2021 were reviewed for 90-d costs, examining patient age, insurance, diagnosis, cost of care, and contributors to cost. For patients aged ≥45 y who had nonelective care for colon cancer, incidence of prior screening colonoscopy was examined. RESULTS: We identified 1292 colectomy cases. Mean age was 65 y. Of these patients, 90% had Medicare/commercial insurance. Colon cancer comprised 41% of primary diagnoses. Twenty-eight percent of cases were nonelective, more likely to have Medicaid/underinsured (21% versus 7%, P < 0.001), and had higher utilization of postdischarge cost-drivers. Ninety-day EoC per case cost was 66% higher for emergent versus elective cases. Of eligible emergency cancer cases, 43% (40/93) had undergone prior colonoscopy within 10 y. For patients with colon cancer, 90-d EoC per case was 39% higher for emergent versus elective cases. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency MB-EoC cases disproportionally contribute to higher 90-d care utilization and costs. Efforts to increase screening colonoscopy in appropriate populations may have a substantial impact on MB-EoC costs.

[Robotic vs. laparoscopic right hemicolectomy-An analysis of costs]. / Robotische vs. laparoskopische Hemikolektomie rechts ­ eine Kostenanalyse.

The use of robotic surgical methods for performing right-sided hemicolectomy has been somewhat controversial, primarily due to concerns related to costs. The purpose of this study is to document the initial robotic right hemicolectomies conducted at our institution and to compare them with a laparoscopic reference group. A significant focus of this study is the detailed analysis of the costs associated with both techniques within the German healthcare system.Surgical and cost-related data for 34 cases each for robotic and laparoscopic right-sided hemicolectomy performed at Nürnberg Hospital were compared. This comparison was conducted through a retrospective single-center case-matched analysis. Cost analysis was carried out following the current guidelines provided by the Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (InEK) of Germany.The average age of the patient cohort was 70 years, with a male patient proportion of 57.4%. Analysis of perioperative parameters indicated similar outcomes for both surgical techniques. Regarding the incidence of complications of Clavien-Dindo stages III-V (8.8% vs. 17.6%; p = 0.48), a positive trend towards robotic surgery was observed. The cost analysis showed nearly identical total costs for the selected cases in both groups (mean €13,423 vs. €13,424; p = 1.00), with the most significant cost difference noted in surgical (operative) costs (€5,779 vs. €3,521; p < 0.01). The lower costs for laparoscopic cases were primarily due to the reduced material costs (mean €2,657 vs. €702; p < 0.05).In conclusion, both surgical approaches are clinically equivalent, with only minor differences in the total case costs.

Payer-Negotiated Price Variation and Relationship to Surgical Outcomes for the Most Common Cancers at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: Federal rules mandate that hospitals publish payer-specific negotiated prices for all services. Little is known about variation in payer-negotiated prices for surgical oncology services or their relationship to clinical outcomes. We assessed variation in payer-negotiated prices associated with surgical care for common cancers at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and determined the effect of increasing payer-negotiated prices on the odds of morbidity and mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 63 NCI-designated cancer center websites was employed to assess variation in payer-negotiated prices. A retrospective cohort study of 15,013 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing surgery for colon, pancreas, or lung cancers at an NCI-designated cancer center between 2014 and 2018 was conducted to determine the relationship between payer-negotiated prices and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the effect of median payer-negotiated price on odds of a composite outcome of 30 days mortality and serious postoperative complications for each cancer cohort. RESULTS: Within-center prices differed by up to 48.8-fold, and between-center prices differed by up to 675-fold after accounting for geographic variation in costs of providing care. Among the 15,013 patients discharged from 20 different NCI-designated cancer centers, the effect of normalized median payer-negotiated price on the composite outcome was clinically negligible, but statistically significantly positive for colon [aOR 1.0094 (95% CI 1.0051-1.0138)], lung [aOR 1.0145 (1.0083-1.0206)], and pancreas [aOR 1.0080 (1.0040-1.0120)] cancer cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Payer-negotiated prices are statistically significantly but not clinically meaningfully related to morbidity and mortality for the surgical treatment of common cancers. Higher payer-negotiated prices are likely due to factors other than clinical quality.

Out-of-Pocket Costs Among Patients With a New Cancer Diagnosis Enrolled in High-Deductible Health Plans vs Traditional Insurance.

Importance: The financial burden of a cancer diagnosis is increasing rapidly with advances in cancer care. Simultaneously, more individuals are enrolling in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) vs traditional insurance than ever before. Objective: To characterize the out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) of cancer care for individuals in HDHPs vs traditional insurance plans. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used the administrative claims data of a single national insurer in the US for 134 826 patients aged 18 to 63 years with a new diagnosis of breast, colorectal, lung, or other cancer from 2008 to 2018 with 24 months or more of continuous enrollment. Propensity score matching was performed to create comparator groups based on the presence or absence of an incident cancer diagnosis. Exposures: A new cancer diagnosis and enrollment in an HDHP vs a traditional health insurance plan. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was OOPCs among individuals with breast, colon, lung, or all other types of cancer combined compared with those with no cancer diagnosis. A triple difference-in-differences analysis was performed to identify incremental OOPCs based on cancer diagnosis and enrollment in HDHPs vs traditional plans. Results: After propensity score matching, 134 826 patients remained in each of the cancer (73 572 women [55%]; median age, 53 years [IQR, 46-58 years]; 110 071 non-Hispanic White individuals [82%]) and noncancer (66 619 women [49%]; median age, 53 years [IQR, 46-59 years]; 105 023 non-Hispanic White individuals [78%]) cohorts. Compared with baseline costs of medical care among individuals without cancer, a breast cancer diagnosis was associated with the highest incremental OOPC ($714.68; 95% CI, $664.91-$764.45), followed by lung ($475.51; 95% CI, $340.16-$610.86), colorectal ($361.41; 95% CI, $294.34-$428.48), and all other types of cancer combined ($90.51; 95% CI, $74.22-$106.79). Based on the triple difference-in-differences analysis, compared with patients without cancer enrolled in HDHPs, those with breast cancer paid $1683.36 in additional yearly OOPCs (95% CI, $1576.66-$1790.07), those with colorectal cancer paid $1420.06 more (95% CI, $1232.31-$1607.80), those with lung cancer paid $467.25 more (95% CI, $130.13-$804.37), and those with other types of cancer paid $550.87 more (95% CI, $514.75-$586.99). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with cancer and private insurance experienced sharp increases in OOPCs compared with those without cancer, which was amplified among those with HDHPs. These findings illustrate the degree to which HDHPs offer poorer protection than traditional insurance against unexpected health care expenses. Coupled with the increasing cost of cancer care, higher cost sharing in the form of increasing enrollment in HDHPs requires further research on the potential clinical consequences through delayed or foregone care.

Do certified cancer centers provide more cost-effective care? A health economic analysis of colon cancer care in Germany using administrative data.

Hospital certification has become an important measure to improve cancer care quality, with the potential effect of prolonging patient survival and reducing medical spending. However, yet to be explored is the cost-effectiveness of cancer care provided in certified hospitals, considering significant additional costs incurred from certification requirements. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) using two colon cancer populations (N = 1909) treated in different levels of certified hospitals (CHs) vs noncertified hospitals (NCHs) from a healthcare system's perspective. We matched patient-level data of incident colon cancer cases, diagnosed between 2008 and 2013 from a large statutory health insurance in Saxony, Germany, to calculate net treatment costs by phase (initial, continuing and terminal phase). The costs were supplemented with extra costs from 31 additional services required for certification. Effectiveness measure was total survival time in life-years. Outcome of interest was incremental costs per additional life-year. The annualized net colon cancer treatment costs by phase showed a U shape with high costs in the initial (mean €26 855; 95% CI €25 058-€28 652) and the terminal phases (mean €30 096; 95% CI €26 199-€33 993). The base-case CEA results and all sensitivity analyses consistently demonstrated longer survival and lower costs for the colon cancer cohort treated in CHs vs NCHs. To conclude, we used administrative data to derive the first cost-effectiveness evidence supporting that colon cancer care delivered in the certified cancer centers in Germany improves survival outcomes and saves costs from a healthcare system's perspective. Generalization of the study results should be exercised with caution.

Early Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Risk-Based Selection Strategies for Adjuvant Treatment in Stage II Colon Cancer: The Potential Value of Prognostic Molecular Markers.

BACKGROUND: To explore the potential value of consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) in stage II colon cancer treatment selection, we carried out an early cost-effectiveness assessment of a CMS-based strategy for adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: We used a Markov cohort model to evaluate three selection strategies: (i) the Dutch guideline strategy (MSS+pT4), (ii) the mutation-based strategy (MSS plus a BRAF and/or KRAS mutation or MSS plus pT4), and (iii) the CMS-based strategy (CMS4 or pT4). Outcomes were number of colon cancer deaths per 1,000 patients, total discounted costs per patient (pp), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) pp. The analyses were conducted from a Dutch societal perspective. The robustness of model predictions was assessed in sensitivity analyses. To evaluate the value of future research, we performed a value of information (VOI) analysis. RESULTS: The Dutch guideline strategy resulted in 8.10 QALYs pp and total costs of €23,660 pp. The CMS-based and mutation-based strategies were more effective and more costly, with 8.12 and 8.13 QALYs pp and €24,643 and €24,542 pp, respectively. Assuming a threshold of €50,000/QALY, the mutation-based strategy was considered as the optimal strategy in an incremental analysis. However, the VOI analysis showed substantial decision uncertainty driven by the molecular markers (expected value of partial perfect information: €18M). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of current evidence, our analyses suggest that the mutation-based selection strategy would be the best use of resources. However, the extensive decision uncertainty for the molecular markers does not allow selection of an optimal strategy at present. IMPACT: Future research is needed to eliminate decision uncertainty driven by molecular markers.

Patient Factors Limit Colon Cancer Survival at Safety-Net Hospitals: A National Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Safety-net hospitals serve a vital role in society by providing care for vulnerable populations. Existing data regarding oncologic outcomes of patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals are limited and variable. The objective of this study was to delineate disparities in treatment and outcomes for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified 802,304 adult patients with colon adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database between 2004-2016. Patients were stratified according to safety-net burden of the treating hospital as previously described. Patient, tumor, facility, and treatment characteristics were compared between groups as were operative and short-term outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to compare overall survival between patients treated at high, medium, and low burden hospitals. RESULTS: Patients treated at safety-net hospitals were demographically distinct and presented with more advanced disease. They were also less likely to receive surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, negative resection margins, adequate lymphadenectomy, or a minimally invasive operative approach. On multivariate analysis adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, survival was inferior for patients at safety-net hospitals, even for those with stage 0 (in situ) disease. CONCLUSION: This analysis revealed inferior survival for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals, including those without invasive cancer. These findings suggest that unmeasured population differences may confound analyses and affect survival more than provider or treatment disparities.

A National Evaluation of Food Insecurity in a Head and Neck Cancer Population.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine the food security status of patients with a history of head and neck cancer and compare to other types of cancer. STUDY DEIGN: A retrospective analysis using the National Health Interview Series. METHODS: The National Health Interview Series (NHIS) for the calendar years 2014 to 18 was used to elicit food security status (secure, marginally secure/not secure) among adult patients with a history of throat/pharynx head and neck cancer (pHNC), thyroid cancer, and colon cancer. The relationship between food security and the primary site was compared and subanalyses were performed according to sex, race, and ethnicity. RESULTS: The study population included 199.0 thousand patients with pHNC, with 17.7% (95% confidence interval, 10.5%-28.1%) of pHNC patients reporting their food security status as marginally secure or not secure. Food insecurity was significantly higher among pHNC patients when compared to thyroid cancer (insecurity 10.7%, [7.7%-14.7%]) and colon cancer patients (10.1%, [7.8%-13.2%]). Among pHNC patients, there was no significant difference in rates of food insecurity when stratified by gender, race, or ethnicity. However, black individuals were more likely to have food insecurity with a history of thyroid or colon cancer (P < .042) and Hispanics were more likely to have food insecurity with a history of thyroid cancer (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Food insecurity disproportionally affects patients with a history of pHNC, though there is less demographic variability when compared to other cancer primary sites. Food security assessments should be part of the tailored approach to survivorship management in head and neck cancer. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:E1539-E1542, 2021.

Screening for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Are We Asking the Impossible?

Pancreatic cancer is projected to become the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2020. Because of this, significant interest and research funding has been devoted to development of a screening test to identify individuals during a prolonged asymptomatic period; however, to date, no such test has been developed. We evaluated current NIH spending and clinical trials to determine the focus of research on pancreatic cancer screening as compared with other cancer subtypes. Using statistical methodology, we determined the effects of population-based pancreatic cancer screening on overall population morbidity and mortality. Population-based pancreatic cancer screening would result in significant harm to non-diseased individuals, even in cases where a near-perfect test was developed. Despite this mathematical improbability, NIH funding for pancreatic cancer demonstrates bias toward screening test development not seen in other cancer subtypes. Focusing research energy on development of pancreatic screening tests is unlikely to result in overall survival benefits. Efforts to increase the number of patients who are candidates for surgery and improving surgical outcomes would result in greater population benefit.Prevention Relevance: For patients with pancreatic cancer, early stage detection offers the greatest survival benefit. However, the incidence of pancreatic cancer and associated mortality of pancreatic resections make development of a screening test a difficult, if not impossible, challenge.

Robotic-assisted right colectomy versus laparoscopic approach: case-matched study and cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIM: The aim of this study is to compare clinical and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted right colectomy with those of conventional laparoscopy-assisted right colectomy, reporting for the first time in literature, a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: This is a case-matched prospective non-randomized study conducted from October 2013 to October 2017 at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. Patients with right-sided colonic adenocarcinoma or adenoma, not suitable endoscopic resection were treated with robot-assisted right colectomy and a propensity score-matched (1:1) was used to balance preoperative characteristics of a laparoscopic control group. Perioperative, postoperative, long-term oncological results and costs were analysed, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and the cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The primary end point was to compare the cost-effectiveness differences between both groups. A willingness-to-pay of 20,000 and 30,000 per QALY was used as a threshold to recognize which treatment was most cost effective. RESULTS: Thirty-five robot-assisted right colectomies were included and a group of 35 laparoscopy-assisted right colectomy was selected. Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group was associated with longer operation times (243 min vs. 179 min, p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in terms of total costs between the robotic and laparoscopic groups (9455.14 vs 8227.50 respectively, p = 0.21). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000, there was a 78.78-95.04% probability that the robotic group was cost effective relative to laparoscopic group. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted right colectomy is a safe and feasible technique and is a cost-effective procedure.

Home-based chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer patients in Thailand: Cost-utility and budget impact analyses.

Home-based chemotherapy (HC) is a new treatment alternative to hospital-based chemotherapy treatment (IP) and is administered via portable intravenous pumps at the patient's home. HC reduces the demand for inpatient bed capacity in hospitals and reduces the cost of an infusion. This study takes a societal perspective while conducting the cost-utility and budget impact analyses (BIA) of HC and IP with an mFOLFOX6 regimen on patients with stage III colon cancer. We conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 6-month time horizon. The parameter inputs for the model were gathered from a retrospective cohort study on patients diagnosed with stage III colon cancer at Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok. The resource usage of HC and IP was determined based on medical records. The per-unit direct medical, home health service, and adverse events (AE) management costs were gathered from the standard cost list. The health outcome of treatment was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years. Disutility related to AE was calculated. We conducted a sensitivity analysis for the uncertainty results and performed BIA based on the societal perspective on a 1-year time horizon. HC provided a cost-saving of $1,513.37 per patient for the period of treatment. Thus, assuming 526 patients per year, the use of HC could achieve a cumulative annual cost-saving of $828,436. HC is a cost-saving strategy compared to IP for stage III colon cancer treatment. We recommend that the service reimbursement should include national standardization in chemotherapy regimens as well as practice guidelines and protocols to prevent serious AEs.

Association Between a National Insurer's Pay-for-Performance Program for Oncology and Changes in Prescribing of Evidence-Based Cancer Drugs and Spending.

PURPOSE: Cancer drug prescribing by medical oncologists accounts for the greatest variation in practice and the largest portion of spending on cancer care. We evaluated the association between a national commercial insurer's ongoing pay-for-performance (P4P) program for oncology and changes in the prescribing of evidence-based cancer drugs and spending. METHODS: We conducted an observational difference-in-differences study using administrative claims data covering 6.7% of US adults. We leveraged the geographically staggered, time-varying rollout of the P4P program to simulate a stepped-wedge study design. We included patients age 18 years or older with breast, colon, or lung cancer who were prescribed cancer drug regimens by 1,867 participating oncologists between 2013 and 2017. The exposure was a time-varying dichotomous variable equal to 1 for patients who were prescribed a cancer drug regimen after the P4P program was offered. The primary outcome was whether a patient's drug regimen was a program-endorsed, evidence-based regimen. We also evaluated spending over a 6-month episode period. RESULTS: The P4P program was associated with an increase in evidence-based regimen prescribing from 57.1% of patients in the preintervention period to 62.2% in the intervention period, for a difference of +5.1 percentage point (95% CI, 3.0 percentage points to 7.2 percentage points; P < .001). The P4P program was also associated with a differential $3,339 (95% CI, $1,121 to $5,557; P = .003) increase in cancer drug spending and a differential $253 (95% CI, $100 to $406; P = .001) increase in patient out-of-pocket spending, but no significant changes in total health care spending ($2,772; 95% CI, -$181 to $5,725; P = .07) over the 6-month episode period. CONCLUSION: P4P programs may be effective in increasing evidence-based cancer drug prescribing, but may not yield cost savings.

Evaluation of Practice Patterns Among Oncologists Participating in the Oncology Care Model.

Importance: Health insurers reimburse clinicians in many ways, including the ubiquitous fee-for-service model and the emergent shared-savings models. Evidence on the effects of these emergent models in oncological treatment remains limited. Objectives: To analyze the early use and cost associations of a recent Medicare payment program, the Oncology Care Model (OCM), which included a shared savings-like component. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized controlled study used a difference-in-differences approach on 2 years of data, from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2017-1 year before and 1 year after launch of the OCM-to compare the differences between participating and nonparticipating practices, controlling for patient, clinician, and practice factors. Participation in the OCM began on July 1, 2016. Associations of participation with care use and cost were estimated for care directly managed by clinicians from a large network within their Medicare populations for breast, lung, colon, and prostate cancers. Data were analyzed from September 2019 to March 2020. Exposures: Participating practices were paid a monthly management fee of $160 per beneficiary and a potential risk-adjusted performance-based payment for eligible patients who received chemotherapy treatment, in addition to standard fee-for-service payments. Main Outcomes and Measures: Office visits, drug administrations, patient hydrations, drug costs, and total costs. Results: Monthly means data at the physician-level were evaluated for 11 869 physician-months for breast cancers, 11 135 physician-months for lung cancers, 8592 physician-months for colon cancers, and 9045 physician-months for prostate cancers. Patients at OCM practices had a mean (SD) age of 63.4 (3.1) years, and a mean (SD) of 59% (7 percentage points) of their patients were women. Participation in the OCM was associated with less physician-administered prostate cancer drug use (difference, 0.29 [95% CI, -0.47 to -0.11] percentage points, or 24.0%) translating to a mean of $706 (95% CI, -$1383 to -$29) less in drug costs per month. Monthly drug costs were also lower, at $558 (95% CI, -$1173 to $58) less for treatment for lung cancer. Total costs were lower by 9.7% or $233 (95% CI, -$495 to $30) for breast cancer, 9.9% or $337 (95% CI, -$618 to -$55) for lung cancer, 14.2% or $385 (95% CI, -$780 to $10) for colon cancer, and 29.2% or $610 (95% CI, -$1095 to -$125) for prostate cancer; however, these differences were largely offset by program costs. Clinician visits were also lower by 11.2% or 0.11 (95% CI, -0.20 to -0.01) percentage points among patients with breast cancer and by 14.4% or 0.19 (95% CI, -0.37 to -0.02) among patients with colon cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that payment models with shared-savings components can be associated with fewer visits and lower costs in certain cancer settings in the first year, but the savings can be modest given the costs of program administration.

Improving Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program outcomes through increased participation and cost-effective investment.

BACKGROUND: The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) provides biennial immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) screening for people aged 50-74 years. Previous work has quantified the number of colorectal cancer (CRC) deaths prevented by the NBCSP and has shown that it is cost-effective. With a 40% screening participation rate, the NBCSP is currently underutilised and could be improved by increasing program participation, but the maximum appropriate level of spending on effective interventions to increase adherence has not yet been quantified. OBJECTIVES: To estimate (i) reductions in CRC cases and deaths for 2020-2040 attributable to, and (ii) the threshold for cost-effective investment (TCEI) in, effective future interventions to improve participation in the NBCSP. METHODS: A comprehensive microsimulation model, Policy1-Bowel, was used to simulate CRC natural history and screening in Australia, considering currently reported NBCSP adherence rates, i.e. iFOBT participation (∼40%) and diagnostic colonoscopy assessment rates (∼70%). Australian residents aged 40-74 were modelled. We evaluated three scenarios: (1) diagnostic colonoscopy assessment increasing to 90%; (2) iFOBT screening participation increasing to 60% by 2020, 70% by 2030 with diagnostic assessment rates of 90%; and (3) iFOBT screening increasing to 90% by 2020 with diagnostic assessment rates of 90%. In each scenario, we estimated CRC incidence and mortality, colonoscopies, costs, and TCEI given indicative willingness-to-pay thresholds of AUD$10,000-$30,000/LYS. RESULTS: By 2040, age-standardised CRC incidence and mortality rates could be reduced from 46.2 and 13.5 per 100,000 persons, respectively, if current participation rates continued, to (1) 44.0 and 12.7, (2) 36.8 and 8.8, and (3) 31.9 and 6.5. In Scenario 2, 23,000 lives would be saved from 2020-2040 vs current participation rates. The estimated scenario-specific TCEI (Australian dollars or AUD$/year) to invest in interventions to increase participation, given a conservative willingness-to-pay threshold of AUD$10,000/LYS, was (1) AUD$14.9M, (2) AUD$72.0M, and (3) AUD$76.5M. CONCLUSION: Significant investment in evidence-based interventions could be used to improve NBCSP adherence and help realise the program's potential. Such interventions might include mass media campaigns to increase program participation, educational or awareness interventions for practitioners, and/or interventions resulting in improvements in referral pathways. Any set of interventions which achieves at least 70% iFOBT screening participation and a 90% diagnostic assessment rate while costing under AUD$72 million annually would be highly cost-effective (

Contribution Of Care Source To Cancer Treatment Cost Variation In The US Military Health System.

The US Military Health System (MHS) provides universal access to health care for more than nine million eligible beneficiaries through direct care in military treatment facilities or purchased care in civilian facilities. Using information from linked cancer registry and administrative databases, we examined how care source contributed to cancer treatment cost variation in the MHS for patients ages 18-64 who were diagnosed with colon, female breast, or prostate cancer in the period 2003-14. After accounting for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics, we found the independent contribution of care source to total variation in cost to be 8 percent, 12 percent, and 2 percent for colon, breast, and prostate cancer treatment, respectively. About 20-50 percent of the total cost variance remained unexplained and may be related to organizational and administrative factors.

Health and Economic Impact of Intensive Surveillance for Distant Recurrence After Curative Treatment of Colon Cancer: A Mathematical Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: Intensive surveillance strategies are currently recommended for patients after curative treatment of colon cancer, with the aim of secondary prevention of recurrence. Yet, intensive surveillance has not yielded improvements in overall patient survival compared with minimal follow-up, and more intensive surveillance may be costlier. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the quality-adjusted life-years, economic costs, and cost-effectiveness of various surveillance strategies after curative treatment of colon cancer. DESIGN: A Markov model was calibrated to reflect the natural history of colon cancer recurrence and used to estimate surveillance costs and outcomes. SETTINGS: This was a decision-analytic model. PATIENTS: Individuals entered the model at age 60 years after curative treatment for stage I, II, or III colon cancer. Other initial age groups were assessed in secondary analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We estimated the gains in quality-adjusted life-years achieved by early detection and treatment of recurrence, as well as the economic costs of surveillance under various strategies. RESULTS: Cost-effective strategies for patients with stage I colon cancer improved quality-adjusted life-expectancy by 0.02 to 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years at an incremental cost of $1702 to $13,019. For stage II, they improved quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.03 to 0.09 quality-adjusted life-years at a cost of $2300 to $14,363. For stage III, they improved quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.03 to 0.17 quality-adjusted life-years for a cost of $1416 to $17,631. At a commonly cited willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the most cost-effective strategy for patients with a history of stage I or II colon cancer was liver ultrasound and chest x-ray annually. For those with a history of stage III colon cancer, the optimal strategy was liver ultrasound and chest x-ray every 6 months with CEA measurement every 6 months. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by model structure assumptions and uncertainty around the values of the model's parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Given currently available data and within the limitations of a model-based decision-analytic approach, the effectiveness of routine intensive surveillance for patients after treatment of colon cancer appears, on average, to be small. Compared with testing using lower cost imaging, currently recommended strategies are associated with cost-effectiveness ratios that indicate low value according to well-accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds in the United States. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A921.

Costs for Colon Cancer Treatment Comparing Benefit Types and Care Sources in the US Military Health System.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the USA, contributing largely to US healthcare spending. Provision of services (direct or purchased) and insurance benefit type may impact cost for cancer care. As a common cause of cancer in both men and women, we aim to compare colon cancer treatment costs between insurance benefit types and care sources in the US Military Health System (MHS) to better understand whether and to what extent these system factors impact cancer care costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Department of Defense Central Cancer Registry records and MHS Data Repository administrative claims were used to identify MHS beneficiaries aged 18-64 who were diagnosed with primary colon adenocarcinoma and received treatment between 2003 and 2008. The data linkage was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, the Defense Health Agency, and the National Institutes of Health. Costs to the MHS for each claim related to cancer treatment were extracted from the linked data and adjusted to 2008 USD. We used quantile regression models to compare median cancer treatment costs between benefit types and care sources (direct, purchased, or both), adjusted for demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: The median per capita (n = 801) costs for colon cancer care were $60,321 (interquartile range $24,625, $159,729) over a median follow-up of 1.7 years. The model-estimated treatment costs were similar between benefit types. Patients using direct care had significantly lower estimated median costs [$34,145 (standard error $4,326)] than patients using purchased care [$106,395 ($10,559)] or both care sources [$82,439 ($13,330)], controlled for patient demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Differences in cost by care source were noted for patients with later stage tumors and by treatment type. Relative costs were 2-3 times higher for purchased care compared to direct care for patients with late-stage tumors and for patients receiving chemotherapy or radiation treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In the MHS, median cost for colon cancer treatment was lower in direct care compared to purchased care or patients using a combination of direct and purchased care. The variation in cancer treatment costs between care sources may be due to differences in treatment incentives or capabilities. Additional studies on cost differences between direct and purchased services are needed to understand how provision of care affects cancer treatment costs and to identify possible targets for cost reduction.

A systematic review and cost analysis of repeat colonoscopies due to inadequate bowel cleansing in five European countries.

Background: Colonoscopies are carried out for a range of reasons including for the detection of colon cancer and investigation of abdominal and bowel related symptoms. Inadequate preparation can increase the burden of repeat procedures.Methods: A systematic review aimed to identify the rate of repeat colonoscopies due to inadequate bowel preparation in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. The information obtained populated a decision analytic model to estimate the cost implications of inadequate bowel cleansing in the same five countries. The model explored scenarios by comparing one and two-litre polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation.Results: The systematic review identified 14 eligible studies reporting on the proportion of patients with inadequate bowel cleansing indicated for a repeat procedure. Data were available for Italy (27.5%-35.9%), Spain (63%) and the UK (24.5%) only. The decision analytic model demonstrates that improving the proportion of adequate bowel cleansing at first colonoscopy is likely to generate cost savings.Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, increasing the proportion of people who have adequate bowel cleansing at index colonoscopy will likely have financial benefits in Italy, Spain and the UK. A paucity of data, for France and Germany, limits the robustness of conclusions in these countries.