Value in psoriasis (IRIS) trial: implementing value-based healthcare in psoriasis management - a 1-year prospective clinical study to evaluate feasibility and value creation.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, the healthcare sector is under tremendous financial pressure, and many acknowledge that a dramatic shift is required as the current system is not sustainable. Furthermore, the quality of care that is delivered varies strongly. Several solutions have been proposed of which the conceptual framework known as value-based healthcare (VBHC) is further explored in this study for psoriasis. Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease, which is associated with a high disease burden and high treatment costs. The objective of this study is to investigate the feasibility of using the VBHC framework for the management of psoriasis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective clinical study in which new patients attending the psoriasis clinic (PsoPlus) of the Ghent University Hospital will be followed up during a period of 1 year. The main outcome is to determine the value created for psoriasis patients. The created value will be considered as a reflection of the evolution of the value score (ie, the weighted outputs (outcomes) divided by weighted inputs (costs)) obtained using data envelopment analysis. Secondary outcomes are related to comorbidity control, outcome evolution and treatment costs. In addition, a bundled payment scheme will be determined as well as potential improvements in the treatment process. A total of 350 patients will be included in this trial and the study initiation is foreseen on 1 March 2023. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ghent University Hospital. The findings of this study will be disseminated by various means: (1) publication in one or more peer-reviewed dermatology and/or management journals, (2) (inter)national congresses, (3) via the psoriasis patient community and (4) through the research team's social media channels. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05480917.

PsoPlus: An Integrated Practice Unit for Psoriasis.

There is a need to revise the current healthcare organization due to the ever-rising costs and variation in quality of delivered care. Over the past decades there have been several strategic frameworks attempting to tackle this problem. Value-based healthcare (VBHC) is one of those frameworks which has gained increasing popularity the last years. The framework is formulated on the premise that the healthcare sector should deliver integrated care, using integrated practice units (IPUs), and strive to maximize the value created. Value in this context is defined as the health outcomes achieved per costs made. We have designed a lean IPU called PsoPlus in which psoriasis patients are managed by a multidisciplinary team which has all the expertise and skill to manage psoriasis and its associated conditions. In addition, we have developed and implemented guidelines for the management of psoriasis-associated comorbidities, enabling us to deliver integrated care in the Belgian healthcare setting. Finally, we have designed a supporting information technology platform, called PsoSmart, which brings data from patients and healthcare providers together and provides actionable insights for clinical decision making. The created value is documented and captured using a value-based outcome set. Cost assessments at the individual patient level are also performed. To conclude, we describe here a comprehensive IPU setting for psoriasis which incorporates the VBHC principles. This IPU goes further and delivers a higher level of integrated care than other multidisciplinary psoriasis clinics. Monitoring outcomes and costs provides us with further insights to optimize psoriasis care. In addition, a software program designed to enhance psoriasis care is being developed further; however, advances in healthcare technology are needed.

Variability drivers of treatment costs in hospitals: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Studies on variability drivers of treatment costs in hospitals can provide the necessary information for policymakers and healthcare providers seeking to redesign reimbursement schemes and improve the outcomes-over-cost ratio, respectively. This systematic literature review, focusing on the hospital perspective, provides an overview of studies focusing on variability in treatment cost, an outline of their study characteristics and cost drivers, and suggestions on future research methodology. METHODS: We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We searched PubMED/MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Science direct, OvidSP and Cochrane library. Two investigators extracted and appraised data for citation until October 2020. RESULTS: 90 eligible articles were included. Patient, treatment and disease characteristics and, to a lesser extent, outcome and institutional characteristics were identified as significant variables explaining cost variability. In one-third of the studies, the costing method was classified as unclear due to the limited explanation provided by the authors. CONCLUSION: Various patient, treatment and disease characteristics were identified to explain hospital cost variability. The limited transparency on how hospital costs are defined is a remarkable observation for studies wherein cost variability is the main focus. Recommendations relating to variables, costs, and statistical methods to consider when designing and conducting cost variability studies were provided.

Variability in hospital treatment costs: a time-driven activity-based costing approach for early-stage invasive breast cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: Using a standardised diagnostic and generic treatment path for breast cancer, and the molecular subtype perspective, we aim to measure the impact of several patient and disease characteristics on the overall treatment cost for patients. Additionally, we aim to generate insights into the drivers of cost variability within one medical domain. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a retrospective study at a breast clinic in Belgium. We used 14 anonymous patient files for conducting our analysis. RESULTS: Significant cost variations within each molecular subtype and across molecular subtypes were found. For the luminal A classification, the cost differential amounts to roughly 166%, with the greatest treatment cost amounting to US$29 780 relative to US$11 208 for a patient requiring fewer medical activities. The major driver for these cost variations relates to disease characteristics. For the luminal B classification, a cost difference of roughly 242% exists due to both disease-related and patient-related factors. The average treatment cost for triple negative patients amounted to US$26 923, this is considered to be a more aggressive type of cancer. The overall cost for HER2-enriched is driven by the inclusion of Herceptin, thus this subtype is impacted by disease characteristics. Cost variability across molecular classifications is impacted by the severity of the disease, thus disease-related factors are the major drivers of cost. CONCLUSIONS: Given the cost challenge in healthcare, the need for greater cost transparency has become imperative. Through our analysis, we generate initial insights into the drivers of cost variability for breast cancer. We found evidence that disease characteristics such as severity and more aggressive cancer forms such as HER2-enriched and triple negative have a significant impact on treatment cost across the different subtypes. Similarly, patient factors such as age and presence of gene mutation contribute to differences in treatment cost variability within molecular subtypes.