Patient and work flow and costs associated with staff time and facility usage at a comprehensive cancer centre in Quebec, Canada--a time and motion study.

BACKGROUND: Mapping patient and work flow and cost analysis studies can help determine the most efficient and cost effective way of providing health services while still maintaining the best standards of care. This study used both time and motion methodology and hospital data to assess the contribution of staff time and facility usage to the overall cost of cancer care during patient visits to a comprehensive cancer centre in Quebec, using metastatic colorectal cancer as a model. METHODS: A workflow diagram was created mapping direct and indirect steps involved during a patient's physician or treatment (FOLFOX/bevacizumab or XELOX/bevacizumab) visit. Staff were timed as they performed each task and this data together with compensation amounts were used to calculate personnel costs. Mean work times and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the Centre were calculated using information from hospital databases. All costs were presented in constant Canadian dollars for the 2010-2011 fiscal year period. RESULTS: For physician visits, direct and indirect personnel costs were $9.25 (95%CI:$7.00-$11.51) and O&M costs were $60.21, for a total of $69.46 (95%CI:$67.21-$71.72). For treatment visits, personnel and O&M costs were $71.91 (95%CI:$45.53-$98.29) and $62.00 respectively for a total of $133.91 (95%CI:$107.53-$160.29). When calculated for treatment alone, the total cost was $136.06 (95%CI:$109.16-$162.95) for FOLFOX/bevacizumab and $119.94 (95%CI:$96.89-$142.99) for XELOX/bevacizumab. The highest cumulative personnel costs were for the pharmacists and nurses ($38.87 and $34.82 respectively). Regarding patient flow, total time in between steps was 77.6 and 49.5 minutes for a physician or treatment visit respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study from a health care provider's perspective, demonstrated that in the context of increasingly expensive therapies, costs associated with staff time and facility usage do not contribute greatly to the overall cost of treating cancer at this cancer centre. It also illustrated the need for improvements in patient and work flow to reduce wait times in the clinic.

Economic impact of delays in listing decisions by provincial drug plans after a positive Common Drug Review recommendation: the case of a smoking-cessation treatment.

Although varenicline (Champix), a smoking-cessation treatment, was recommended for listing by the Common Drug Review (CDR) in 2007, only one CDR-participating drug insurance plan listed it in March 2011 (Saskatchewan). This study estimated the economic impact of delays in the public listing of varenicline in Canada. Using statistical data and peer-reviewed research, social costs and benefits of reimbursing varenicline were estimated. Flows of attempted and successful quitters were projected over a five-year period for three scenarios: immediate listing (2007), one- to four-year listing delays, and no reimbursement. Benefits of public reimbursement of varenicline would have been greatest in the first year ($271 million) and then decreased due to the erosion in smoking prevalence. The current three-year listing delay prevented a projected 17,729 current smokers from quitting, translating into a projected additional lifetime social burden of $700 million. The sizeable opportunity cost of delaying varenicline reimbursement implies broader economic issues for policy makers.

Economic burden associated with the use of generic antiepileptic drugs in the United States.

This study quantifies the economic burden associated with generic-versus-branded use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the United States. Adult patients with epilepsy receiving carbamazepine, gabapentin, phenytoin, primidone, or zonisamide were selected from the PharMetrics database. By use of an open-cohort design, patients were classified into mutually exclusive periods of generic-versus-branded AED use. Annualized cost differences (CDs) between periods were estimated using multivariate regressions. Results were stratified into stable versus unstable epilepsy and newer-generation versus older-generation AEDs. A total of 33,625 patients (52% male, mean age=51 years) were observed. Periods of generic AED treatment were associated with higher medical service costs (adjusted CD [95% CI]=$3186 [$2359; $4012]), stable pharmacy costs ($69 [$-34; $171]), and greater total costs ($3254 [$2403; $4105]) versus brand use. Epilepsy-related costs represented 30% of incremental costs. Similar findings were observed for patients with stable and unstable epilepsy and users of newer-generation and older-generation AEDs. Significantly higher health care costs were observed during generic AED use across seizure control and AED subgroups.

ICONS: Managing Care and Costs: The Sustained Cost Impact of Reduced Hospitalizations in a Partnership-Measurement Model of Disease Management.

Improving Cardiovascular Outcomes in Nova Scotia (ICONS) was a multidisciplinary-partnership, measurement-driven disease management project designed to improve the care and outcomes of patients with acute and chronic heart diseases in Nova Scotia. Previous analyses demonstrated beneficial clinical and macroeconomic end points at the population and system levels, including heightened awareness of the value of team care, increased use of proven therapies, decreased re-hospitalizations and a positive dollar return on investment for the economies of Nova Scotia and Canada. This article analyzes the additional cost-reduction benefits resulting from the reduced re-hospitalizations that occurred among patient populations with heart attacks and heart failure. Over the five-year course of ICONS, one-year readmissions and readmission rates fell continuously for both index disease states. Despite a general inflationary rise in real hospital costs, the per-event cost of readmissions expressed in constant 2002 dollars also decreased: from $10,377 in 1997 to $9,022 in 2002 for the heart attack patient population; and from $9,020 to $8,697 for patients with heart failure. Total real yearly costs for heart attack readmissions fell from $7.4 million in 1997 to $6.4 million in 2002, a 14% decrease; for heart failure, yearly costs decreased by 26%, from $9.2 million to $6.8 million. These microeconomic data supplement the previously reported improvements in patient care and the positive macroeconomic impact of ICONS. Overall, ICONS demonstrated that quality and cost of healthcare could be simultaneously and successfully managed over a sustained period of time for whole patient populations in a real-world setting. ICONS offers strong evidence of the value of the partnership-measurement model of disease management and prevention as a reproducible and desirable template for next-generation healthcare in Canada.

The economic consequences of generic substitution for antiepileptic drugs in a public payer setting: the case of lamotrigine.

Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may increase pharmacy utilization, thus counterbalancing per-pill savings. The purpose of our study was to analyze the economic impact of government-mandated switching from branded to generic lamotrigine. Patients in a Canadian public pharmacy claims database using branded lamotrigine (Lamictal GlaxoSmithKline, UK) in 2002 converted to generic lamotrigine in 2003 and were observed from July 2002 to March 2006. Patients used branded lamotrigine for >or=90 days pre-generic entry and had >or=1 claim for generic lamotrigine post-generic entry. For the generic period, observed per-patient monthly drug costs were calculated as the sum of costs for lamotrigine, other AEDs, and non-AEDs. Expected per-patient drug costs were estimated assuming lamotrigine dose and other prescription drug utilization in the generic period were identical to those observed during the brand period. Differences between observed and expected costs were compared. Among 1,142 branded lamotrigine users, overall average monthly drug costs per person were expected to decrease by $30.55 due to lower pill costs. Instead, they fell by $11.98 from the brand to the generic periods (p < 0.001). Because of dosage changes, lamotrigine costs decreased by $29.92 instead of the anticipated $33.87 (p < 0.001). Increased pharmacy utilization caused other AED costs to rise by $6.29 versus the expected $0.36 (p < 0.001), while non-AED drug cost increased by $11.64 rather than by $2.95 (p < 0.001). We concluded that conversion to generic lamotrigine resulted in lower than expected cost savings. Further research is necessary to determine whether this is due to reduced effectiveness and/or tolerability. Payers may weigh smaller-than-expected cost reductions against a possible decrease in effectiveness to assess the relevance of mandatory generic switching of lamotrigine.

Burden of uncontrolled epilepsy in patients requiring an emergency room visit or hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the clinical and economic burden of uncontrolled epilepsy in patients requiring emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization. METHODS: Health insurance claims from a 5-state Medicaid database (1997Q1-2009Q2) and 55 self-insured US companies ("employer," 1999Q1 and 2008Q4) were analyzed. Adult patients with epilepsy receiving antiepileptic drugs (AED) were selected. Using a retrospective matched-cohort design, patients were categorized into cohorts of "uncontrolled" (≥ 2 changes in AED therapy, then ≥ 1 epilepsy-related ED visit/hospitalization within 1 year) and "well-controlled" (no AED change, no epilepsy-related ED visit/hospitalization) epilepsy. Matched cohorts were compared for health care resource utilization and costs using multivariate conditional regression models and nonparametric methods. RESULTS: From 110,312 (Medicaid) and 36,529 (employer) eligible patients, 3,454 and 602 with uncontrolled epilepsy were matched 1:1 to patients with well-controlled epilepsy, respectively. In both populations, uncontrolled epilepsy cohorts presented about 2 times more fractures and head injuries (all p values < 0.0001) and higher health care resource utilization (ranges of adjusted incidence rate ratios [IRRs] [all-cause utilization]: AEDs = 1.8-1.9, non-AEDs = 1.3-1.5, hospitalizations = 5.4-6.7, length of hospital stays = 7.3-7.7, ED visits = 3.7-5.0, outpatient visits = 1.4-1.7, neurologist visits = 2.3-3.1; all p values < 0.0001) than well-controlled groups. Total direct health care costs were higher in patients with uncontrolled epilepsy (adjusted cost difference [95% confidence interval (CI)] Medicaid = $12,258 [$10,482-$14,083]; employer = $14,582 [$12,019-$17,097]) vs well-controlled patients. Privately insured employees with uncontrolled epilepsy lost 2.5 times more work days, with associated indirect costs of $2,857 (95% CI $1,042-$4,581). CONCLUSIONS: Uncontrolled epilepsy in patients requiring ED visit or hospitalization was associated with significantly greater health care resource utilization and increased direct and indirect costs compared to well-controlled epilepsy in both publicly and privately insured settings.

The economic implications of generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs: a review of recent evidence.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers generic and branded drugs to be therapeutically equivalent if they are pharmaceutically equivalent and bioequivalent. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) disagrees and opposes generic substitution of branded antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) without physician and patient approval due to the risk of loss of seizure control. OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence to date surrounding the economic impact of brand-to-generic substitutions of AEDs. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and MEDLINE was conducted; the bibliographies of key articles obtained from the search were used to identify additional sources. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: Current literature suggests statistically higher overall healthcare costs during periods of generic AED use than during periods when branded AED are used, consistently demonstrated across different countries (Canada and the USA) and in both stable and unstable epilepsy patients, with more pronounced cost increases in patients receiving multiple generic versions. Brand-to-generic substitutions of AEDs do not necessarily reduce overall healthcare costs and may even increase them.

Projected economic impact of clinical findings of generic entry of topiramate on G4 European countries.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the effects of generic substitution of the antiepileptic drug (AED) topiramate (Topamax) in Canada; to convert observed Canadian costs into the settings of France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom (UK); and to forecast the economic impact of generic topiramate entry in these four European countries. DESIGN AND METHODS: Health claims from Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ) plan (1/2006-9/2008) and IMS Health data (1998-2008) were used. Patients with epilepsy and > or = 2 topiramate dispensings were selected. An open-cohort design was used to classify observation into mutually-exclusive periods of branded versus generic use of topiramate. Canadian healthcare utilization and costs (2007 CAN$/person-year) were compared between periods using multivariate models. Annualized per-patient costs (2007 euro or 2007 pound sterling/person-year) were converted using Canadian utilization rates, European prices and service-use ratios. Non-parametric bootstrap served to assess statistical significance of cost differences. Topiramate market was forecasted following generic entry (09/2009-09/2010) using autoregressive models based on the European experience. The economic impact of generic topiramate entry was estimated for each country. RESULTS: A total of 1164 patients (mean age: 39.8 years, 61.7% female) were observed for 2.6 years on average. After covariates adjustment, generic-use periods were associated with increased pharmacy dispensings (other AEDs: +0.95/person-year, non-AEDs: +12.28/person-year, p < 0.001), hospitalizations ( + 0.08/person-year, p = 0.015), and lengths of hospital stays (+0.51 days/person-year, p < 0.001). Adjusted costs, excluding topiramate, were CAN$1060/person-year higher during generic use (p = 0.005). Converted per-patient costs excluding topiramate were significantly higher for generic relative to brand periods in all European countries (adjusted cost differences per person-year: 706-815 euro, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). System-wide costs would increase from 3.5 to 24.4% one year after generic entry. LIMITATIONS: Study limitations include the absence of indirect costs, possible claim inaccuracies, and IMS data limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Higher health costs were projected for G4 European countries from the Canadian experience following the generic entry of topiramate.

Economic impact of generic substitution of lamotrigine: projected costs in the US using findings in a Canadian setting.

BACKGROUND: Generic substitution may not always save health care costs for antiepileptic drugs (AED). OBJECTIVE: (1) To examine the economic impacts of generic substitution of lamotrigine in Canada; and (2) to convert observed Canadian costs to a United States (US) setting. METHODS: Health claims from Québec's health plan (RAMQ) between 08/2002 and 07/2006 were analyzed. Patients with > or = 1 epilepsy claim and treated with branded lamotrigine (Lamictal) before generic entry were selected. Health care costs ($/person-year) were compared during periods of branded and generic use of lamotrigine. Two cost-conversion methods were employed; one using purchasing power parities, US/Canada service use ratios, and exchange rate, and another employing Canadian health care utilization and US unit costs. RESULTS: 671 patients were observed during 1650.9 and 291.2 person-years of branded and generic use of lamotrigine, respectively. The generic-use period was associated with an increase in overall costs (2006 constant Canadian dollars) relative to brand use (C$7902 vs. C$6419/person-year; cost ratio (CR) = 1.22; p = 0.05), despite the lower cost of generic lamotrigine. Non-lamotrigine costs were 33% higher in the generic period (p = 0.013). Both conversion methods yielded increases in total projected health care costs excluding lamotrigine (2006 constant US dollars) during the generic period (Method 1: cost difference: US$1758/person-year, CR = 1.33, p = 0.01); Method 2: cost difference: US$2516, CR = 1.39, p = 0.004). LIMITATIONS: Study limitations pertain to treatment differences, indicators used for conversion and possible claim inaccuracies. CONCLUSION: Use of generic lamotrigine in Canada was significantly associated with increased overall medical costs compared to brand use. Projected overall US health care costs would likely increase as well.

Compulsory generic switching of antiepileptic drugs: high switchback rates to branded compounds compared with other drug classes.

PURPOSE: Compulsory generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may lead to adverse effects in epilepsy patients because of seizure recurrence or increased toxicity. The study objectives were (a) to quantify and compare the switchback rates from generic to brand-name AEDs versus non-AEDs, and (b) to assess clinical implications of switching from branded Lamictal to generic lamotrigine (LTG) and whether signals exist suggesting outcome worsening. METHODS: By using a public-payer pharmacy-claims database from Ontario, Canada, switchback rates from generic to branded AEDs [Lamictal, Frisium (clobazam; CLB), and Depakene (VPA; divalproex)] were calculated and compared with non-AED long-term therapies, antihyperlipidemics and antidepressants, in January 2002 through March 2006. We then assessed pharmacy utilization and AED dosage among LTG patients switching back to branded Lamictal compared with those staying on generic formulation. RESULTS: The 1,354 patients (403 monotherapy, 951 polytherapy) were prescribed generic LTG, of whom 12.9% switched back to Lamictal (11.7% monotherapy, 13.4% polytherapy). Switchback rates of other AEDs were approximately 20% for CLB and VPA. The switchback rates for AEDs were substantially higher than for non-AEDs (1.5-2.9%). Significant increases in LTG doses were observed after generic substitution for those who did not switch back (6.2%; p<0.0001). The average number of codispensed AEDs and non-AED drugs significantly increased (p<0.0001) after LTG generic entry, especially in the generic group. CONCLUSIONS: These results reflect poor acceptance of switching AEDs to generic compounds. They may also indicate increased toxicity and/or loss of seizure control associated with generic AED use.