Health System Perspective on Cost for Delivering a Decision Aid for Prostate Cancer Using Time-driven Activity-based Costing.

BACKGROUND: Previsit decision aids (DAs) have promising outcomes in improving decisional quality, however, the cost to deploy a DA is not well defined, presenting a possible barrier to health system adoption. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to define the cost from a health system perspective of delivery of a DA. RESEARCH DESIGN: Observational cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We interviewed or observed relevant personnel at 3 institutions with implemented DA distribution programs targeting men with prostate cancer. We then created process maps for DA delivery based on interview data. Cost determination was performed utilizing time-driven activity-based costing. Clinic visit length was measured on a subset of patients. Decisional quality measures were collected after the clinic visit. RESULTS: Total process time (minutes) for DA delivery was 10.14 (UCLA), 68 (Olive View-UCLA), and 25 (Vanderbilt). Total average costs (USD) per patient were $38.32 (UCLA), $59.96 (Olive View-UCLA), and $42.38 (Vanderbilt), respectively. Labor costs were the largest contributors to the cost of DA delivery. Variance analyses confirmed the cost efficiency of electronic health record (EHR) integration. We noted a shortening of clinic visit length when the DA was used, with high levels of decision quality. CONCLUSIONS: Time-driven activity-based costing is an effective approach to determining true inclusive costs of service delivery while also elucidating opportunities for cost containment. The absolute cost of delivering a DA to men with prostate cancer in various settings is much lower than the system costs of the treatments they consider. EHR integration streamlines DA delivery efficiency and results in substantial cost savings.

Quality of life in low-income men after surgical castration for metastatic prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare health-related quality of life in men who underwent surgical vs. medical castration for metastatic prostate cancer. METHODS: We analyzed data from a prospective cohort of men enrolled in a statewide public health program that provides care for prostate cancer among low-income, uninsured men from 2001 to 2020. Outcome measures included the RAND SF-12 and the UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (PCI) at baseline and every 6 months. We used generalized estimating equations to assess the independent impact of surgical vs. medical castration on health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Among men with metastatic prostate cancer, 27 underwent orchiectomy, and 274 underwent medical castration. Median cohort age at enrollment was 61.3 years (IQR 56-65); 239 (79%) men had less than a high school education. Average follow-up was 8 months (range 0-45) since study enrollment. Seventy percent of patients within the surgical castration group had their orchiectomy prior to study enrollment (median months since orchiectomy at study enrollment was 9 months, IQR 1-43). Similarly, 59% of patients within the medical castration group had begun ADT prior to study enrollment (median months since ADT initiation at study enrollment was 4 months, IQR 1-12). The majority (66%) had metastatic disease at diagnosis. The 2 groups did not differ in age, race/ethnicity, education, monthly income, baseline PSA, Gleason score, or percent metastatic at diagnosis. SF-12 domains did not differ between those who underwent surgical vs. medical castration (on average throughout follow-up, physical component difference -2.0, 95% CI -8.0-3.9 and mental component difference -1.0, 95% CI -5.4-+3.4). Patients treated with orchiectomy reported better urinary function than those who underwent medical castration (+16 point, 95%CI 5.3-26). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical castration did not negatively impact general or disease-specific quality of life. The finding of improved urination after orchiectomy merits further inquiry. This may inform urologists' discussion of surgical vs. medical options for men with castration-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer.