Open-source Software Sustainability Models: Initial White Paper From the Informatics Technology for Cancer Research Sustainability and Industry Partnership Working Group.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute Informatics Technology for Cancer Research (ITCR) program provides a series of funding mechanisms to create an ecosystem of open-source software (OSS) that serves the needs of cancer research. As the ITCR ecosystem substantially grows, it faces the challenge of the long-term sustainability of the software being developed by ITCR grantees. To address this challenge, the ITCR sustainability and industry partnership working group (SIP-WG) was convened in 2019. OBJECTIVE: The charter of the SIP-WG is to investigate options to enhance the long-term sustainability of the OSS being developed by ITCR, in part by developing a collection of business model archetypes that can serve as sustainability plans for ITCR OSS development initiatives. The working group assembled models from the ITCR program, from other studies, and from the engagement of its extensive network of relationships with other organizations (eg, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Open Source Initiative, and Software Sustainability Institute) in support of this objective. METHODS: This paper reviews the existing sustainability models and describes 10 OSS use cases disseminated by the SIP-WG and others, including 3D Slicer, Bioconductor, Cytoscape, Globus, i2b2 (Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside) and tranSMART, Insight Toolkit, Linux, Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics tools, R, and REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture), in 10 sustainability aspects: governance, documentation, code quality, support, ecosystem collaboration, security, legal, finance, marketing, and dependency hygiene. RESULTS: Information available to the public reveals that all 10 OSS have effective governance, comprehensive documentation, high code quality, reliable dependency hygiene, strong user and developer support, and active marketing. These OSS include a variety of licensing models (eg, general public license version 2, general public license version 3, Berkeley Software Distribution, and Apache 3) and financial models (eg, federal research funding, industry and membership support, and commercial support). However, detailed information on ecosystem collaboration and security is not publicly provided by most OSS. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend 6 essential attributes for research software: alignment with unmet scientific needs, a dedicated development team, a vibrant user community, a feasible licensing model, a sustainable financial model, and effective product management. We also stress important actions to be considered in future ITCR activities that involve the discussion of the sustainability and licensing models for ITCR OSS, the establishment of a central library, the allocation of consulting resources to code quality control, ecosystem collaboration, security, and dependency hygiene.

The Financial Implications of Pancreatic Surgery: The Hospital Is the Big Winner, Not the Surgeon!

Background: High-volume pancreatic surgery centers require a significant investment in expertise, time, and resources to achieve optimal patient outcomes. A detailed understanding of the economics of major pancreatic surgery is limited among many clinicians and hospital administrators. A greater consideration of these financial aspects may in fact have implications for enhancing clinical care and for a broader sustainability of high-volume pancreatic surgery programs. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), total pancreatectomy, or distal pancreatectomy at one academic medical center during the fiscal year 2021 were evaluated. Detailed hospital charges and professional fees were obtained for patients using the Qlik perioperative database. Clinical data for the study cohort were gathered from a prospectively maintained, IRB-approved pancreatic surgery database. Charges for the 91-day perioperative period were included. A P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: During the study period, 159 evaluable patients underwent 1 of 3 designated pancreatic resections included in the analysis. Ninety-seven patients (61%) were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma and 70% (n = 110) underwent PD. The total charges (combined professional and hospital charges) for the cohort encompassing the entire perioperative period were $20,661,759. The median charge per patient was $130,306 (interquartile range [IQR], $34,534). The median direct cost of care was $23,219 (IQR, $6321) and the median contribution margin per case was $10,092 (IQR, $22,949). The median surgeon professional fee charges were $7700 per patient (IQR, $1296) as compared to $3453 (IQR, $1,144) for professional fee receipts (45% of the surgeon charge). The differences between the professional fee charges and receipts per patient were also considerable for other health care professionals such as anesthesiologists ($4945 charges vs $1406 receipts [28%]) and pathologists ($3035 charges vs $680 receipts [22%]). The surgeon professional fees were only 6% of the total charges, while the professional fees for anesthesiology and pathology were 4% and 2% of the total charges, respectively. Supply charges were 3% of the total charges. Longer operative time was correlated with increased hospital and anesthesia charges, without a significant increase in surgeon charges (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.2, respectively). Male sex, diabetes, and low serum albumin correlated with greater total hospital charges (P = 0.01, P = 0.01, and P = 0.03, respectively). Conclusions: The role of the surgeon in the perioperative clinical care of major pancreatic resection patients is crucial and important and is by no means limited to the operative day. Nevertheless, in the context of the current US health care system, the reimbursement to the surgeon in the form of professional fees is a relatively small fraction of the total health care receipts for these patients. This imbalance necessitates a substantial financial partnership between hospitals and their pancreatic surgery units to ensure the long-term viability of these programs.

Estimating revenue, costs, and operating margin of any hospital-based thoracic surgery practice using a novel financial model.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to develop a generalizable financial model that estimates payor-specific reimbursements associated with anatomic lung resections for any hospital-based thoracic surgery practice. METHODS: Medical records of patients who presented to the thoracic surgery clinic and eventually underwent an anatomic lung resection from January 2019 to December 2020 were reviewed. The volume of preoperative and postoperative studies, clinic visits, and outpatient referrals was measured. Neither subsequent studies nor procedures from outpatient referrals were captured. Diagnosis-related group, cost-to-charge ratios, Current Procedural Terminology Medicare payment data, and Private:Medicare and Medicaid:Medicare payment ratios were used to estimate payor-specific reimbursements and operating margin. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients met inclusion criteria and underwent 113 operations: 102 (90%) lobectomies, 7 (6%) segmentectomies, and 4 (4%) pneumonectomies. These patients underwent 554 total studies, received 60 referrals to other specialties, and had 626 total clinic visits. The total charges and Medicare reimbursement were $12.5 M and $2.7 M, respectively. After adjusting for a 41% Medicare, 2% Medicaid, and 57% Private payor mix, the total reimbursement was $4.7 M. With a 0.252 cost-to-charge ratio, total costs and operating income were $3.2 M and $1.5 M, respectively (ie, 33% operating margin). Average reimbursement per surgery by payor was $51k for Private, $29k for Medicare, and $23k for Medicaid. CONCLUSIONS: For any hospital-based thoracic surgery practice, this novel financial model can calculate both overall and payor-specific reimbursements, costs, and operating margin across the full perioperative spectrum. By manipulating hospital name, hospital state, volume, and payor mix, any program can gain insights into their financial contributions and use the outputs to guide investment decisions.

The Economic Burden of Chromosome Translocations and the Benefits of Enhanced Screening for Cattle Breeding.

The cattle breeding industry, through both of its derivatives (dairy and beef), provides 81% of milk and 22% of meat required globally. If a breeding bull is sub-fertile, this impacts herd conception and birth rates, and it is generally accepted that having a proactive genetic screening programme can prevent further losses. Chromosome translocations are the leading genetic cause of infertility in livestock and, in cattle, this extends beyond the classical 1:29 to other Robertsonian translocations (RobTs) and to reciprocal translocations (RECTs). The incidence of both (collectively termed RTs) varies between breeds and herds; however, we estimate that RECTs are, most likely, at least twice as common as RobTs. The purpose of this study was to develop an industry economic model to estimate the financial impact of an RT event at the herd level. If we assume a conservative incidence rate of 0.4% for Rob1:29 with each one impacting the conception rate by 5%, we calculate that actively screening for and removing a Rob1:29 bull could benefit an impacted herd by GBP 2.3 million (approx. USD 2.8 million) over six years. A recently updated screening protocol developed in our lab for all RTs, however (with a projected combined incidence of 1.2%, impacting conception rates by 10%), could benefit an impacted herd by GBP 7.2 million (nearly USD 9 million) for each RT found. For an industry worth USD 827.4 billion (dairy) and USD 467.7 billion (beef), expanding knowledge on incidence and further dissection of the potential costs (financial and environmental) from RTs is essential to prevent further losses.

From the Intersection of Food-Borne Zoonoses and EU Green Policies to an In-Embryo One Health Financial Model.

The European Union (EU) adopts the One Health (OH) approach, based on the relationships between human, animal, and environmental health. OH concerns a multitude of aspects, some of which are discussed here. OH overlaps the European Green Deal plan and its relaunched Farm to Fork Strategy, which aims at spreading organic farms adopting the circular economy, in order to improve human health through both better environmental conditions and healthier food. Nevertheless, zoonoses cause sanitary cost in terms of infected farm personnel, lower productivity, and lower fertility of infected farm animals. In such scenarios, the decreased breeding yield and the lower income induce higher cost of farm products, meaning that the market price rises, becoming uncompetitive when compared to the prices of industrial products. Consequently, lower revenues can hinder the farm growth expected in the framework of the EU Green Deal. Since zoonosis control is a key element in aligning EU policies aimed at achieving the EU Green Deal goal of "ZERO environmental impact" by 2050, the authors suggest the inclusion of the parameter economic health in the OH approach, in order to individuate EU Member States (MSs) economically unable to conduct eradication programmes and to finance them. Economic health is here considered as a starting point of the new ethical and science-based One Health Financial Model that the authors suggest as an in-embryo model, in which specific rules should regulate public funds, private investments, and trading, which should exclusively concern public services and private enterprises complying with most of the OH parameters. In this way, economic losses due to collateral negative effects deriving from human activities can be progressively decreased, and the entire planet will benefit from the process. Despite the considerable efforts being carried out in the context of the OH approach, war causes tragic and devastating effects on the physical and mental health of human beings, on their lives, on pandemic and zoonotic threats, on animals, on plants and, last but not least, on the environment. War is incompatible with OH. Enormous efforts for peace are therefore urgently needed.

The monthly operating cost of an institutional COVID-19 airway response team: A financial model and sensitivity analysis based on experience at an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) airway response teams concentrate equipment and expertise while minimizing the number of providers exposed to aerosol generating procedures. These airway teams were implemented in various hospitals around the world to respond to the acute increase of critical ill patients requiring ventilatory support. We created a financial model to estimate the costs for staffing and maintaining a dedicated COVID-19 airway response team based on the experience at an urban academic hospital in the Northeastern United States between March and June of 2020. METHODS: The institutional review board at Brigham and Women's Hospital approved this protocol and the requirement for informed consent was waived. The average reimbursement for 125 COVID-19 airway consultations was measured. Our team estimated the costs of consumable items for each airway based on previously published recommendations for equipment and personal protective equipment. A sensitivity analyses was performed for variable numbers of monthly airway consults and different staffing patterns based on a literature review of available COVID-19 airway team structures. RESULTS: Based on the average reimbursements and estimates of the consumable costs, each airway procedure represented a net loss of $34 to the institution. The overall estimated cost of staffing a dedicated airway team was between $109,472 and $204,575 per month. CONCLUSIONS: Development and implementation of a dedicated COVID-19 airway response teams represents a significant institutional expense. Institutions should establish necessary cost sharing, consider volume and team structure, and identify reimbursement opportunities that mitigate the necessary expense associated with airway response programs.

Assessing the Financial Value of Patient Engagement: A Quantitative Approach from CTTI's Patient Groups and Clinical Trials Project.

BACKGROUND: While patient groups, regulators, and sponsors are increasingly considering engaging with patients in the design and conduct of clinical development programs, sponsors are often reluctant to go beyond pilot programs because of uncertainty in the return on investment. We developed an approach to estimate the financial value of patient engagement. METHODS: Expected net present value (ENPV) is a common technique that integrates the key business drivers of cost, time, revenue, and risk into a summary metric for project strategy and portfolio decisions. We assessed the impact of patient engagement on ENPV for a typical oncology development program entering phase 2 or phase 3. RESULTS: For a pre-phase 2 project, the cumulative impact of a patient engagement activity that avoids one protocol amendment and improves enrollment, adherence, and retention is an increase in net present value (NPV) of $62MM ($65MM for pre-phase 3) and an increase in ENPV of $35MM ($75MM for pre-phase 3). Compared with an investment of $100,000 in patient engagement, the NPV and ENPV increases can exceed 500-fold the investment. This ENPV increase is the equivalent of accelerating a pre-phase 2 product launch by 2½ years (1½ years for pre-phase 3). CONCLUSIONS: Risk-adjusted financial models can assess the impact of patient engagement. A combination of empirical data and subjective parameter estimates shows that engagement activities with the potential to avoid protocol amendments and/or improve enrollment, adherence, and retention may add considerable financial value. This approach can help sponsors assess patient engagement investment decisions.