Lifetime Economic Burden of Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis by Age at Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Understanding the burden of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) is important for measuring treatment value. We estimated lifetime health care costs incurred by patients with CD or UC by age at diagnosis. METHODS: We collected data from 78,620 patients with CD, 85,755 with UC, and propensity score-matched control subjects from the Truven Health MarketScan insurance claims databases (2008‒2015). Total medical (inpatient, outpatient) and pharmacy costs were captured. Cost variations over a lifetime were estimated in cost-state Markov models by age at diagnosis, adjusted to 2016 U.S. dollars and discounted at 3% per annum. We measured lifetime total and lifetime incremental cost (the difference between costs of CD or UC patients vs matched controls). RESULTS: For CD, the lifetime incremental cost was $707,711 among patients who received their diagnosis at 0‒11 years, and $177,614 for patients 70 years or older, averaging $416,352 for a diagnosis at any age. Lifetime total cost was $622,056, consisting of outpatient ($273,056), inpatient ($164,298), pharmacy ($163,722), and emergency room (ER) ($20,979) costs. For UC, the lifetime incremental cost was $369,955 among patients who received their diagnosis at 0‒11 years, and $132,396 for individuals 70 years or older, averaging $230,102 for a diagnosis at any age. Lifetime total cost was $405,496, consisting of outpatient ($163,670), inpatient ($123,190), pharmacy ($105,142), and ER ($13,493) costs. Therefore, the prevalent populations of patients with CD or UC in the United States in 2016 are expected to incur lifetime total costs of $498 billion and $377 billion, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using a Markov model, we estimated lifetime costs for patients with CD or UC to exceed previously published estimates. Individuals who receive a diagnosis of CD or UC at an early age (younger than 11 years) incur the highest lifetime cost burden. Advancing management strategies may significantly improve patient outcomes and reduce lifetime health care spending.

Long-Term Health and Economic Value of Improved Mobility among Older Adults in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Mobility impairments have substantial physical and mental health consequences, resulting in diminished quality of life. Most studies on the health economic consequences of mobility limitations focus on short-term implications. OBJECTIVES: To examine the long-term value of improving mobility in older adults. METHODS: Our six-step approach used clinical trial data to calibrate mobility improvements and estimate health economic outcomes using a microsimulation model. First, we measured improvement in steps per day calibrated with clinical trial data examining hylan G-F 20 viscosupplementation treatment. Second, we created a cohort of patients 51 years and older with osteoarthritis. In the third step, we estimated their baseline quality of life. Fourth, we translated steps-per-day improvements to changes in quality of life using estimates from the literature. Fifth, we calibrated quality of life in this cohort to match those in the trial. Last, we incorporated these data and parameters into The Health Economic Medical Innovation Simulation model to estimate how mobility improvements affect functional status limitations, medical expenditures, nursing home utilization, employment, and earnings between 2012 and 2030. RESULTS: In our sample of 12.6 million patients, 66.7% were female and 70% had a body mass index of more than 25 kg/m2. Our model predicted that a 554-step-per-day increase in mobility would reduce functional status limitations by 5.9%, total medical expenditures by 0.9%, and nursing home utilization by 2.8%, and increase employment by 2.9%, earnings by 10.3%, and monetized quality of life by 3.2% over this 18-year period. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that improve mobility are likely to reduce long-run medical expenditures and nursing home utilization and increase employment.

Increased Lifetime Risk of Intestinal Complications and Extraintestinal Manifestations in Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis.

Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) have high morbidity rates owing to debilitating intestinal complications and extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs). We retrospectively identified patients in the Truven MarketScan databases with an incident CD or UC diagnosis from January 2008 to September 2015 to quantify the incremental lifetime risk of experiencing an intestinal complication or EIM after CD or UC diagnosis. Seven intestinal complications and 13 categories of EIMs by site were identified, and lifetime risk of experiencing an intestinal complication or EIM from age at CD or UC diagnosis to end of life was estimated using parametric models. Results were compared with controls' propensity score matched by age, sex, health plan, and pre-index Charlson Comorbidity Index. The CD or UC incremental risk was calculated using the difference in rates between CD or UC patients and matched controls. A total of 34,692 CD patients and 48,196 UC patients with 1:1 matched controls were included. CD and UC patients had an increased lifetime risk of intestinal complications, which varied across ages, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) types, and categories of intestinal complications and EIMs. CD and UC patients aged 0 to 11 years had the highest incremental lifetime risk for all 7 intestinal complications and the majority of EIMs, with blood EIMs associated with the highest incremental risk (CD: 32%; UC: 21%). CD and UC patients of all ages have a higher lifetime risk of experiencing intestinal complications and EIMs than patients without CD or UC. When evaluating the burden of disease on patients with IBD, it is important to include the burden of these intestinal complications and EIMs in the assessment.

Alternative payment models and innovation: a case study of US health system adoption of a sacubitril/valsartan to treat acute decompensated heart failure.

AIM: To understand the financial impact of health system adoption of novel heart failure medications under US alternative payment models (APMs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used a decision tree model to assess the financial impact of health system adoption of sacubitril/valsartan to treat acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). A comparator scenario modeled current health care utilization and cost for treating hospitalized ADHF patients with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB). The study then measured the impact of adopting sacubitril/valsartan to treat ADHF on health system economic outcomes. Differences in treatment efficacy were based on the PIONEER-HF clinical trial. The financial impact of changes in patient outcomes under the sacubitril/valsartan and ACEi/ARB arms was assessed across three APMs: the Medicare Shared Savings Program, Bundled Payments for Care Improvement, and fee-for-service payments adjusted according to the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program. RESULTS: Sacubitril/valsartan reduced re-hospitalizations after an initial ADHF admission by 46.3% for individuals aged 18-64 years and 23.4% for individuals aged ≥65 years. Health systems' financial benefit of adopting sacubitril/valsartan was $740 per ADHF case per year (PCPY). Savings were larger for patients aged ≥65 years ($803 PCPY) compared to those <65 years ($653 PCPY). The majority of the health system financial benefit came from changes in APM bonus and penalty reimbursements. Value-based payments from the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program ($1,190 financial gain PCPY) and the Bundled Care Payment Improvement Initiative ($645 financial gain PCPY) produced larger financial benefits than participation in the Medicare Shared Savings Program ($253 financial gain PCPY). LIMITATIONS: The model uses clinical trial data, which may not reflect real-world outcomes. Further, the financial implications were modeled based only on three widely used APMs. CONCLUSION: Sacubitril/valsartan adoption decreased hospitalizations and led to a positive net financial impact on health systems after accounting for APM bonus payments.

Modeling the impact of patient treatment preference on health outcomes in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Aims: Model how moving from current disease-modifying drug (DMD) prescribing patterns for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) observed in the United Kingdom (UK) to prescribing patterns based on patient preferences would impact health outcomes over time.Materials and methods: A cohort-based Markov model was used to measure the effect of DMDs on long-term health outcomes for individuals with RRMS. Data from a discrete choice experiment were used to estimate the market shares of DMDs based on patient preferences (i.e. preference shares). These preference shares and real-world UK market shares were used to calculate the effect of prescribing behavior on relapses, disability progression, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental benefit of patient-centered prescribing over current practices for the UK RRMS population was then estimated; scenario and sensitivity analyses were also conducted.Results: Compared to current prescribing practices, when UK patients with RRMS were treated following patient preferences, health outcomes were improved. This population was expected to experience 501,690 relapses and gain 1,003,263 discounted QALYs over 50 years under patient-centered prescribing practices compared to 538,417 relapses and 958,792 discounted QALYs under current practices (-6.8% and +4.6%, respectively). Additionally, less disability progression was observed when prescribed treatment was based on patient preferences. In a scenario analysis where only oral treatments were considered, the results were similar, although the magnitude of benefit was smaller. Number of relapses was most sensitive to how the annualized relapse rate was modeled; disability progression was most sensitive to mortality rate assumptions.Limitations: Treatment efficacy estimates applied to various models in this study were based on data derived from clinical trials, rather than real-world data; the impact of patient-centered prescribing on treatment adherence and/or switching was not modeled.Conclusions: The population of UK RRMS patients may experience overall health gains if patient preferences are better incorporated into prescribing practices.

CAR-T therapy and historical trends in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oncology treatments.

Aim: This study examines how chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy's incremental effectiveness and cost-effectiveness profile fits into the recent history of anticancer treatments. Materials & methods: We conducted graphical and multivariable analyses using data from the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry of the Tufts Medical Center and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's analysis of CAR-T therapies. We collected additional information including the US FDA approval years for pharmacologic innovations. Results: CAR-T provided 5.03 (95% CI: 3.88-6.18) more incremental quality-adjusted life-years than the average pharmaceutical intervention and 4.61 (95% CI: 1.67-7.56) more than the average nonpharmaceutical intervention, while retaining similar cost-effectiveness. There was evidence of worsening cost-effectiveness by approval year for pharmaceutical interventions. Limitations: Analysis is limited to anticancer treatments studied in cost-utility analyses, estimated to cover approximately 60% of FDA-approved antineoplastic agents. Conclusion: CAR-T therapy breaks a pattern of stagnant efficacy growth in pharmaceutical innovation and demonstrates significantly greater incremental effectiveness and similar cost-effectiveness to prior innovations.

The potential impact of CAR T-cell treatment delays on society.

OBJECTIVES: To date, breakthrough chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies, such as tisagenlecleucel, indicated for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (pALL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and axicabtagene ciloleucel, indicated for DLBCL, although clinically effective, have been limited by treatment delays. Our study measured the social value of CAR T-cell therapy (CAR T) for relapsed or refractory pALL and DLBCL in the United States and quantified social value lost due to treatment delays. STUDY DESIGN: We used an economic framework for therapy valuation, measuring social value as the sum of consumer surplus and manufacturer profit. Consumer surplus is the difference between the value of health gains from a therapy and its incremental cost, while accounting for indirect costs and benefits to patients. METHODS: For 20 incident cohorts of pALL (n = 20 × 400 = 8000) and DLBCL (n = 20 × 5902 = 118,040), we quantified patient value, calculated as the value of additional quality-adjusted life-years gained with CAR T, minus the incremental cost of CAR T compared with standard of care (SOC). We calculated manufacturer profits using a range of production costs given uncertainties in the production process. Patient value and manufacturer profits were summed to obtain total social value. We measured social value lost from treatment delays, assuming that patients received the SOC while awaiting CAR T-cell treatment. RESULTS: Depending on production costs, as much as $6.5 billion and $34.8 billion in social value was generated for patients with pALL and DLBCL, respectively. However, with 1, 2, or 6 months of treatment delay (assuming $200,000 production costs), the pALL population lost 9.8%, 36.2%, and 67.3% of social value, respectively, whereas the DLBCL population lost 4.2%, 11.5%, and 46.0%, relative to no delay. CONCLUSIONS: The social value of CAR T is significantly limited by treatment delays. Efficient payment mechanisms, adequate capital, and payment policy reform are urgently needed to increase patient access and maximize the value of CAR T.

The potential value of rapid, cloud-enabled onsite testing for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis in the United States.

AIMS: Improvements in information technology have granted the recent development of rapid, cloud-enabled, onsite laboratory testing for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study aims to quantify the value to payers of such technologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To calculate the value of rapid, cloud-enabled, onsite laboratory testing to diagnose RA relative to traditional, centralized laboratory testing, an Excel-based decision tree model was created that simulated potential cost-savings to payers who cover routine evaluations of RA patients in the US. First, a conceptual framework was created to identify the value components of rapid, cloud-enabled onsite testing. Second, value associated with patient time savings, savings on visit fees, change in treatment costs, and QALY improvements was measured, leveraging existing literature and information from an observational study. Lastly, these value components were combined to estimate the total incremental value accruing to payers per patient-year relative to centralized laboratory testing. RESULTS: Rapid, cloud-enabled, onsite testing is estimated to save one office and 1.81 laboratory visits during the evaluation period for the average patient. Results from an observational study found that rapid, cloud-enabled testing increased the likelihood of completing diagnostic orders from 84.5% to 97%, resulting in an increased probability of early treatment (3.5 percentage points) with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs among patients eligible for treatment. The combined total value was $5,648 per evaluated patient-year. This value is primarily attributed to health benefits of early treatment ($5,048), fewer visit payments ($459), and patient time savings due to fewer office ($216) and laboratory visits ($255). LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Data on the impact of rapid, cloud-enabled, onsite testing on patient health, care delivery, and clinical decision-making is scarce. More robust real-world data would confirm the validity of our model. Rapid, cloud-enabled, onsite testing has the potential to generate significant value to payers.

An exploratory case study of the impact of expanding cost-effectiveness analysis for second-line nivolumab for patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Canada: Does it make a difference?

INTRODUCTION: Health technology appraisal agencies often rely on cost-effectiveness analyses to inform coverage decisions for new treatments. These assessments, however, frequently measure a treatment's value from the payer's perspective, and may not capture value generated from reduced caregiving costs, increased productivity, value based on patient risk preferences, option value or the insurance value to non-patients. METHODS: To examine how using a broader societal perspective of treatment value affects cost-effectiveness estimates, this case study analyzed the net monetary benefit (NMB) of second-line nivolumab treatment of patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Canada. The comparator was treatment with docetaxel. NMB was measured from three perspectives: (i) traditional payer, (ii) traditional societal and (iii) broad societal. RESULTS: Nivolumab was more effective (increased quality-adjusted life years by 0.66 versus docetaxel), but also increased costs by $100,168 CAD. When valuing a quality-adjusted life year at $150,000, the net monetary benefit from the payer perspective suggested that costs modestly exceed benefits (NMB: -$1031). Adopting a societal perspective, however, nivolumab's benefits outweighed its costs (NMB: +$6752 and +$91,084 from the traditional and broad societal perspectives, respectively). CONCLUSION: Broadening cost-effectiveness analysis beyond the traditional payer perspective had a significant impact on the result and should be considered in order to capture all treatment benefits and costs of societal relevance.

Does knowledge of patient non-compliance change prescribing behavior in the real world? A claims-based analysis of patients with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: New digital technologies offer providers the promise of more accurately tracking patients' medication adherence. It is unclear, however, whether access to such information will affect provider treatment decisions in the real world. METHODS: Using prescriber-reported information on patient non-compliance from health insurance claims data between 2008 and 2014, we examined whether prescribers' knowledge of non-compliance was associated with different prescribing patterns for patients with serious mental illness (SMI). We examined patients who initiated an oral atypical antipsychotic, but were later objectively non-adherent to this treatment, defined as proportion of days covered (PDC) <0.8. We examined how a physician's awareness of patient non-compliance (ICD-9 diagnosis code: V15.81) was correlated with the physician's real-world treatment decisions for that patient. Treatment decisions studied included the share of patients who increased antipsychotic dose, augmented treatment, switched their antipsychotic, or used a long-acting injectable (LAI). RESULTS: Among the 286,249 patients with SMI who initiated an antipsychotic and had PDC <0.8, 4,033 (1.4%) had documented non-compliance. When prescribers documented non-compliance, patients were more likely to be switched to another antipsychotic (32.8% vs 24.7%, P<0.001), have their dose increased (24.4% vs 22.1%, P=0.004), or receive an LAI (0.09% vs 0.04%, P=0.008), but were less likely to have augmented therapy with another antipsychotic (1.1% vs 1.3%, P=0.035) than patients without documented non-compliance. CONCLUSION: Among SMI patients with documented non-compliance, the frequency of dose, medication switches, and LAI use were higher and augmentation was lower compared to patients without documented non-compliance. Access to adherence information may help prescribers more rapidly switch ineffective medications as well as avoid unnecessary medication augmentation.