HER2 testing and subsequent trastuzumab treatment for breast cancer in a managed care environment.

BACKGROUND: Degree of physician adherence to 2001 guidelines recommending routine testing of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status among newly diagnosed, recurrent, and metastatic breast cancer (BC) cases, and frequency of trastuzumab use in HER2-positive patients are not well documented. METHODS: Patients newly diagnosed with BC managed by an identifiable hematologist/oncologist between June 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006 were identified from an administrative claims database of three health plans (n = 3,521). From these, a subset of 380 patients was identified for medical chart review. HER2 testing (occurrence, type of test used), HER2 status (positive, negative, unknown), and trastuzumab usage were evaluated. RESULTS: HER2 testing occurred in 88% of all newly diagnosed patients with BC and in 98.1% of those with stage 1 or higher breast cancer (n = 322), for whom testing is recommended. Among those with HER2 testing performed (n = 335), 21.5% were positive (HER2(+)), 77.3% were negative (HER2(-)), and 1.2% were unknown. Of the 52 patients who used trastuzumab, only one patient did not have documented HER2 overexpression. Of the 45 HER2(+) women who had stage 2 or higher BC, 13% did not receive trastuzumab. CONCLUSIONS: HER2 testing status was extremely high among newly diagnosed BC patients treated by hematologists/oncologists in a managed care environment. There was almost no evidence of inappropriate prescribing of trastuzumab, but 1 of every 7.5 patients with HER2-overexpressing stage 2 or higher breast cancer did not receive the agent.

The value of colonoscopic colorectal cancer screening of adults aged 50 to 64.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the value of life-years saved due to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy for the population aged 50 to 64 years. The cost perspective is that of a private (commercial) insurer, while the value perspective includes survival past age 65 years, when most of the US population is insured by Medicare. We focused on colonoscopy because it is not only diagnostic but also therapeutic; because positive results on other screening tests generally are followed up with colonoscopy; and to build on previous study results that colonoscopy is ultimately more cost-effective than other screening, even considering its expense. STUDY DESIGN: Monte Carlo simulation. METHODS: Using a large multi-state cancer registry, a large national administrative claims database, and a model of CRC development based on published clinical literature, we estimated the impact of screening with colonoscopy on incidence of CRC, aggregate cost of colonoscopies and CRC, and life-years saved. RESULTS: Assuming 2013 commercial reimbursement rates for screening and treatment, we found that increasing screening adherence from 50% to 100% would cost about $3 per member per month (2013 US$) and reduce CRC treatment costs by about $1 per member per month. The cost per life-year saved is approximately $12,000, an amount that is much lower than for cervical or breast cancer screening and comparable to lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that commercial insurers and employers should promote CRC screening as a high-value service. Promoting such screening through high-quality, low-cost providers would be an exemplar of efficient system innovation.

Longitudinal Commercial Claims-Based Cost Analysis of Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Patterns.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy is one of the most common complications of diabetes. The screening of patients with diabetes to detect retinopathy is recommended by several professional guidelines but is an underutilized service. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the relationship between the frequency of retinopathy screening and the cost of care in adult patients with diabetes. METHODS: Truven Health MarketScan commercial databases (2000-2013) were used to identify the diabetic population aged 18 to 64 years for the performance of a 2001-2013 annual trend analysis of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and a 10-year longitudinal analysis of patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. In the trend analysis, the prevalence of diabetes, screening rate, and allowed cost per member per month (PMPM) were calculated. In the longitudinal analysis, data from 4 index years (2001-2004) of patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were combined, and the costs were adjusted to be comparable to the 2004 index year cohort, using the annual diabetes population cost trends calculated in the trend analysis. The longitudinal population was segmented into the number of years of diabetic retinopathy screening (ie, 0, 1-4, 5-7, and 8-10), and the relationship between the years of screening and the PMPM allowed costs was analyzed. The difference in mean incremental cost between years 1 and 10 in each of the 4 cohorts was compared after adjusting for explanatory variables. RESULTS: In the trend analysis, between 2001 and 2013, the prevalence of diabetes increased from 3.93% to 5.08%, retinal screening increased from 26.27% to 29.58%, and the average total unadjusted allowed cost of care for each patient with diabetes increased from $822 to $1395 PMPM. In the longitudinal analysis, the difference between the screening cohorts' mean incremental cost increase was $185 between the 0- and 1-4-year cohorts (P <.003) and $202 between the 0- and 5-7-year cohorts (P <.023). The cost differences between the other cohorts, including $217 between the 0- and 8-10-year cohorts (P <.066), were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our analysis, the annual retinopathy screening rate for patients with diabetes has remained low since 2001, and has been well below the guideline-recommended screening levels. For patients with type 2 diabetes, the mean increase in healthcare expenditures over a 10-year period after diagnosis is not statistically different among those with various retinopathy screening rates, although the increase in healthcare spending is lower for patients with diabetes who were not screened for retinopathy compared with patients who did get screened.