Screening for cancer: the economic, medical, and psychosocial issues.

Despite significant improvements in mortality over the past 20 years, cancer remains the second leading cause of death in the United States. One reason for the improvement in mortality is screening for several common cancers in people at average risk for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers, and screening for lung cancer in those with a 20-plus pack-year history. Such screening may result in earlier diagnosis when the cancer is most likely to respond to treatment. However, there are no population-based screening recommendations for the majority of cancers in average-risk patients, most of which are not diagnosed until the later stages. One question is whether earlier diagnosis could not only reduce mortality rates but also reduce medical costs. Screening comes with several potential risks, including false positives and overdiagnosis, both of which can affect patients' mental health, increase morbidity and mortality, and lead to excess spending. Additionally, certain cancers can evade traditional screening tests and lead to false-negative results, which delays cancer detection, treatment, and may affect treatment efficacy. The advent of liquid biopsy tests that could screen for dozens of cancers holds promise for identifying more cancers early. However, the cost, the potential for overdiagnosis and false positives, and a lack of evidence demonstrating clinical utility or an improvement in health outcomes call into question their potential use for widespread screening. Government and managed care organizations will need to consider the risks and benefits of these assays in determining coverage.

Contrasting Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Under Commercial Insurance vs. Medicare.

OBJECTIVES: Most cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening assume Medicare payment rates and a lifetime horizon. Our aims were to examine the implications of differential payment levels and time horizons for commercial insurers vs. Medicare on the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening. METHODS: We used our validated Markov cohort simulation of CRC screening in the average risk US population to examine CRC screening at ages 50-64 under commercial insurance, and at ages 65-80 under Medicare, using a health-care sector perspective. Model outcomes included discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs per person, and incremental cost/QALY gained. RESULTS: Lifetime costs/person were 20-44% higher when assuming commercial payment rates rather than Medicare rates for people under 65. Most of the substantial clinical benefit of screening at ages 50-64 was realized at ages ≥65. For commercial payers with a time horizon of ages 50-64, fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) were cost-effective (<$61,000/QALY gained), but colonoscopy was costly (>$185,000/QALY gained). Medicare experienced substantial clinical benefits and cost-savings from screening done at ages <65, even if screening was not continued. Among those previously screened, continuing FOBT and FIT under Medicare was cost-saving and continuing colonoscopy was highly cost-effective (<$30,000/QALY gained), and initiating any screening in those previously unscreened was highly effective and cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS: Modeling suggests that CRC screening is highly cost-effective over a lifetime even when considering higher payment rates by commercial payers vs. Medicare. Screening may appear relatively costly for commercial payers if only a time horizon of ages 50-64 is considered, but it is predicted to yield substantial clinical and economic benefits that accrue primarily at ages ≥65 under Medicare.

Optimizing Anti-VEGF Treatment Outcomes for Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs to ophthalmology has revolutionized the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Despite this significant progress, gaps and challenges persist in the diagnosis of nAMD, initiation of treatment, and management of frequent intravitreal injections. Thus, nAMD remains a leading cause of blindness in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To present current knowledge, evidence, and expert perspectives on anti-VEGF therapies in nAMD to support managed care professionals and providers in decision making and collaborative strategies to overcome barriers to optimize anti-VEGF treatment outcomes among nAMD patients. SUMMARY: Three anti-VEGF therapies currently form the mainstay of treatment for nAMD, including 2 therapies approved by the FDA for treatment of nAMD (aflibercept and ranibizumab) and 1 therapy approved by the FDA for oncology indications and used off-label for treatment of nAMD (bevacizumab). In clinical trials, each of the 3 agents maintained visual acuity (VA) in approximately 90% or more of nAMD patients over 2 years. However, in long-term and real-world settings, significant gaps and challenges in diagnosis, treatment, and management pose barriers to achieving optimal outcomes for patients with nAMD. Many considerations, including individual patient characteristics, on-label versus off-label treatment, repackaging, and financial considerations, add to the complexity of nAMD decision making and management. Many factors may contribute to additional challenges leading to suboptimal long-term outcomes among nAMD patients, such as delays in diagnosis and/or treatment approval and initiation, individual patient response to different anti-VEGF therapies, lapses in physician regimentation of anti-VEGF injection and monitoring, and inadequate patient adherence to treatment and monitoring. These latter factors highlight the considerable logistical, emotional, and financial burdens of long-term, frequent intravitreal injections and the vital importance of personalized approaches to anti-VEGF treatment decision making and management for patients with nAMD. To address these challenges and reduce the number of yearly injections, studies have examined alternative dosing regimens, including extended fixed intervals, as needed, and treat-and-extend strategies in specific nAMD patient populations. New clinical evidence and insights into expert clinical practice discussed in this article can support managed care professionals in the key role they play in addressing challenges in nAMD treatment and management and optimizing patient outcomes through appropriate management of anti-VEGF treatment. DISCLOSURES: PRIME Education is an independent medical education company and has been an accredited provider of continuing education for 23 years. There is no fee for this activity as it is sponsored by PRIME through an educational grant from Regeneron. All authors contributed to the writing and reviewing of the article. Wykoff reports consultancies/research grants from Alcon Laboratories, Genentech/Roche, Clearside, and Iconic Therapeutics; consultancies/honoraria, research grants, and speaker fees from Allergan and Regeneron; research grants from Allegro, Apellis, Aura, NEI, NIH, Novartis, OHR Pharmaceuticals, Ophthotech, pSivida, Roche, Santen, SciFluor, Tyrogenex; and consultancies for Alimera Sciences, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, DORC, ONL Therapeutics, Thrombogenics, and Valeant. Clark reports advisory board work, consultancies, research grants, and speaker fees from Genentech/Roche and Regeneron and consultancy for Bayer. Brill reports consultancies for Aries Pharma, Avella, BaroNova, Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, Cardinal Health, Endogastric Solutions, GeneNews, Halt Medical, Lumendi, Medtronic, Monteris Medical, Natera, Phosphorus, Rebiotix, Seno Medical, UCB, Vermillion, Echosens, and HAP Innovations. Brill is a shareholder in EndoChoice, GeneNews, SonarMD, and SynerZ and reports advisory board work with Nestle Health Sciences, Indivior Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Bayer, and AstraZeneca. Nielson reports advisory board work/consultancy and research grants for Genentech/Roche; advisory board work and research grants from Regeneron; and research grants from Alcon and Ophthotech.

AGA White Paper: Training and Implementation of Endoscopic Image Enhancement Technologies.

Endoscopic image-enhancement technologies provide opportunities to visualize normal and abnormal tissues within the gastrointestinal (GI) tract in a manner that complements conventional white light endoscopic imaging. The additional information that is obtained enables the endoscopist to better identify, delineate, and characterize lesions and can facilitate targeted biopsies or, in some cases, eliminate the need to send samples for histologic analysis. Some of these technologies have been available for more than a decade, but despite this fact, there is limited use of these technologies by endoscopists. Lack of formalized training in their use and a scarcity of guidelines on implementation of these technologies into clinical practice are contributing factors. In November 2014, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology conducted a 2-day workshop to discuss endoscopic image-enhancement technologies. This article represents the third of 3 separate documents generated from the workshop and discusses the published literature pertaining to training and outlines a proposed framework for the implementation of endoscopic image-enhancement technologies in clinical practice. There was general agreement among participants in the workshop on several key considerations. Training and competency assessment for endoscopic image-enhancement technologies should incorporate competency-based education paradigms. To facilitate successful training, multiple different educational models that can cater to variations in learning styles need to be developed, including classroom-style and self-directed programs, in-person and web-based options, image and video atlases, and endoscopic simulator programs. To ensure safe and appropriate use of these technologies over time, refresher courses, skill maintenance programs, and options for competency reassessment should be established. Participants also generally agreed that although early adopters of novel endoscopic image-enhancement modalities can successfully implement these technologies by pursuing training and ensuring self-competency, widespread implementation is likely to require support from GI societies and buy-in from other key stakeholders including payors/purchasers and patients. Continued work by manufacturers and the GI societies in providing training programs and patient education, working with payors and purchasers, and creating environments and policies that motivate endoscopists to adopt new practices is essential in creating widespread implementation.

Reimbursement for Endoscopic Bariatric Therapies.

Intragastric devices may be of benefit to patients who are unable to achieve weight loss through lifestyle modification and pharmaceuticals. With the help of every member of a multidisciplinary team and ongoing commitment from patients, small, practical steps and goals can lead to long-lasting, healthy weight loss.

Colorectal testing utilization and payments in a large cohort of commercially insured US adults.

OBJECTIVES: Screening decreases colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality. The national press has scrutinized colonoscopy charges. Little systematic evidence exists on colorectal testing and payments among commercially insured persons. Our aim was to characterize outpatient colorectal testing utilization and payments among commercially insured US adults. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of outpatient colorectal test utilization rates, indications, and payments among 21 million 18-64-year-old employees and dependants with noncapitated group health insurance provided by 160 self-insured employers in the 2009 Truven MarketScan Databases. RESULTS: Colonoscopy was the predominant colorectal test. Among 50-64-year olds, 12% underwent colonoscopy in 1 year. Most fecal tests and colonoscopies were associated with screening/surveillance indications. Testing rates were higher in women, and increased with age. Mean payments for fecal occult blood and immunochemical tests were $5 and $21, respectively. Colonoscopy payments varied between and within sites of service. Mean payments for diagnostic colonoscopy in an office, outpatient hospital facility, and ambulatory surgical center were $586 (s.d. $259), $1,400 (s.d. $681), and $1,074 (s.d. $549), respectively. Anesthesia and pathology services accompanied 35 and 52% of colonoscopies, with mean payments of $494 (s.d. $354) and $272 (s.d. $284), respectively. Mean payments for the most prevalent colonoscopy codes were 1.4- to 1.9-fold the average Medicare payments. CONCLUSIONS: Most outpatient colorectal testing among commercially insured adults was associated with screening or surveillance. Payments varied widely across sites of service, and payments for anesthesia and pathology services contributed substantially to total payments. Cost-effectiveness analyses of CRC screening have relied on Medicare payments as proxies for costs, but cost-effectiveness may differ when analyzed from the perspectives of Medicare or commercial insurers.

Endoscopic sedation: legislative update and implications for reimbursement.

Endoscopic sedation has traditionally been considered to be an element of the endoscopic examination. Endoscopists, together with endoscopy nurses, administered benzodiazepines and opioids with acceptable safety and efficiency. Today, sedation practices for endoscopy have become more diversified due to the entry of anesthesia specialists into the endoscopy unit, gastroenterologist-directed propofol administration, and prolonged diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that require deeper sedation. The economic implications of these changes in sedation are examined in this article.

Cost utility of screening for Barrett's esophagus with esophageal capsule endoscopy versus conventional upper endoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Screening for Barrett's esophagus with conventional esophagoduodenoscopy (EGD) is recommended to decrease mortality from esophageal adenocarcinoma. Esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) has recently been shown to be accurate in detecting Barrett's esophagus. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of screening by ECE with screening by EGD. METHODS: A Markov model of 50-year-old white men with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux was constructed to compare screening modalities. The model incorporated direct medical costs and indirect costs of lost productivity and followed the patients until age 80 years or death. Outcomes were analyzed from the societal perspective. RESULTS: EGD screening prevented 60% of cancer deaths at a cost of $11,254 per quality-adjusted life year gained compared with no screening. ECE prevented 53% of cancer deaths and provided 9 fewer quality-adjusted days at greater cost than EGD. If society were only willing to pay $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, then capsule screening would be preferred if the income of the patient and driver were each greater than $280,682. Otherwise, the findings were robust to all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for Barrett's esophagus with either EGD or ECE results in similar outcomes, but EGD is the preferred strategy. Both strategies appear cost-effective, and the model does not take into account patient preferences for screening modality or adherence.