Healthcare Cost of Cochlear Implantation in India.

Making evidence-based policy decisions is challenging when there is a lack of information, especially when deciding provider payment rates for publicly funded health insurance plans. Therefore, the goal of this study was to estimate the cost of a cochlear implant operation in a tertiary care setting in India. We also looked at the patients' out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses for the cochlear implant surgery. From the perspectives of the patients and the healthcare systems, we assessed the financial costs of the cochlear implantation procedure. A bottom-up pricing model was used to assess the cost that the healthcare system would bear for a cochlear implant procedure. Information on all the resources (both capital and ongoing) required to offer cochlear implantation services for hearing loss was gathered over the course of a year. 120 individuals with hearing loss who had cochlear implantation surgery disclosed their out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, which included both direct medical and non-medical expenses. All costs for the budgetary year 2018-2019 were anticipated. The unit health system spent ₹ 151($2), ₹ 578($7.34) and ₹ 37,449($478) on ear exams, audiological evaluations, and cochlear implant surgeries, respectively. Per bed-day in the otolaryngology ward, hospitalization cost ₹ 202($2.6), or ₹ 1211($15.5). The estimated average out-of-pocket cost for a cochlear implant operation was ₹ 682,230($8710). Our research can be used to establish package rates for publicly funded insurance plans in India, plan the growth of public sector hearing care services, and do cost-effectiveness assessments on various hearing care models. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12070-023-04389-7.

Health-related quality of life and its determinants among cancer patients: evidence from 12,148 patients of Indian database.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors experience a decrement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) resulting from the disease as well as adverse effects of therapy. We evaluated the HRQoL of cancer patients, stratified by primary cancer site, stage, treatment response and associated adverse events, along with its determinants. METHODS: Data were collected from 12,148 patients, sampled from seven purposively chosen leading cancer hospitals in India, to elicit HRQoL using the EuroQol questionnaire comprising of 5-dimensions and 5-levels (EQ-5D-5L). Multiple linear regression was used to determine the association between HRQoL and various socio-demographic as well as clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Majority outpatients (78.4%) and inpatients (81.2%) had solid cancers. The disease was found to be more prevalent among outpatients (37.5%) and inpatients (40.5%) aged 45-60 years and females (49.3-58.3%). Most patients were found to be in stage III (40-40.6%) or stage IV (29.4-37.3%) at the time of recruitment. The mean EQ-5D-5 L utility score was significantly higher among outpatients [0.630 (95% CI: 0.623, 0.637)] as compared to inpatients [0.553 (95% CI: 0.539, 0.567)]. The HRQoL decreased with advancing cancer stage among both inpatients and outpatients, respectively [stage IV: (0.516 & 0.557); stage III (0.609 & 0.689); stage II (0.677 & 0.713); stage I (0.638 & 0.748), p value < 0.001]. The outpatients on hormone therapy (B = 0.076) showed significantly better HRQoL in comparison to patients on chemotherapy. However, palliative care (B=-0.137) and surgery (B=-0.110) were found to be associated with significantly with poorer HRQoL paralleled to chemotherapy. The utility scores among outpatients ranged from 0.305 (bone cancer) to 0.782 (Leukemia). Among hospitalized cases, the utility score was lowest for multiple myeloma (0.255) and highest for testicular cancer (0.771). CONCLUSION: Older age, lower educational status, chemotherapy, palliative care and surgery, advanced cancer stage and progressive disease were associated with poor HRQoL. Our study findings will be useful in optimising patient care, formulating individualized treatment plan, improving compliance and follow-up.

Economic Evaluation of Targeted Therapies for Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase- and ROS1 Fusion-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in India.

PURPOSE: Targeted therapies, such as crizotinib and ceritinib, have shown promising results in treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with specific oncogenic drivers like anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), c-ros (ROS1) oncogene, etc. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of these therapies for patients with NSCLC in India. METHODS: The Markov model consisted of three health states: progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death. Lifetime costs and consequences were estimated for three treatment arms: crizotinib, ceritinib, and chemotherapy for patients with ALK- and ROS1-positive NSCLC. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with crizotinib and ceritinib was compared to chemotherapy and assessed using a willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time per capita gross domestic product in India. RESULTS: The total lifetime cost per patient for ALK-positive NSCLC was ₹332,456 ($4,054 US dollars [USD]), ₹1,284,100 ($15,659 USD), and ₹2,337,779 ($28,509 USD) in the chemotherapy, crizotinib, and ceritinib arms, respectively. The mean QALYs lived per patient were 1.20, 2.21, and 3.34, respectively. For patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC, the total cost was ₹323,011 ($3,939 USD) and ₹1,763,541 ($21,507 USD) for chemotherapy and crizotinib, with mean QALYs lived per patient of 1.16 and 2.73, respectively. Nearly 92% and 81% reduction in the price of ceritinib and crizotinib is required to make it a cost-effective treatment option for ALK- and ROS1-positive NSCLC, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study findings suggest that the prices of ceritinib and crizotinib need to be reduced significantly to justify their value for inclusion in India's publicly financed health insurance scheme for treatment of patients with locally advanced/metastatic ALK- and ROS1-positive NSCLC, respectively.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Systemic Therapy for Intensification of Treatment in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in India.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Androgen-deprivation therapy is the mainstay of treatment for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, the intensification of treatment with either docetaxel or novel anti-androgens (abiraterone-acetate plus prednisone [AAP], enzalutamide, and apalutamide) is being recommended based on the improved clinical outcomes and quality of life among patients. This study aimed to determine the most cost-effective drug for treatment intensification for patients with mHSPC in India. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with four health states: progression-free survival, progressive disease, best supportive care, and death. Lifetime costs and consequences were estimated for four treatment sequences: AAP-first, enzalutamide-first, apalutamide-first, and docetaxel-first. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with a given treatment option was compared against the next best alternative and assessed for cost effectiveness using a willingness to pay threshold of 1 × per capita gross domestic product in India. RESULTS: We estimated that the total lifetime cost per patient was ₹1,367,454 (US$17,487), ₹2,168,885 (US$27,735), ₹7,678,501 (US$98,190), and ₹1,358,746 (US$17,375) in the AAP-first, enzalutamide-first, apalutamide-first, and docetaxel-first treatment sequence, respectively. The mean quality-adjusted life-years lived per patient were 4.78, 5.03, 3.22, and 2.61, respectively. The AAP-first sequence incurs an incremental cost of ₹4014 (US$51) per quality-adjusted life-year gained as compared with the docetaxel-first sequence, with a 87% probability of being cost effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 1 × per-capita gross domestic product of India. The use of AAP-first also incurs an incremental net monetary benefit of ₹396,491 (US$5070) as compared with the docetaxel-first treatment sequence. Nearly a 48% reduction in the price of enzalutamide is required to make it a cost-effective treatment sequence as compared with AAP-first in India. CONCLUSIONS: We concur with the inclusion of standard-dose AAP in India's publicly financed health insurance scheme for the intensification of treatment in mHSPC as it is the only cost-effective sequence among the various novel anti-androgens when compared with the docetaxel-first treatment sequence. Furthermore, a systematic reduction in the price of enzalutamide would further help to improve clinical outcomes among patients with mHSPC.

Cost-Effectiveness of the First Line Treatment Options For Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in India.

PURPOSE: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as sunitinib and pazopanib are the mainstay of treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in India. However, pembrolizumab and nivolumab have shown significant improvement in the median progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with mRCC. In this study, we aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the first-line treatment options for the patients with mRCC in India. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model was used to measure the lifetime costs and health outcomes associated with sunitinib, pazopanib, pembrolizumab/lenvatinib, and nivolumab/ipilimumab among patients with first-line mRCC. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with a given treatment option was compared against the next best alternative and assessed for cost-effectiveness using a willingness to pay threshold of one-time per capita gross-domestic product of India. The parameter uncertainty was analyzed using the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: We estimated the total lifetime cost per patient of ₹ 0.27 million ($3,706 US dollars [USD]), ₹ 0.35 million ($4,716 USD), ₹ 9.7 million ($131,858 USD), and ₹ 6.7 million ($90,481 USD) for the sunitinib, pazopanib, pembrolizumab/lenvatinib, and nivolumab/ipilimumab arms, respectively. Similarly, the mean QALYs lived per patient were 1.91, 1.86, 2.75, and 1.97, respectively. Sunitinib incurs an average cost of ₹ 143,269 ($1,939 USD) per QALY lived. Therefore, sunitinib at current reimbursement rates (₹ 10,000 per cycle) has a 94.6% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of 1-time per capita gross-domestic product (₹ 168,300) in the Indian context. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the current inclusion of sunitinib under India's publicly financed health insurance scheme.

Cost Effectiveness of Ribociclib and Palbociclib in the Second-Line Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer in Post-Menopausal Indian Women.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we evaluate the cost and outcomes of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) plus fulvestrant, fulvestrant alone, and conventional chemotherapy as the second-line therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in India. METHODS: Using a Markov model, the clinical effectiveness of managing HR+, HER2- MBC in postmenopausal women with either a CDK4/6i (either ribociclib or palbociclib) and fulvestrant, fulvestrant alone, and chemotherapy (single-agent paclitaxel or capecitabine) was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The costs were estimated from two different points of view: scenario I, as per the prevailing market prices of the drugs; and scenario II, as per the reimbursement rates set up by the publicly financed national health insurance scheme. Incremental cost per QALY gained with a given treatment option was compared against the next best alternative and was assessed for cost effectiveness using a threshold of 1-time the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in India from a societal perspective. RESULTS: In scenario I, an MBC patient was found to incur a lifetime cost of Indian Rupees (₹) 2.54 million ($34,644), ₹2.53 million ($34,496), ₹512,598 ($6,984), ₹326,026 ($4,442) and ₹237,115 ($3,230) for the ribociclib and palbociclib combination arms, fulvestrant monotherapy, single-agent paclitaxel and the single-agent capecitabine treatment arms, respectively. The lifetime cost for CDK4/6i (ribociclib and palbociclib) combination therapy, fulvestrant monotherapy, paclitaxel, and capecitabine arms was estimated to be ₹1.94 million ($26,459), ₹1.92 million ($26,220), ₹315,387 ($4,296), ₹187,392 ($2,553) and ₹153,263 ($2,088), respectively, in scenario II. The mean QALYs lived per MBC patient with CDK4/6i (either ribociclib or palbociclib) combination therapy, fulvestrant, paclitaxel and capecitabine were estimated to be 1.4, 1.0, 0.9 and 0.7, respectively. None of the treatment arms are cost effective at current prices and reimbursement rates at a threshold of 1-time the per capita GDP of India. However, a 78% reduction in the current market price or a 72% reduction in the reimbursement rate of fulvestrant in the government-funded insurance program will make it a cost-effective treatment option for HR+, HER2- MBC patients in India. CONCLUSION: CDK4/6i (ribociclib and palbociclib) therapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for MBC patients. A 72% reduction in the reimbursement rate for fulvestrant monotherapy will make it a cost-effective treatment option in the Indian context.

Development of National Cancer Database for Cost and Quality of Life (CaDCQoL) in India: a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The rising economic burden of cancer on healthcare system and patients in India has led to the increased demand for evidence in order to inform policy decisions such as drug price regulation, setting reimbursement package rates under publicly financed health insurance schemes and prioritising available resources to maximise value of investments in health. Economic evaluations are an integral component of this important evidence. Lack of existing evidence on healthcare costs and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) makes conducting economic evaluations a very challenging task. Therefore, it is imperative to develop a national database for health expenditure and HRQOL for cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The present study proposes to develop a National Cancer Database for Cost and Quality of Life (CaDCQoL) in India. The healthcare costs will be estimated using a patient perspective. A cross-sectional study will be conducted to assess the direct out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE), indirect cost and HRQOL among cancer patients who will be recruited at seven leading cancer centres from six states in India. Mean OOPE and HRQOL scores will be estimated by cancer site, stage of disease and type of treatment. Economic impact of cancer care on household financial risk protection will be assessed by estimating prevalence of catastrophic health expenditures and impoverishment. The national database would serve as a unique open access data repository to derive estimates of cancer-related OOPE and HRQOL. These estimates would be useful in conducting future cost-effectiveness analyses of management strategies for value-based cancer care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval was granted by Institutional Ethics Committee vide letter no. PGI/IEC-03/2020-1565 of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. The study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented to the policymakers at national level.