Forecasting the Economic Burden of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in the United States Through 2050: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying the economic burden of cardiovascular disease and stroke over the coming decades may inform policy, health system, and community-level interventions for prevention and treatment. METHODS: We used nationally representative health, economic, and demographic data to project health care costs attributable to key cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia) and conditions (coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation) through 2050. The human capital approach was used to estimate productivity losses from morbidity and premature mortality due to cardiovascular conditions. RESULTS: One in 3 US adults received care for a cardiovascular risk factor or condition in 2020. Annual inflation-adjusted (2022 US dollars) health care costs of cardiovascular risk factors are projected to triple between 2020 and 2050, from $400 billion to $1344 billion. For cardiovascular conditions, annual health care costs are projected to almost quadruple, from $393 billion to $1490 billion, and productivity losses are projected to increase by 54%, from $234 billion to $361 billion. Stroke is projected to account for the largest absolute increase in costs. Large relative increases among the Asian American population (497%) and Hispanic American population (489%) reflect the projected increases in the size of these populations. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of cardiovascular risk factors and overt cardiovascular disease in the United States is projected to increase substantially in the coming decades. Development and deployment of cost-effective programs and policies to promote cardiovascular health are urgently needed to rein in costs and to equitably enhance population health.

Equity in the Setting of Heart Failure Diagnosis: An Analysis of Differences Between and Within Clinician Practices.

BACKGROUND: Timely heart failure (HF) diagnosis can lead to earlier intervention and reduced morbidity. Among historically marginalized patients, new-onset HF diagnosis is more likely to occur in acute care settings (emergency department or inpatient hospitalization) than outpatient settings. Whether inequity within outpatient clinician practices affects diagnosis settings is unknown. METHODS: We determined the setting of incident HF diagnosis among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries between 2013 and 2017. We identified sociodemographic and medical characteristics associated with HF diagnosis in the acute care setting. Within each outpatient clinician practice, we compared acute care diagnosis rates across sociodemographic characteristics: female versus male sex, non-Hispanic White versus other racial and ethnic groups, and dual Medicare-Medicaid eligible (a surrogate for low income) versus nondual-eligible patients. Based on within-practice differences in acute diagnosis rates, we stratified clinician practices by equity (high, intermediate, and low) and compared clinician practice characteristics. RESULTS: Among 315 439 Medicare patients with incident HF, 173 121 (54.9%) were first diagnosed in acute care settings. Higher adjusted acute care diagnosis rates were associated with female sex (6.4% [95% CI, 6.1%-6.8%]), American Indian (3.6% [95% CI, 1.1%-6.1%]) race, and dual eligibility (4.1% [95% CI, 3.7%-4.5%]). These differences persisted within clinician practices. With clinician practice adjustment, dual-eligible patients had a 4.9% (95% CI, 4.5%-5.4%) greater acute care diagnosis rate than nondual-eligible patients. Clinician practices with greater equity across dual eligibility also had greater equity across sex and race and ethnicity and were more likely to be composed of predominantly primary care clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in HF diagnosis rates in the acute care setting between and within clinician practices highlight an opportunity to improve equity in diagnosing historically marginalized patients.

Cause-Specific Health Care Costs Following Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Cost Offset With SGLT2i Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding differences in cause-specific costs between heart failure (HF) with ejection fraction (EF) ≤40% vs >40%, and potential cost implications of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare cause-specific health care costs following hospitalization for HF with EF ≤40% vs >40% and estimate the cost offset with implementation of SGLT2i therapy. METHODS: This study examined Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for HF in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry from 2016 to 2020. Mean per-patient total (excluding drug costs) and cause-specific costs from discharge through 1-year follow-up were calculated and compared between EF ≤40% vs >40%. Next, risk reductions on total all-cause and HF hospitalizations were estimated in a trial-level meta-analysis of 5 pivotal trials of SGLT2is in HF. Finally, these relative treatment effects were applied to Medicare beneficiaries eligible for SGLT2i therapy to estimate the projected cost offset with implementation of SGLT2i, excluding drug costs. RESULTS: Among 146,003 patients, 50,598 (34.7%) had EF ≤40% and 95,405 (65.3%) had EF >40%. Mean total cost through 1 year was $40,557. Total costs were similar between EF groups overall but were higher for EF ≤40% among patients surviving the 1-year follow-up period. Patients with EF >40% had higher costs caused by non-HF and noncardiovascular hospitalizations, and skilled nursing facilities (all P < 0.001). Trial-level meta-analysis of the 5 SGLT2i clinical trials estimated 11% (rate ratio: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.84-0.93; P < 0.001) and 29% (rate ratio: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.66-0.76; P < 0.001) relative reductions in rates of total all-cause and HF hospitalizations, respectively, regardless of EF. Reductions in all-cause and HF hospitalizations were projected to reduce annual costs of readmission by $2,451 to $2,668 per patient with EF ≤40% and $1,439 to $2,410 per patient with EF >40%. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of older U.S. adults hospitalized for HF, cause-specific costs of care differed among patients with EF ≤40% vs >40%. SGLT2i significantly reduced the rate of HF and all-cause hospitalizations irrespective of EF in clinical trials, and implementation of SGLT2i therapy in clinical practice is projected to reduce costs by $1,439 to $2,668 per patient over the 1 year post-discharge, excluding drug costs.

Clinical Impact of Routine Assessment of Patient-Reported Health Status in Heart Failure Clinic: The PRO-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of routine clinic use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) has not been well-characterized. We tested if clinic-based use of a disease-specific PRO improves patient-reported quality of life at 1 year. METHODS: The PRO-HF trial (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Heart Failure Clinic) was an open-label, parallel, patient-level randomized clinical trial of routine PRO assessment or usual care at an academic HF clinic between August 30, 2021, and June 30, 2022, with 1 year of follow-up. In the PRO assessment arm, participants completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) at each HF clinic visit, and results were shared with their treating clinician. The usual care arm completed the KCCQ-12 at randomization and 1 year later, which was not shared with the treating clinician. The primary outcome was the KCCQ-12 overall summary score (OSS) between 12 and 15 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes included domains of the KCCQ-12, hospitalization and emergency department visit rates, HF medication therapy, clinic visit frequency, and testing rates. RESULTS: Across 17 clinicians, 1248 participants were enrolled and randomized to PRO assessment (n=624) or usual care (n=624). The median age was 63.9 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51.8-72.8), 38.9% were women, and the median baseline KCCQ-12 OSS was 82.3 (IQR, 58.3-94.8). Final KCCQ-12 (available in 87.9% of the PRO arm and 85.1% in usual care; P=0.16) median OSS were 87.5 (IQR, 68.8-96.9) in the PRO arm and 87.6 (IQR, 69.7-96.9) in the usual care arm with a baseline-adjusted mean difference of 0.2 ([95% CI, -1.7 to 2.0]; P=0.85). The results were consistent across prespecified subgroups. A post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant interaction with greater benefit among participants with a baseline KCCQ-12 OSS of 60 to 80 but not in less or more symptomatic participants. No significant differences were found in 1-year mortality, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, medication therapy, clinic follow-up, or testing rates between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Routine PRO assessment in HF clinic visits did not impact patient-reported quality of life or other clinical outcomes. Alternate strategies and settings for embedding PROs into routine clinical care should be tested. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Contemporary American and European Guidelines for Heart Failure Management: JACC: Heart Failure Guideline Comparison.

This review serves to compare contemporary clinical practice recommendations for the management of heart failure (HF), as codified in the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline, the 2022 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA)/Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) guideline, and the 2023 focused update of the 2021 ESC document. Overall, these guidelines aim to solidify significant advances throughout the HF continuum since the publication of previous full guideline iterations (2013 and 2016 for the ACC/AHA and ESC, respectively). All guidelines provide new recommendations for an increasingly complex landscape of HF care, with focus on primary HF prevention, HF stages, rapid initiation and optimization of evidence-based pharmacotherapies, overlapping cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, device-based therapies, and management pathways for special groups of patients, including those with cardiac amyloidosis. Importantly, the ACC/AHA/HFSA document features special emphasis on HF risk prediction and screening, cost/value, social determinants of health, and health care disparities. The review discusses major similarities and differences between these recent guidelines and guideline updates, as well as their potential downstream implications for clinical care.

Assessment of Price Variation in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery at US Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about hospital pricing for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Using new price transparency data, we assessed variation in CABG prices across US hospitals and the association between higher prices and hospital characteristics, including quality of care. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prices for diagnosis related group code 236 were obtained from the Turquoise database and linked by Medicare Facility ID to publicly available hospital characteristics. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to assess factors predictive of higher prices. Across 544 hospitals, median commercial and self-pay rates were 2.01 and 2.64 times the Medicare rate ($57 240 and $75 047, respectively, versus $28 398). Within hospitals, the 90th percentile insurer-negotiated price was 1.83 times the 10th percentile price. Across hospitals, the 90th percentile commercial rate was 2.91 times the 10th percentile hospital rate. Regional median hospital prices ranged from $35 624 in the East South Central to $84 080 in the Pacific. In univariate analysis, higher inpatient revenue, greater annual discharges, and major teaching status were significantly associated with higher prices. In multivariable analysis, major teaching and investor-owned status were associated with significantly higher prices (+$8653 and +$12 200, respectively). CABG prices were not related to death, readmissions, patient ratings, or overall Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hospital rating. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in CABG pricing, with certain characteristics associated with higher rates, including major teaching status and investor ownership. Notably, higher CABG prices were not associated with better-quality care, suggesting a need for further investigation into drivers of pricing variation and the implications for health care spending and access.

The economics of heart failure care.

Heart failure (HF) poses a significant economic burden in the US, with costs projected to reach $70 billion by 2030. Cost-effectiveness analyses play a pivotal role in assessing the economic value of HF therapies. In this review, we overview the cost-effectiveness of HF therapies and discuss ways to improve patient access. Based on current costs, guideline directed medical therapies for HF with reduced ejection fraction provide high economic value except for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which provide intermediate economic value. Combining therapy with the four pillars of medical therapy also has intermediate economic value, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $73,000 to $98,500/ quality adjusted life-years. High economic value procedures include cardiac resynchronization devices, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and coronary artery bypass surgery. In contrast, advanced HF therapies have previously demonstrated intermediate to low economic value, but newer data appear more favorable. Given the affordability challenges of HF therapies, additional efforts are needed to ensure optimal care for patients. The recent Inflation Reduction Act contains provisions to reform policy pertaining to drug price negotiation and out-of-pocket spending, as well as measures to increase access to existing programs, including the Medicare low-income subsidy. On a patient level, it is also important to encourage patient and physician awareness and discussions surrounding medical costs. Overall, a broad approach to improving available therapies and access to care is needed to reduce the growing clinical and economic morbidity of HF.

Bundled Payments for Care Improvement and Quality of Care and Outcomes in Heart Failure.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program was launched in 2013 with a goal to improve care quality while lowering costs to Medicare. Objective: To compare changes in the quality and outcomes of care for patients hospitalized with heart failure according to hospital participation in the BPCI program. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a difference-in-difference approach to evaluate the BPCI program in 18 BPCI hospitals vs 211 same-state non-BPCI hospitals for various process-of-care measures and outcomes using American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry and CMS Medicare claims data from November 1, 2008, to August 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to May 2023. Exposures: Hospital participation in CMS BPCI Model 2 Heart Failure, which paid hospitals in a fee-for-service process and then shared savings or required reimbursement depending on how the total cost of an episode of care compared with a target price. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points included 7 quality-of-care measures. Secondary end points included 9 outcome measures, including in-hospital mortality and hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day and 90-day all-cause readmission rate and mortality rate. Results: During the study period, 8721 patients were hospitalized in the 23 BPCI hospitals and 94 530 patients were hospitalized in the 224 same-state non-BPCI hospitals. Less than a third of patients (30 723 patients, 29.8%) were 75 years or younger; 54 629 (52.9%) were female, and 48 622 (47.1%) were male. Hospital participation in BPCI Model 2 was not associated with significant differential changes in the odds of various process-of-care measures, except for a decreased odds of evidence-based ß-blocker at discharge (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.98; P = .04). Participation in the BPCI was not associated with a significant differential change in the odds of receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors at discharge, receiving an aldosterone antagonist at discharge, having a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-defibrillator or CRT pacemaker placed or prescribed at discharge, having implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) counseling or an ICD placed or prescribed at discharge, heart failure education being provided among eligible patients, or having a follow-up visit within 7 days or less. Participation in the BPCI was associated with a significant decrease in odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.86; P = .002). Participation was not associated with a significant differential change in hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day or 90-day all-cause readmission rate and 30-day or 90-day all-cause mortality rate. Conclusion and Relevance: In this study, hospital participation in the BPCI Model 2 Heart Failure program was not associated with improvement in process-of-care quality measures or 30-day or 90-day risk-adjusted all-cause mortality and readmission rates.

Medical Therapy Before, During and After Hospitalization in Medicare Beneficiaries With Heart Failure and Diabetes: Get With The Guidelines - Heart Failure Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM) are at risk for worsening clinical status. Little is known about the frequency of therapeutic changes during hospitalization. We characterized the use of medical therapies before, during and after hospitalization in patients with HF and DM. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries in Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) hospitalized between July 2014 and September 2019 with Part D prescription coverage. We evaluated trends in the use of 7 classes of antihyperglycemic therapies (metformin, sulfonylureas, GLP-1RA, SGLT2-inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, and insulins) and 4 classes of HF therapies (evidence-based ß-blockers, ACEi or ARB, MRA, and ARNI). Medication fills were assessed at 6 and 3 months before hospitalization, at hospital discharge and at 3 months post-discharge. RESULTS: Among 35,165 Medicare beneficiaries, the median age was 77 years, 54% were women, and 76% were white; 11,660 (33%) had HFrEF (LVEF ≤ 40%), 3700 (11%) had HFmrEF (LVEF 41%-49%), and 19,805 (56%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 50%). Overall, insulin was the most commonly prescribed antihyperglycemic after HF hospitalization (n = 12,919, 37%), followed by metformin (n = 7460, 21%) and sulfonylureas (n = 7030, 20%). GLP-1RA (n = 700, 2.0%) and SGLT2i (n = 287, 1.0%) use was low and did not improve over time. In patients with HFrEF, evidence-based beta-blocker, RASi, MRA, and ARNI fills during the 6 months preceding HF hospitalization were 63%, 62%, 19%, and 4%, respectively. Fills initially declined prior to hospitalization, but then rose from 3 months before hospitalization to discharge (beta-blocker: 56%-82%; RASi: 51%-57%, MRA: 15%-28%, ARNI: 3%-6%, triple therapy: 8%-20%; P < 0.01 for all). Prescription rates 3 months after hospitalization were similar to those at hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital optimization of medical therapy in patients with HF and DM is common in participating hospitals of a large US quality improvement registry.

Sex differences in long-term outcomes following acute heart failure hospitalization: Findings from the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry.

AIMS: Sex differences in long-term outcomes following hospitalization for heart failure (HF) across ejection fraction (EF) subtypes are not well described. In this study, we evaluated the risk of mortality and rehospitalization among males and females across the spectrum of EF over 5 years of follow-up following an index HF hospitalization event. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients hospitalized with HF between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2014 from the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry with available 5-year follow-up using Medicare Part A claims data were included. The association between sex and risk of mortality and readmission over a 5-year follow-up period for each HF subtype (HF with reduced EF [HFrEF, EF ≤40%], HF with mildly reduced EF [HFmrEF, EF 41-49%], and HF with preserved EF [HFpEF, EF >50%]) was assessed using adjusted Cox models. The effect modification by the HF subtype for the association between sex and outcomes was assessed by including multiplicative interaction terms in the models. A total of 155 670 patients (median age: 81 years, 53.4% female) were included. Over 5-year follow-up, males and females had comparably poor survival post-discharge; however, females (vs. males) had greater years of survival lost to HF compared with the median age- and sex-matched US population (HFpEF: 17.0 vs. 14.6 years; HFrEF: 17.3 vs. 15.1 years; HFmrEF: 17.7 vs. 14.6 years for age group 65-69 years). In adjusted analysis, females (vs. males) had a lower risk of 5-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-0.90, p < 0.0001), and the risk difference was most pronounced among patients with HFrEF (aHR 0.87, 95% CI 0.85-0.89; pinteraction [sex*HF subtype] = 0.04). Females (vs. males) had a higher adjusted risk of HF readmission over 5-year follow-up (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.08, p < 0.0001), with the risk difference most pronounced among patients with HFpEF (aHR 1.11, 95% CI 1.07-1.14; pinteraction [sex*HF subtype] = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While females (vs. males) had lower adjusted mortality, females experienced a significantly greater loss in survival time than the median age- and sex-matched US population and had a greater risk of rehospitalization over 5 years following HF hospitalization.

Long-Term Outcomes of Early Coronary Artery Disease Testing After New-Onset Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) testing remains underutilized in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure (HF). The longitudinal clinical impact of early CAD testing has not been well-characterized. We investigated changes in clinical management and long-term outcomes after early CAD evaluation in patients with incident HF. METHODS: We identified Medicare patients with incident HF from 2006 to 2018. The exposure variable was early CAD testing within 1 month of initial HF diagnosis. Covariate-adjusted rates of cardiovascular interventions after testing, including CAD-related management, were modeled using mixed-effects regression with clinician as a random intercept. We assessed mortality and hospitalization outcomes using landmark analyses with inverse probability-weighted Cox proportional hazards models. Falsification end points and mediation analysis were employed for bias assessment. RESULTS: Among 309 559 patients with new-onset HF without prior CAD, 15.7% underwent early CAD testing. Patients who underwent prompt CAD evaluation had higher adjusted rates of subsequent antiplatelet/statin prescriptions and revascularization, guideline-directed therapy for HF, and stroke prophylaxis for atrial fibrillation/flutter than controls. In weighted Cox models, 1-month CAD testing was associated with significantly reduced all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.91-0.96]). Mediation analyses indicated that ≈70% of this association was explained by CAD management, largely from new statin prescriptions. Falsification end points (outpatient diagnoses of urinary tract infection and hospitalizations for hip/vertebral fracture) were nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Early CAD testing after incident HF was associated with a modest mortality benefit, driven mostly by subsequent statin therapy. Further investigation on clinician barriers to testing and treating high-risk patients may improve adherence to guideline-recommended cardiovascular interventions.

Evaluating the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic: A Qualitative Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may improve care for patients with heart failure. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) is a patient survey that captures symptom frequency, symptom burden, physical limitations, social limitations, and quality of life. Despite the utility of PROs and the KCCQ-12, the implementation and routine use of these measures can be difficult. We conducted an evaluation of clinician perceptions of the KCCQ-12 to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation into clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted interviews with cardiologists from 4 institutions across the United States and Canada (n=16) and observed clinic visits at 1 institution in Northern California (n=5). Qualitative analysis was conducted in 2 rounds: (1) rapid analysis constructed around major themes related to the aims of the study and (2) content analysis with codes derived from the rapid analysis and implementation science. RESULTS: Most heart failure physicians and advanced practice clinicians reported that the KCCQ-12 was acceptable, appropriate, and useful in clinical care. Clinician engagement efforts, trialability, and the straightforward design of the KCCQ-12 facilitated its use in clinical care. Further opportunities identified to facilitate implementation include more streamlined integration into the electronic health record and comprehensive staff education on PROs. Participants highlighted that the KCCQ-12 was useful in clinic visits to improve the consistency of patient history taking, focus patient-clinician conversations, collect a more accurate account of patient quality of life, track trends in patient well-being over time, and refine clinical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: In this qualitative study, clinicians reported that the KCCQ-12 enhanced several aspects of heart failure patient care. Use of the KCCQ-12 was facilitated by a robust clinician engagement campaign and the design of the KCCQ-12 itself. Future implementation of PROs in heart failure clinic should focus on streamlining electronic health record integration and providing additional staff education on the value of PROs. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Variation in Cost of Echocardiography Within and Across United States Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: While transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is responsible for more Medicare spending than any other cardiovascular imaging procedure, little is known about its commercial cost footprint. The 2021 Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule mandated that U.S. hospitals publish their insurer-negotiated and self-pay prices for services. This study sought to characterize and assess factors contributing to variation in TTE prices. METHODS: We used a commercial database containing hospital-disclosed prices to characterize variation in TTE prices within and across hospitals. We linked these price data to hospital and regional characteristics using Medicare Facility IDs. RESULTS: A total of 1,949 hospitals reported commercial prices. Among reporting hospitals, median commercial and self-pay prices were 2.93 and 3.06 times greater than the median Medicare price ($1,313 and $1,422, respectively, vs $464). Within hospitals, the 90th percentile payer-negotiated rate was 2.78 (interquartile range, 1.80-5.09) times the 10th percentile rate (within-center ratio). Across hospitals within the same hospital referral region, the median price at the 90th percentile hospital was 2.47 (interquartile range, 1.69-3.75) times that at the 10th percentile hospital (across-center ratio). On univariate analysis, for-profit (P = .04), teaching (P < .01), investor-owned (P < .01), and higher-rated hospitals (P < .01) charged higher prices, whereas rural referral centers (P = .01) and disproportionate share hospitals (P < .01) charged less. On multivariate analysis, the association between these characteristics and TTE prices persisted, except for investor ownership and rural referral centers. CONCLUSIONS: Self-pay and commercial TTE prices were higher than Medicare prices and varied significantly within and across hospitals. For-profit, teaching, and higher-rated hospitals had higher prices, in contrast to DSH hospitals. A better understanding of the relationship between this cost variation and quality of care is critical given the impact of cost on health care access and affordability.

Impact of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Heart Failure Clinic on Clinician Health Status Assessment and Patient Experience: A Substudy of the PRO-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians typically estimate heart failure health status using the New York Heart Association Class, which is often discordant with patient-reported health status. It is unknown whether collecting patient-reported health status improves the accuracy of clinician assessments. METHODS: The PRO-HF trial (Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic) is a randomized, nonblinded trial evaluating routine Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) collection in heart failure clinic. Patients with a scheduled visit to Stanford heart failure clinic between August 30, 2021 and June 30, 2022 were enrolled and randomized to KCCQ-12 assessment or usual care. In this prespecified substudy, we evaluated whether access to the KCCQ-12 improved the accuracy of clinicians' New York Heart Association assessment or patients' perspectives on their clinician interaction. We surveyed clinicians regarding their patients' New York Heart Association Class, quality of life, and symptom frequency. Clinician responses were compared with patients' KCCQ-12 responses. We surveyed patients regarding their clinician interactions. RESULTS: Of the 1248 enrolled patients, 1051 (84.2%) attended a visit during the substudy. KCCQ-12 results were given to the clinicians treating the 528 patients in the KCCQ-12 arm; the 523 patients in the usual care arm completed the KCCQ-12 without the results being shared. The correlation between New York Heart Association Class and KCCQ-12 Overall Summary Score was stronger when clinicians had access to the KCCQ-12 (r=-0.73 versus r=-0.61, P<0.001). More patients in the KCCQ-12 arm strongly agreed that their clinician understood their symptoms (95.2% versus 89.7% of respondents [odds ratio' 2.27; 95% CI' 1.32-3.87]). However, patients in both arms reported similar quality of clinician communication and therapeutic alliance. CONCLUSIONS: Collecting the KCCQ-12 in heart failure clinic improved clinicians' accuracy of health status assessment; correspondingly, patients believed their clinicians better understood their symptoms. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Cost-effectiveness of Empagliflozin in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Importance: In the Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved), empagliflozin significantly reduced hospitalizations for heart failure while improving patient-reported health status compared with placebo. The long-term cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin among patients who have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains unclear. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in patients with HFpEF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cost-effectiveness analysis performed from October 2021 to April 2022 included a Markov model using estimates of treatment efficacy, event probabilities, and utilities from EMPEROR-Preserved and published literature. Costs were derived from national surveys and pricing data sets. Quality of life was imputed from a heart failure-specific quality-of-life measure. Two analyses were performed, with and without a treatment effect on cardiovascular mortality. Subgroup analyses were based on diabetes status, ejection fraction, and health status impairment due to heart failure. The model reproduced the event rates and risk reduction with empagliflozin observed in EMPEROR-Preserved over 26 months of follow-up; future projections extended across the lifetime of patients. Exposures: Empagliflozin or standard of care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalizations for heart failure, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: A total of 5988 patients were included in the analysis, with a mean age of 72 years, New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40%. At the Federal Supply Schedule price of $327 per month, empagliflozin yielded 0.06 additional QALYs and $26 257 incremental costs compared with standard of care, producing a cost per QALY gained of $437 442. Incremental costs consisted of total drug costs of $29 586 and savings of $3329 from reduced hospitalizations for heart failure. Cost-effectiveness was similar across subgroups. The results were most sensitive to the monthly cost, quality-of-life benefit, and mortality effect of empagliflozin. A price reduction to $153 per month, incremental utility of 0.02, or 8% reduction in cardiovascular mortality would bring empagliflozin to $180 000 per QALY gained, the threshold for intermediate value. Using Medicare Part D monthly pricing of $375 after rebates and $511 before rebates, empagliflozin would remain low value at $509 636 and $710 825 per QALY gained, respectively. Cost-effectiveness estimates were robust to variation in the frequency and disutility of heart failure hospitalizations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, based on current cost-effectiveness benchmarks, empagliflozin provides low economic value compared with standard of care for HFpEF, largely due to its lack of efficacy on mortality and small benefit on quality of life.

Expenditure on Heart Failure in the United States: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2009-2018.

BACKGROUND: With rising United States health care expenditure, estimating current spending for patients with heart failure (HF) informs the value of preventative health interventions. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to estimate current health care expenditure growth for patients with HF in the United States. METHODS: The authors pooled MEPS (Medical Expenditure Panel Survey) data from 2009-2018 to calculate total HF-related expenditure across clinical settings in the United States. A 2-part model adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and year was used to estimate annual mean and incremental expenditures associated with HF. RESULTS: In the United States, an average of $28,950 (2018 inflation-adjusted dollars) is spent per year for health care-related expenditure for individuals with HF compared with $5,727 for individuals without HF. After adjusting for demographics and comorbidities, a diagnosis of HF was associated with $3,594 in annual incremental expenditure compared with those without HF. HF-related expenditure increased from $26,864 annual per person in 2009-2010 to $32,955 in 2017-2018, representing a 23% rise over 10 years. In comparison, expenditure on myocardial infarction, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cancer grew by 16%, 28%, and 16%, respectively. Most of the cost was related to hospitalization: $12,569 per year. Outpatient office-based care and prescription medications saw the greatest growth in cost over the period, 41% and 24%, respectively. Estimated incremental national expenditure for HF per year was $22.3 billion; total annual expenditure for adults with HF was $179.5 billion. CONCLUSIONS: HF is a costly condition for which expenditure is growing faster than that of other chronic conditions.