How We Can Reap the Full Benefit of Teleconsultations: Economic Evaluation Combined With a Performance Evaluation Through a Discrete-Event Simulation.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the rapid development of information and communications technology enabled by innovations in videoconferencing solutions and the emergence of connected medical devices has contributed to expanding the scope of application and expediting the development of telemedicine. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the use of teleconsultations (TCs) for specialist consultations at hospitals in terms of costs, resource consumption, and patient travel time. The key feature of our evaluation framework is the combination of an economic evaluation through a cost analysis and a performance evaluation through a discrete-event simulation (DES) approach. METHODS: Three data sets were used to obtain detailed information on the characteristics of patients, characteristics of patients' residential locations, and usage of telehealth stations. A total of 532 patients who received at least one TC and 18,559 patients who received solely physical consultations (CSs) were included in the initial sample. The TC patients were recruited during a 7-month period (ie, 2020 data) versus 19 months for the CS patients (ie, 2019 and 2020 data). A propensity score matching procedure was applied in the economic evaluation. To identify the best scenarios for reaping the full benefits of TCs, various scenarios depicting different population types and deployment strategies were explored in the DES model. Associated break-even levels were calculated. RESULTS: The results of the cost evaluation reveal a higher cost for the TC group, mainly induced by higher volumes of (tele)consultations per patient and the substantial initial investment required for TC equipment. On average, the total cost per patient over 298 days of follow-up was €356.37 (US $392) per TC patient and €305.18 (US $336) per CS patient. However, the incremental cost of TCs was not statistically significant: €356.37 - €305.18 = €51.19 or US $392 - US $336 = US $56 (95% CI -35.99 to 114.25; P=.18). Sensitivity analysis suggested heterogeneous economic profitability levels within subpopulations and based on the intensity of use of TC solutions. In fact, the DES model results show that TCs could be a cost-saving strategy in some cases, depending on population characteristics, the amortization speed of telehealth equipment, and the locations of telehealth stations. CONCLUSIONS: The use of TCs has the potential to lead to a major organizational change in the health care system in the near future. Nevertheless, TC performance is strongly related to the context and deployment strategy involved.

How much does the hospital stay for infusion of anti-CD19 CAR-T cells cost to the French National Health Insurance?

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cells (CAR-T cells) have the potential to be a major innovation as a new type of cancer treatment, but are associated with extremely high prices and a high level of uncertainty. This study aims to assess the cost of the hospital stay for the administration of anti-CD19 CAR-T cells in France. Data were collected from the French Medical Information Systems Program (PMSI) and all hospital stays associated with an administrated drug encoded 9439938 (tisagenlecleucel, Kymriah®) or 9440456 (axicabtagene ciloleucel, Yescarta®) between January 2019 and December 2020 were included. 485 hospital stays associated with an injection of anti-CD19 CAR-T cells were identified, of which 44 (9%), 139 (28.7%), and 302 (62.3%) were for tisagenlecleucel in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), tisagenlecleucel in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and axicabtagene ciloleucel respectively. The lengths of the stays were 37.9, 23.8, and 25.9 days for tisagenlecleucel in ALL, tisagenlecleucel in DLBCL, and axicabtagene ciloleucel, respectively. The mean costs per hospital stay were € 372,400 for a tisagenlecleucel in ALL, € 342,903 for tisagenlecleucel in DLBCL, and € 366,562 for axicabtagene ciloleucel. CAR T-cells represented more than 80% of these costs. n=13 hospitals performed CAR-T cell injections, with two hospitals accounting for more than 50% of the total number of injections. This study provides original data in a context of limited information regarding the costs of hospitalization for patients undergoing CAR-T cell treatments. In addition to the financial burden, distance may also be an important barrier for accessing CAR T-cell treatment.

Centralization of care in high volume hospitals and inequalities in access to care.

In 2018, the French National Health Insurance proposed to increase the minimum volume threshold for breast cancer and to set a specific threshold for ovarian cancer in order to get an authorization to treat these patients. Using an exhaustive nationwide data set, the aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of the application of minimum volume thresholds for breast cancer and ovarian cancer in France on socioeconomic and spatial inequalities in patient access to care, taking into account patient preferences for their preferred provider. Our findings indicate that it would increase spatial inequalities and introduce socioeconomic inequalities in access to specialized care in terms of travel distance and will contribute to the medical desertification in rural areas that already have less access to non-specialized care. Our results underline that ignoring patient preferences when assessing the impact of such policies drastically underestimate the deterioration in patient access to care.

Clinical Outcomes of Several IMRT Techniques for Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: A Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis.

PURPOSE: The Advanced Radiotherapy Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie (ART-ORL) study (NCT02024035) was performed to prospectively evaluate the clinical and economic aspects of helical TomoTherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) for patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fourteen centers participated in this prospective comparative study. Randomization was not possible based on the availability of equipment. Patients with epidermoid or undifferentiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma or epidermoid carcinoma of the oropharynx and oral cavity (T1-T4, M0, N0-N3) were included between February 2010 and February 2012. Only the results of the clinical study are presented in this report, as the results of the economic assessment have been published previously. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score analysis was undertaken in an effort to adjust for potential bias due to nonrandomization. Locoregional control, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival assessed 18 months after treatment, as well as long-term toxicity and salivary function, were evaluated. RESULTS: The analysis included 166 patients. The following results are given after inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment. The locoregional control rate at 18 months was significantly better in the TomoTherapy group: 83.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.5%-90.2%) versus 72.7% (95% CI, 62.1%-80.8%) in the RapidArc group (P=.025). The cancer-specific survival rate was better in the TomoTherapy group: 97.2% (95% CI, 89.3%-99.3%) versus 85.5% (95% CI, 75.8%-91.5%) in the RapidArc group (P=.014). No significant difference was shown in progression-free or overall survival. TomoTherapy induced fewer acute salivary disorders (P=.012). Posttreatment salivary function degradation was worse in the RapidArc group (P=.012). CONCLUSIONS: TomoTherapy provided better locoregional control and cancer-specific survival than RapidArc treatment, with fewer salivary disorders. No significant difference was shown in progression-free and overall survival. These results should be explored in a randomized trial.