Patient out-of-pocket costs for guideline-recommended treatments for erectile dysfunction: a medicare cost modeling analysis.

Patient out-of-pocket (OOP) cost represents an access barrier to erectile dysfunction (ED) treatment. We determined OOP cost for men with ED covered by Fee-for-Service Medicare. Coverage policies were obtained from the Medicare Coverage Database for treatments recommended by the 2018 American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines. OOP cost was retrieved from the 2023 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Final Rule. OOP cost for treatments without Medicare coverage were extracted from GoodRx® or literature and inflated to 2022 dollars. Annual prescription costs were calculated using the published estimate of 52.2 yearly instances of sexual intercourse. Medicare has coverage for inflatable penile prostheses (IPP; strong recommendation), non-coverage for vacuum erection devices (VED; moderate recommendation) and phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors (PDE5i; strong recommendation), and no policies for intracavernosal injections (ICI; moderate recommendation), intraurethral alprostadil (IA; conditional recommendation), or low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT; conditional recommendation). Annual IA prescription is most costly ($4022), followed by ICI prescription ($3947), one ESWT course ($3445), IPP ($1600), PDE5i prescription ($696), and one VED ($213). PDE5i and IPP, both strongly recommended by AUA guidelines, are associated with lower OOP cost. Better understanding of patient financial burden may inform healthcare decision-making.

Clinical and economic outcomes of assigning percutaneous coronary intervention patients to contrast-sparing strategies based on the predicted risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury.

OBJECTIVE: Contrast-sparing strategies have been developed for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients at increased risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI), and numerous CI-AKI risk prediction models have been created. However, the potential clinical and economic consequences of using predicted CI-AKI risk thresholds for assigning patients to contrast-sparing regimens have not been evaluated. We estimated the clinical and economic consequences of alternative CI-AKI risk thresholds for assigning Medicare PCI patients to contrast-sparing strategies. METHODS: Medicare data were used to identify inpatient PCI from January 2017 to June 2021. A prediction model was developed to assign each patient a predicted probability of CI-AKI. Multivariable modeling was used to assign each patient two marginal predicted values for each of several clinical and economic outcomes based on (1) their underlying clinical and procedural characteristics plus their true CI-AKI status in the data and (2) their characteristics plus their counterfactual CI-AKI status. Specifically, CI-AKI patients above the predicted risk threshold for contrast-sparing were reassigned their no CI-AKI (counterfactual) outcomes. Expected event rates, resource use, and costs were estimated before and after those CI-AKI patients were reassigned their counterfactual outcomes. This entailed bootstrapped sampling of the full cohort. RESULTS: Of the 542,813 patients in the study cohort, 5,802 (1.1%) had CI-AKI. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the prediction model was 0.81. At a predicted risk threshold for CI-AKI of >2%, approximately 18.0% of PCI patients were assigned to contrast-sparing strategies, resulting in (/100,000 PCI patients) 121 fewer deaths, 58 fewer myocardial infarction readmissions, 4,303 fewer PCI hospital days, $11.3 million PCI cost savings, and $25.8 million total one-year cost savings, versus no contrast-sparing strategies. LIMITATIONS: Claims data may not fully capture disease burden and are subject to inherent limitations such as coding inaccuracies. Further, the dataset used reflects only individuals with fee-for-service Medicare, and the results may not be generalizable to Medicare Advantage or other patient populations. CONCLUSIONS: Assignment to contrast-sparing regimens at a predicted risk threshold close to the underlying incidence of CI-AKI is projected to result in significant clinical and economic benefits.

Comparative Costs to Medicare and Medicare Beneficiaries of Alternative AF Stroke Risk Reduction Strategies.

Background: As healthcare costs are increasingly being shifted from payers to patients, it is important to understand the economic consequences of therapeutic strategies to both payers and patients. Objective: To determine the relative costs to Medicare and Medicare beneficiaries (patients) of warfarin, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs), and left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) for stroke risk reduction in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Methods: An economic model was developed to assess costs at 5 and 10 years. For warfarin and NOACs, inputs were derived from published meta-analyses; for LAAC with the Watchman device, inputs were derived from pooled 5-year PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trial results. The model captured therapy costs vs clinical event costs, including procedural complications and follow-up clinical outcomes. Costs were based on 2023 Medicare reimbursement and copayment rates. Results: At 10 years, overall LAAC costs ($48,337) were lower than those of NOACs ($81,198) and warfarin ($52,359). Overall LAAC costs were lower than those of NOACs by year 5 and warfarin by year 9. At 5 years, patient LAAC costs were lowest at $4,764, compared to $7,146 and $6,453 for NOACs and warfarin, respectively. LAAC patient costs were lower than those of NOACs by year 3 and warfarin by year 4. Clinical events comprised 96% of overall warfarin costs vs 48% for LAAC and 40% for NOACs. Conclusion: LAAC yielded the lowest overall and patient costs. Warfarin costs were largely driven by clinical events, which may represent an unplanned financial burden for patients. These considerations should be incorporated into shared decision-making discussions about stroke prophylaxis strategies.

Cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure with Watchman for non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients in Japan.

AIMS: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has been demonstrated to be cost-saving relative to oral anticoagulants for stroke prophylaxis in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the United States and Europe. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of LAAC with the Watchman device relative to warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for stroke risk reduction in NVAF from a Japanese public healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with 70-year-old patients using a lifetime time horizon. LAAC clinical inputs were from pooled, 5-year PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trials; warfarin and DOAC inputs were from published meta-analyses. Baseline stroke and bleeding risks were from the SALUTE trial on LAAC. Cost inputs were from the Japanese Medical Data Vision database. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Over the lifetime time horizon, LAAC was less costly than warfarin (savings of JPY 1,878,335, equivalent to US $17,600) and DOACs (savings of JPY 1,198,096, equivalent to US $11,226). LAAC also provided 1.500 more incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than warfarin and 0.996 more than DOACs. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, LAAC was cost-effective relative to warfarin and DOACs in 99.98% and 99.73% of simulations, respectively. LAAC dominated (had higher cumulative QALYs and was less costly than) warfarin and DOACs in 89.94% and 83.35% of simulations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Over a lifetime time horizon, LAAC is cost-saving relative to warfarin and DOACs for stroke risk reduction in NVAF patients in Japan and is associated with improved quality-of-life.

This study examined the cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) compared to oral anticoagulants for stroke risk reduction among individuals with a specific type of irregular heart rhythm called non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of LAAC using the Watchman device in comparison to warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) from the perspective of Japan's public healthcare system. To investigate this, a computer-based model was developed involving 70-year-old patients over their lifetime. Data from notable studies such as the PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trials (covering 5 years) for LAAC and published meta-analyses for warfarin and DOACs were incorporated into the model. Baseline stroke and bleeding risks were derived from the SALUTE trial on LAAC. Cost inputs were based on data from the Japanese Medical Data Vision database. Additionally, we performed thorough cost-effectiveness analyses, including probabilistic and one-way sensitivity assessments. Our findings revealed that, over a lifetime, LAAC was more cost-effective than both warfarin and DOACs. Further, LAAC contributed an additional 1.500 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to warfarin and 0.996 QALYs compared to DOACs. In the long-term, adopting LAAC as an alternative to warfarin and DOACs is a cost-effective strategy for reducing stroke risk in NVAF patients in Japan. Moreover, it is associated with enhanced quality-of-life. These findings hold significant implications for informing decision-making in healthcare policies and clinical practices for NVAF patients.

Cost to Medicare of acute kidney injury in percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI), including contrast-induced AKI (CI-AKI), is an important complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), resulting in short- and long-term adverse clinical outcomes. While prior research has reported an increased cost burden to hospitals from CI-AKI, the incremental cost to payers remains unknown. Understanding this incremental cost may inform decisions and even policy in the future. The objective of this study was to estimate the short- and long-term cost to Medicare of AKI overall, and specifically CI-AKI, in PCI. METHODS: Patients undergoing inpatient PCI between January 2017 and June 2020 were selected from Medicare 100% fee-for-service data. Baseline clinical characteristics, PCI lesion/procedural characteristics, and AKI/CI-AKI during the PCI admission, were identified from diagnosis and procedure codes. Poisson regression, generalized linear modelling, and longitudinal mixed effects modelling, in full and propensity-matched cohorts, were used to compare PCI admission length of stay (LOS) and cost (Medicare paid amount inflated to 2022 US$), as well as total costs during 1-year following PCI, between AKI and non-AKI patients. RESULTS: The study cohort included 509,039 patients, of whom 104,033 (20.4%) were diagnosed with AKI and 9,691 (1.9%) with CI-AKI. In the full cohort, AKI was associated with +4.12 (95% confidence interval = 4.10, 4.15) days index PCI admission LOS, +$11,313 ($11,093, $11,534) index admission costs, and +$14,800 ($14,359, $15,241) total 1-year costs. CI-AKI was associated with +3.03 (2.97, 3.08) days LOS, +$6,566 ($6,148, $6,984) index admission costs, and +$13,381 ($12,118, $14,644) cumulative 1-year costs (all results are adjusted for baseline characteristics). Results from the propensity-matched analyses were similar. CONCLUSIONS: AKI, and specifically CI-AKI, during PCI is associated with significantly longer PCI admission LOS, PCI admission costs, and long-terms costs.

A systematic review of discounting in national health economic evaluation guidelines: healthcare value implications.

Aim: This review summarizes the discounting approaches recommended in current economic evaluation (EE) guidelines for healthcare programs and interventions. Materials & methods: A systematic review of EE guidelines for healthcare, published up to July 2022, was conducted. Results: A total of 52 EE guidelines were reviewed. The majority of these guidelines recommend equal discounting (80.8%) rather than differential discounting (9.6%). The rationale for equal discounting includes recommendations by the government, consistency with other countries, and economic development. However, the rationale for differential discounting is based on the interest in short-term government bonds and anticipated budget changes. Discussion: This review demonstrates variation in both discounting approaches and rates across EE guidelines and underscores the need for a global consensus on discounting approaches.

Cost-effectiveness of a paclitaxel-eluting stent (Eluvia) compared to Zilver PTX for endovascular femoropopliteal intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Antiproliferative therapies based on paclitaxel have been developed to extend the durability of endovascular interventions for lower-extremity atherosclerotic peripheral artery disease, resulting in improved primary vessel patency and fewer target lesion revascularizations. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the sustained-release, paclitaxel-eluting Eluvia stent (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) versus the paclitaxel-coated Zilver PTX stent (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) for endovascular intervention in the superficial femoral or proximal popliteal artery. DESIGN: A microsimulation model was constructed from a United States Medicare perspective with a 24-month time horizon. Patients entering the model were assigned to initial endovascular intervention with either Eluvia or Zilver PTX. Each month patients were exposed to the risks of primary vessel patency loss, target lesion revascularization, amputation, and death. Clinical input parameters were taken from a randomized trial (IMPERIAL) comparing the two interventions at 24-months follow-up. Cost parameters were obtained from analyses of Medicare administrative and claims data. Cost-effectiveness analysis entailed sampling a complete set of clinical and cost parameters from their respective distributions, and then running cohorts of 10,000 patients through each intervention arm of the model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case microsimulation, at 24 months, the modeled target lesion revascularization was 11.6% for Eluvia and 19.0% for Zilver PTX, and the mean total direct costs were $20,010 and $21,356, respectively (Eluvia average savings=$1,346). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, Eluvia was cost-effective in 87.8% of all simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $10,000 per target lesion revascularization prevented. Eluvia was more effective and less costly (dominant) than Zilver PTX in 73.6% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparison of a paclitaxel-eluting to a paclitaxel-coated stent for endovascular femoropopliteal intervention, Eluvia was more effective and less costly (dominant) than Zilver PTX from a US Medicare perspective. These findings should be considered when formulating reimbursement policy and clinical practice guidelines.

Paclitaxel is a drug used in the treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) to help maintain primary vessel patency and reduce the need for revascularization procedures. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the paclitaxel-eluting Eluvia stent (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) versus the paclitaxel-coated Zilver PTX stent (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) in Medicare patients with PAD. Cost-effectiveness is defined as the degree to which a particular treatment option is effective relative to its costs. Therefore, this study compared both the effectiveness, in terms of target lesion revascularization rates, and the costs of Eluvia versus Zilver PTX over 24 months.A microsimulation model was developed from a United States Medicare perspective with a 24-month time horizon. Simulated patients entered the model and were assigned to receive either Eluvia or Zilver PTX. Monthly, patients were exposed to the risks of primary vessel patency loss, target lesion revascularization (TLR), amputation, and death. These risks were taken from a randomized controlled trial that compared Eluvia and Zilver PTX over 24 months. Patients also accrued costs over time. The costs used in the model were obtained from Medicare administrative and claims data analyses.In health economics, a treatment is considered to be the dominant treatment option if it is both more effective and less costly than the alternative treatment. In this case, Eluvia was found to be dominant over Zilver PTX because it was associated with lower TLR rates and lower costs. These findings should be considered when formulating reimbursement policy and clinical practice guidelines.