ACO leakage among gynecologic cancer patients: Incidence, predictors, and impact on annual Medicare expenditure.

OBJECTIVE: To examine patterns of Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) leakage, the receipt of healthcare by ACO-assigned patients from institutions outside assigned ACO network, among patients with gynecologic cancer. ACO leakage was estimated as rates of patients seeking care external to their ACO assignment. Factors associated with ACO leakage were identified and cost differences within the first year of cancer diagnosis described. METHODS: Medicare 5% data (2013-2017) was used to quantify rates of leakage among gynecologic cancer patients with stable ACO assignment. Crude and multivariable adjusted risk ratios of ACO leakage risk factors were estimated using log-binomial regression models. Overall and cancer-specific spending differences by ACO leakage status were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Overall incidence of ACO leakage was 28.1% with highest leakage for outpatient care and uterine cancer patients. ACO leakage risk was 56% higher among Black relative to White patients, and 77% more for those in higher relative to lowest quintiles of median household income. Leakage decreased by 3% and 8% with each unit increase in ACO size and number of subspecialists, respectively. Healthcare costs were 19.5% higher for leakage patients. CONCLUSIONS: ACO leakage rates among gynecologic cancer patients was overall modest, with some regional and temporal variation, higher leakage for certain subgroups and substantially higher Medicare spending in inpatient and outpatient settings for patients with ACO leakage. These findings identify targets for further investigations and strategies to encourage oncologists to participate in ACOs and prevent increased health care costs associated with use of non-ACO providers.

Catastrophic health expenditures, insurance churn, and non-employment among women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer treatment and survivorship entails a complex and expensive continuum of subspecialty care. Our objectives were to assess catastrophic health expenditures, insurance churn, and non-employment among women younger than 65 years who reported a diagnosis of breast cancer. We also evaluated changes in these outcomes related to implementation of the Affordable Care Act. METHODS: The data source for this study was the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2005-2019), which is a national annual cross-sectional survey of families, providers, and insurers in the United States. To assess the impact of breast cancer, comparisons were made with a matched cohort of women without cancer. We estimated predicted marginal probabilities to quantify the effects of covariates in models for catastrophic health expenditures, insurance churn, and non-employment. RESULTS: We identified 1490 respondents younger than 65 years who received care related to breast cancer during the study period, representing a weight-adjusted annual mean of 1 062 129 patients. Approximately 31.8% of women with breast cancer reported health expenditures in excess of 10% of their annual income. In models, the proportion of women with breast cancer who experienced catastrophic health expenditures and non-employment was inversely related to increasing income. During Affordable Care Act implementation, mean number of months of uninsurance decreased and expenditures increased among breast cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underscores the impact of breast cancer on financial security and opportunities for patients and their families. A multilevel understanding of these issues is needed to design effective and equitable strategies to improve quality of life and survivorship.

Factor Analysis of Health Care Access With Ovarian Cancer Surgery and Gynecologic Oncologist Consultation.

Importance: Poor health care access (HCA) is associated with racial and ethnic disparities in ovarian cancer (OC) survival. Objective: To generate composite scores representing health care affordability, availability, and accessibility via factor analysis and to evaluate the association between each score and key indicators of guideline-adherent care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from patients with OC diagnosed between 2008 and 2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare database. The SEER Medicare database uses cancer registry data and linked Medicare claims from 12 US states. Included patients were Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White individuals aged 65 years or older diagnosed from 2008 to 2015 with first or second primary OC of any histologic type (International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition [ICD-O-3] code C569). Data were analyzed from June 2020 to June 2022. Exposures: The SEER-Medicare data set was linked with publicly available data sets to obtain 35 variables representing health care affordability, availability, and accessibility. A composite score was created for each dimension using confirmatory factor analysis followed by a promax (oblique) rotation on multiple component variables. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were consultation with a gynecologic oncologist for OC and receipt of OC-related surgery in the 2 months prior to or 6 months after diagnosis. Results: The cohort included 8987 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 76.8 (7.3) years and 612 Black patients (6.8%), 553 Hispanic patients (6.2%), and 7822 White patients (87.0%). Black patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.91) and Hispanic patients (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.99) were less likely to consult a gynecologic oncologist compared with White patients, and Black patients were less likely to receive surgery after adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94). HCA availability and affordability were each associated with gynecologic oncologist consultation (availability: aOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24; affordability: aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.07-1.20), while affordability was associated with receipt of OC surgery (aOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.15). In models mutually adjusted for availability, affordability, and accessibility, Black patients remained less likely to consult a gynecologic oncologist (aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97) and receive surgery (aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.99). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White patients with OC, HCA affordability and availability were significantly associated with receiving surgery and consulting a gynecologic oncologist. However, these dimensions did not fully explain racial and ethnic disparities.

Insurance Coverage and Forgoing Medical Appointments Because of Cost Among Cancer Survivors After 2016.

PURPOSE: The uninsured rate began rising after 2016, which some have attributed to health policies undermining aspects of the Affordable Care Act. Our primary objectives were to assess the changes in insurance coverage and forgoing medical care because of cost in cancer survivors from pre-enactment (2016) through postenactment of those policies (2019) and determine whether there were subgroups that were disproportionately affected. METHODS: The 2016-2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys were queried for 18- to 64-year-old cancer survivors. Survey-weighted logistic regression was used to assess temporal changes in (1) insurance coverage and (2) forgoing medical appointments because of cost in the preceding 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 62,669 cancer survivors were identified. The percentage of insured cancer survivors decreased from 92.4% in 2016 to 90.4% in 2019 (odds ratio for change in insurance coverage or affordability per one-year increase [ORyear], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.98; P = .01), translating to 161,000 fewer cancer survivors in the United States with insurance coverage. There were decreases in employer-sponsored insurance coverage (ORyear, 0.89) but increases in Medicaid coverage (ORyear, 1.17) from 2016 to 2019. Forgoing medical appointments because of cost increased from 17.9% in 2016 to 20.0% in 2019 (ORyear, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.1; P = .025), affecting an estimated 169,000 cancer survivors. The greatest changes were observed among individuals with low income, particularly those residing in nonexpansion states. CONCLUSION: Between 2016 and 2019, there were 161,000 fewer cancer survivors in the United States with insurance coverage, and 169,000 forwent medical care because of cost.

Financial Toxicity in the Post-Health Reform Era.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted in March 2010, was comprehensive health care reform legislation aimed to improve health care access and quality of care and curb health care-related costs. This review focuses on key provisions of the ACA and their impact on financial toxicity. We will focus our review on cancer care, because this is the most commonly studied disease process in respect to financial toxicity. Patients with cancer face rising expenditures and financial burden, which in turn impact quality of life, compliance to treatment, and survival outcomes. Health insurance expansion include dependent-coverage expansion, Medicaid expansion, and establishment of the Marketplace. Coverage reform focused on reducing financial barriers by limiting cost sharing. Payment reforms included new innovative payment and delivery systems to focus on improving outcomes and reducing costs. Challenges remain as efforts to reduce costs have led to the expansion of insurance plans, such as high-deductible health plans, that may ultimately worsen financial toxicity in cancer and high out-of-pocket costs for further diagnostic testing and procedures. Further research is necessary to evaluate the long-term impacts of the ACA provisions-and threats to the ACA-on outcomes and the costs accrued by patients.

Associations of Healthcare Affordability, Availability, and Accessibility with Quality Treatment Metrics in Patients with Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Differential access to quality care is associated with racial disparities in ovarian cancer survival. Few studies have examined the association of multiple healthcare access (HCA) dimensions with racial disparities in quality treatment metrics, that is, primary debulking surgery performed by a gynecologic oncologist and initiation of guideline-recommended systemic therapy. METHODS: We analyzed data for patients with ovarian cancer diagnosed from 2008 to 2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. We defined HCA dimensions as affordability, availability, and accessibility. Modified Poisson regressions with sandwich error estimation were used to estimate the relative risk (RR) for quality treatment. RESULTS: The study cohort was 7% NH-Black, 6% Hispanic, and 87% NH-White. Overall, 29% of patients received surgery and 68% initiated systemic therapy. After adjusting for clinical variables, NH-Black patients were less likely to receive surgery [RR, 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.98]; the observed association was attenuated after adjusting for healthcare affordability, accessibility, and availability (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.08). Dual enrollment in Medicaid and Medicare compared with Medicare only was associated with lower likelihood of receiving surgery (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97) and systemic therapy (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.97). Receiving treatment at a facility in the highest quartile of ovarian cancer surgical volume was associated with higher likelihood of surgery (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.21). CONCLUSIONS: Racial differences were observed in ovarian cancer treatment quality and were partly explained by multiple HCA dimensions. IMPACT: Strategies to mitigate racial disparities in ovarian cancer treatment quality must focus on multiple HCA dimensions. Additional dimensions, acceptability and accommodation, may also be key to addressing disparities.

Catastrophic Health Expenditures With Pregnancy and Delivery in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To describe prevalence, trends, and risk factors for catastrophic health expenditures in the year of delivery among birth parents (delivering people). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 2008-2016. We identified newborn birth parents and a 2:1 nearest-neighbor propensity-matched control cohort of nonpregnant reproductive-aged individuals, then assessed for catastrophic health expenditures (spending greater than 10% of family income) in the delivery year. We applied survey weights to extrapolate to the noninstitutionalized U.S. population and used the adjusted Wald test for significance testing. We compared risk of catastrophic health expenditures between birth parents and the control cohort and described time trends and risk factors for catastrophic spending with subgroup comparisons. RESULTS: We analyzed 4,056 birth parents and 7,996 reproductive-aged females without pregnancy in a given year. Birth parents reported higher rates of unemployment (52.6% vs 46.6%, P<.001), and high rates of gaining (22.4%) and losing (25.6%) Medicaid in the delivery year. Birth parents were at higher risk of catastrophic health expenditures (excluding premiums: 9.2% vs 6.8%, odds ratio [OR] 1.95, 95% CI 1.61-2.34; including premiums: 21.3% vs 18.4%, OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.32-1.82). Birth parents living on low incomes had the highest risk of catastrophic health expenditures (18.8% vs 0.7% excluding premiums for 138% or less vs greater than 400% of the federal poverty level, relative risk [RR] 26.9; 29.8% vs 5.9% including premiums, RR 5.1). For birth parents living at low incomes, public insurance was associated with lower risks of catastrophic health expenditures than private insurance, particularly when including premium spending (incomes 138% of the federal poverty level or lower: 18.8% public vs 67.9% private, RR 0.28; incomes 139-250% of the federal poverty level: 6.5% public vs 41.1% private, RR 0.16). The risk of catastrophic spending for birth parents did not change significantly over time from before to after Affordable Care Act implementation. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy and delivery are associated with increased risk of catastrophic health expenditures in the delivery year. Medicaid and public coverage were more protective from high out-of-pocket costs than private insurance, particularly among low-income families.

Catastrophic health expenditures, insurance churn, and nonemployment among gynecologic cancer patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been growing recognition of the financial burden of severe illness, including associations with higher rates of nonemployment, uninsurance, and catastrophic out-of-pocket health spending. Patients with gynecologic cancer often require expensive and prolonged treatments, potentially disrupting employment and insurance coverage access, and putting patients and their families at risk for catastrophic health expenditures. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the prevalence of insurance churn, nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures among nonelderly patients with gynecologic cancer in the United States, to compare within subgroups and to other populations and assess for changes associated with the Affordable Care Act. STUDY DESIGN: We identified respondents aged 18 to 64 years from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006 to 2017, who reported care related to gynecologic cancer in a given year, and a propensity-matched cohort of patients without cancer and patients with cancers of other sites, as comparison groups. We applied survey weights to extrapolate to the US population, and we described patterns of insurance churn (any uninsurance or insurance loss or change), catastrophic health expenditures (>10% annual family income), and nonemployment. Characteristics and outcomes between groups were compared with the adjusted Wald test. RESULTS: We identified 683 respondents reporting care related to a gynecologic cancer diagnosis from 2006 to 2017, representing an estimated annual population of 532,400 patients (95% confidence interval, 462,000-502,700). More than 64% of patients reported at least 1 of 3 primary negative outcomes of any uninsurance, part-year nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures, with 22.4% reporting at least 2 of 3 outcomes. Catastrophic health spending was uncommon without nonemployment or uninsurance reported during that year (1.2% of the population). Compared with patients with other cancers, patients with gynecologic cancer were younger and more likely with low education and low family income (≤250% federal poverty level). They reported higher annual risks of insurance loss (8.8% vs 4.8%; P=.03), any uninsurance (22.6% vs 14.0%; P=.002), and part-year nonemployment (55.3% vs 44.6%; P=.005) but similar risks of catastrophic spending (12.6% vs 12.2%; P=.84). Patients with gynecologic cancer from low-income families faced a higher risk of catastrophic expenditures than those of higher icomes (24.4% vs 2.9%; P<.001). Among the patients from low-income families, Medicaid coverage was associated with a lower risk of catastrophic spending than private insurance. After the Affordable Care Act implementation, we observed reductions in the risk of uninsurance, but there was no significant change in the risk of catastrophic spending among patients with gynecologic cancer. CONCLUSION: Patients with gynecologic cancer faced high risks of uninsurance, nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures, particularly among patients from low-income families. Catastrophic spending was uncommon in the absence of either nonemployment or uninsurance in a given year.

Out-of-network bills among privately insured patients undergoing hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the issue of out-of-network billing for privately insured patients has been highlighted as a source of unexpected out-of-pocket charges for patients, even in the setting of an in-network primary surgeon. The Congress recently passed the No Surprises Act to curtail these practices. However, the new law contains exceptions, and its regulatory system has yet to be established. As one of the most frequently performed major surgical procedures, hysterectomy represents a significant exposure to out-of-network bills among nonelderly females in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To describe the extent and nature of out-of-network bills at the time of hysterectomy among privately insured patients in the context of the recently passed No Surprises Act. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women aged 18 to 64 years who underwent simple hysterectomy from 2008 to 2018 with an in-network primary surgeon in the IBM Watson Marketscan claims database, which includes data from over 350 different payers. We identified out-of-network claims for facility or professional services and analyzed the frequency, size, and source of the payments. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess for patient, procedure, and facility characteristics associated with the risk of out-of-network claims. RESULTS: We identified 585,223 hysterectomy cases meeting all the inclusion criteria, and they were evenly split between inpatient (49.6%) and outpatient (50.4%) procedures. Overall, 8.8% of cases included at least 1 out-of-network claim, with median out-of-network expenditures of $553 for inpatient procedures and $438 for outpatient procedures. Compared with professional out-of-network claims, facility out-of-network claims were less common (2.3% vs 7.4%) but far greater in the amount billed (median $8,307 vs $400 inpatient, $3,281 vs $407 outpatient). Among the professional claims, those from midlevel surgical assistants were most frequently out-of-network when present (13.8% inpatient; 20.0% outpatient), whereas out-of-network claims from anesthesia were most common overall and largest (median $890 inpatient, $1,021 outpatient) when present. In a multivariable model, older age, increasing comorbidity, and complications during the stay were associated with higher odds of any out-of-network claim. In contrast, the risk of facility out-of-network claims was more strongly associated with the facility region and the surgical approach, with the highest odds for cases in the North Central region and those using robotic approach. CONCLUSION: Out-of-network bills for privately insured patients at the time of hysterectomy occurred in 8.8% of cases. Approximately one-quarter of these included out-of-network facility claims tended to have higher payments than out-of-network professional claims and may not be prevented by the No Surprises Act. Gynecologic surgeons should be aware of the potential out-of-network charges for ancillary services at the time of surgery, particularly the network status of the facility, to provide maximal transparency and financial protection to our patients.

Associations of Insurance Churn and Catastrophic Health Expenditures With Implementation of the Affordable Care Act Among Nonelderly Patients With Cancer in the United States.

Importance: Health insurance coverage is dynamic in the United States, potentially changing from month to month. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) aimed to stabilize markets and reduce financial burden, particularly among those with preexisting conditions. Objective: To describe the risks of insurance churn (ie, gain, loss, or change in coverage) and catastrophic health expenditures among nonelderly patients with cancer in the United States, assessing for changes associated with ACA implementation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, cross-sectional study uses data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a representative sample of the US population from 2005 to 2018. Respondents included were younger than 65 years, identified by health care use associated with a cancer diagnosis code in the given year. Statistical analysis was conducted from July 30, 2020, to January 5, 2021. Exposures: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey weights were applied to generate estimates for the US population. Annual risks of insurance churn (ie, any uninsurance or insurance change or loss) and catastrophic health expenditures (spending >10% income) were calculated, comparing subgroups with the adjusted Wald test. Weighted multivariable linear regression was used to assess for changes associated with ACA implementation. Results: From 6069 respondents, we estimated a weighted mean of 4.78 million nonelderly patients (95% CI, 4.55-5.01 million; female patients: weighted mean, 63.9% [95% CI, 62.2%-65.7%]; mean age, 50.3 years [95% CI, 49.7-50.8 years]) with cancer annually in the United States. Patients with cancer experienced lower annual risks of insurance loss (5.3% [95% CI, 4.5%-6.1%] vs 7.6% [95% CI, 7.4%-7.8%]) and any uninsurance (14.6% [95% CI, 13.3%-16.0%] vs 24.1% [95% CI, 23.5%-24.7%]) but increased risk of catastrophic health expenditures (expenses alone: 12.4% [95% CI, 11.2%-13.6%] vs 6.3% [95% CI, 6.2%-6.5%]; including premiums: 26.6% [95% CI, 25.0%-28.1%] vs 16.5% [95% CI, 16.1%-16.8%]; P < .001) relative to the population without cancer. Patients with cancer from low-income families and with full-year private coverage were at particularly high risk of catastrophic health expenditures (including premiums: 81.7% [95% CI, 74.6%-88.9%]). After adjustment, low income was the factor most strongly associated with both insurance churn and catastrophic spending, associated with annual risk increases of 6.5% (95% CI, 4.2%-8.8%) for insurance loss, 17.3% (95% CI, 13.4%-21.2%) for any uninsurance, and 37.4% (95% CI, 33.3%-41.6%) for catastrophic expenditures excluding premiums (P < .001). In adjusted models relative to 2005-2009, full ACA implementation (2014-2018) was associated with a decreased annual risk of any uninsurance (-4.2%; 95% CI, -7.4% to -1.0%; P = .01) and catastrophic spending by expenses alone (-3.0%; 95% CI, -5.3% to -0.8%; P = .008) but not including premiums (0.4%; 95% CI, -2.8% to 4.5%; P = .82). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, US patients with cancer faced significant annual risks of insurance churn and catastrophic health spending. Despite some improvements with ACA implementation, large burdens remained, and further reform is needed to protect this population from excessive hardship.

Medicaid Expansion Reduced Uninsured Surgical Hospitalizations And Associated Catastrophic Financial Burden.

An important function of health insurance is protecting enrollees from excessively burdensome charges for unanticipated medical events. Unexpected surgery can be financially catastrophic for uninsured people. By targeting the low-income uninsured population, Medicaid expansion had the potential to reduce the financial risks associated with these events. We used two data sources (state-level data for forty-four states and patient-level data for four states) to estimate the association of Medicaid expansion with uninsured surgical hospitalizations among nonelderly adults. Uninsured surgery cases were typically admitted through the emergency department-often for common emergency procedures-and 99 percent of them were estimated to be associated with financially catastrophic visit charges. We found that Medicaid expansion was associated with reductions in both the share (6.20 percent) and the population rate (7.85 per 10,000) of uninsured surgical discharges in expansion versus nonexpansion states. Our estimates suggest that in 2019 alone, adoption of Medicaid expansion in nonexpansion states could have prevented more than 50,000 incidences of catastrophic financial burden resulting from uninsured surgery.

Surveillance for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia following molar pregnancy: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Historically, published guidelines for care after molar pregnancy recommended monitoring human chorionic gonadotropin levels for the development of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia until normal and then for 6 months after the first normal human chorionic gonadotropin. However, there are little data underlying such recommendations, and recent evidence has demonstrated that gestational trophoblastic neoplasia diagnosis after human chorionic gonadotropin normalization is rare. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for surveillance for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia after human chorionic gonadotropin normalization after complete and partial molar pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: A Markov-based cost-effectiveness model, using monthly cycles and terminating after 36 months/cycles, was constructed to compare alternative strategies for asymptomatic human chorionic gonadotropin surveillance after the first normal (none; monthly testing for 1, 3, 6, and 12 months; or every 3-month testing for 3, 6, and 12 months) for both complete and partial molar pregnancy. The risk of reduced surveillance was modeled by increasing the probability of high-risk disease at diagnosis. Probabilities, costs, and utilities were estimated from peer-reviewed literature, with all cost data applicable to the United States and adjusted to 2020 US dollars. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year ($/quality-adjusted life year) with a $100,000/quality-adjusted life year willingness-to-pay threshold. RESULTS: Under base-case assumptions, we found no further surveillance after the first normal human chorionic gonadotropin to be the dominant strategy from both the healthcare system and societal perspectives, for both complete and partial molar pregnancy. After complete mole, this strategy had the lowest average cost (healthcare system, $144 vs maximum $283; societal, $152 vs maximum $443) and highest effectiveness (2.711 vs minimum 2.682 quality-adjusted life years). This strategy led to a slightly higher rate of death from gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (0.013% vs minimum 0.009%), although with high costs per gestational trophoblastic neoplasia death avoided (range, $214,000 to >$4 million). Societal perspective costs of lost wages had a greater impact on frequent surveillance costs than rare gestational trophoblastic neoplasia treatment costs, and no further surveillance was more favorable from this perspective in otherwise identical analyses. No further surveillance remained dominant or preferred with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000 in all analyses for partial mole, and most sensitivity analyses for complete mole. Under the assumption of no disutility from surveillance, surveillance strategies were more effective (by quality-adjusted life year) than no further surveillance, and a single human chorionic gonadotropin test at 3 months was found to be cost-effective after complete mole with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $53,261 from the healthcare perspective, but not from the societal perspective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $288,783). CONCLUSION: Largely owing to the rare incidence of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia after human chorionic gonadotropin normalization after molar pregnancy, prolonged surveillance is not cost-effective under most assumptions. It would be reasonable to reduce, and potentially eliminate, current recommendations for surveillance after human chorionic gonadotropin normalization after molar pregnancy, particularly among partial moles. With any reduction in surveillance, patients should be counseled on symptoms of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia and established in routine gynecologic care.

Oocyte cryopreservation versus ovarian tissue cryopreservation for adult female oncofertility patients: a cost-effectiveness study.

PURPOSE: In December 2019, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine designated ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) as no longer experimental and an alternative to oocyte cryopreservation (OC) for women receiving gonadotoxic therapy. Anticipating increased use of OTC, we compare the cost-effectiveness of OC versus OTC for fertility preservation in oncofertility patients. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model to compare OC versus OTC was built from a payer perspective. Costs and probabilities were derived from the literature. The primary outcome for effectiveness was the percentage of patients who achieved live birth. Strategies were compared using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). All inputs were varied widely in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base case, the estimated cost for OC was $16,588 and for OTC $10,032, with 1.56% achieving live birth after OC, and 1.0% after OTC. OC was more costly but more effective than OTC, with an ICER of $1,163,954 per live birth. In sensitivity analyses, OC was less expensive than OTC if utilization was greater than 63%, cost of OC prior to chemotherapy was less than $8100, cost of laparoscopy was greater than $13,700, or standardized discounted costs were used. CONCLUSIONS: With current published prices and utilization, OC is more costly but more effective than OTC. OC becomes cost-saving with increased utilization, when cost of OC prior to chemotherapy is markedly low, cost of laparoscopy is high, or standardized discounted oncofertility pricing is assumed. We identify the critical thresholds of OC and OTC that should be met to deliver more cost-effective care for oncofertility patients.

Impact of Medicaid expansion on women with gynecologic cancer: a difference-in-difference analysis.

BACKGROUND: Women with gynecologic cancer face socioeconomic disparities in care that affect survival outcomes. The Affordable Care Act offered states the option to expand Medicaid enrollment eligibility criteria as a means of improving timely and affordable access to care for the most vulnerable. The variable uptake of expansion by states created a natural experiment, allowing for quasi-experimental methods that offer more unbiased estimates of treatment effects from retrospective data than the traditional regression adjustment. OBJECTIVE: To use a quasi-experimental, difference-in-difference framework to create unbiased estimates of impact of Medicaid expansion on women with gynecologic cancer. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a quasi-experimental retrospective cohort study from the National Cancer Database files for women with invasive cancers of the uterus, ovary and fallopian tube, cervix, vagina, and vulva diagnosed from 2008 to 2016. Using a marker for state Medicaid expansion status, we created difference-in-difference models to assess the impact of Medicaid expansion on the outcomes of access to and timeliness of care. We excluded women aged <40 years owing to the suppression of the state Medicaid expansions status in the data and women aged ≥65 years owing to the universal Medicare coverage availability. Our primary outcome was the rate of uninsurance at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included Medicaid coverage, early-stage diagnosis, treatment at an academic facility, and any treatment or surgery within 30 days of diagnosis. Models were run within multiple subgroups and on a propensity-matched cohort to assess the robustness of the treatment estimates. The assumption of parallel trends was assessed with event study time plots. RESULTS: Our sample included 335,063 women. Among this cohort, 121,449 were from nonexpansion states and 213,614 were from expansion states, with 79,886 posttreatment cases diagnosed after the expansion took full effect in expansion states. The groups had minor differences in demographics, and we found occasional preperiod event study coefficients diverging from the mean, but the outcome trends were generally similar between the expansion and nonexpansion states in the preperiod, satisfying the necessary assumption for the difference-in-difference analysis. In a basic difference-in-difference model, the Medicaid expansion in January 2014 was associated with significant increases in insurance at diagnosis, treatment at an academic facility, and treatment within 30 days of diagnosis (P<.001 for all). In an adjusted model including all states and accounting for variable expansion implementation time, there was a significant treatment effect of Medicaid expansion on the reduction in uninsurance at diagnosis (-2.00%; 95% confidence interval, -2.3 to -1.7; P<.001), increases in early-stage diagnosis (0.80%; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.4; P=.02), treatment at an academic facility (0.83%; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-1.5; P=.02), treatment within 30 days (1.62%; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.3; P<.001), and surgery within 30 days (1.54%; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.3; P<.001). In particular, large gains were estimated for women living in low-income zip codes, Hispanic women, and women with cervical cancer. Estimates from the subgroup and propensity-matched cohorts were generally consistent for all outcomes besides early-stage diagnosis and treatment within 30 days. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion was significantly associated with gains in the access and timeliness of treatment for nonelderly women with gynecologic cancer. The implementation of Medicaid expansion could greatly benefit women in nonexpansion states. Gynecologists and gynecologic oncologists should advocate for Medicaid expansion as a means of improving outcomes and reducing socioeconomic and racial disparities.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing "PARP inhibitors-for-all" to the biomarker-directed use of PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed advanced stage ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials evaluating universal PARP inhibitor (PARPi) frontline maintenance therapy for advanced stage ovarian cancer have reported progression-free survival (PFS) benefit. It is unclear whether PARPi maintenance therapy will universally enhance value (clinical benefits relative to cost of delivery). We compared a "PARPi-for-all" to a biomarker-directed frontline maintenance therapy approach as a value-based care strategy. METHODS: The cost of two frontline PARPi maintenance strategies, PARPi-for-all and biomarker-directed maintenance, was compared using modified Markov decision models simulating the study designs of the PRIMA, VELIA, and, PAOLA-1 trials. Outcomes of interest included overall costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported in US dollars per quality adjusted progression-free life-year (QA-PFY) gained. RESULTS: PARPi-for-all was more costly and provided greater PFS benefit than a biomarker-directed strategy for each trial. The mean cost per patient for the PARPi-for-all strategy was $166,269, $286,715, and $366,506 for the PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 models, respectively. For the biomarker-directed strategy, the mean cost per patient was $98,188, $167,334, and $260,671 for the PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 models. ICERs of PARPi-for-all compared to biomarker-directed maintenance were: $593,250/QA-PFY (PRIMA), $1,512,495/QA-PFY (VELIA), and $3,347,915/QA-PFY (PAOLA-1). At current drug pricing, there is no PFS improvement in a biomarker negative cohort that would make PARPi-for-all cost-effective compared to biomarker-directed maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the high costs of universal PARPi maintenance treatment, compared with a biomarker-directed PARPi strategy. Maintenance therapy in the front-line setting should be reserved for those with germline or somatic HRD mutations until the cost of therapy is significantly reduced.