Diagnosis-Related Group Weight and Derived Case Mix Index to Assess the Complexity among Twins.

OBJECTIVE: Diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) are used to summarize hospital morbidity and mortality. Each DRG has a weight which is important in calculating the case mix index (CMI), a numeric summary of disease complexity in a population of patients. We utilized DRG weight and resultant CMI to compare postnatal outcomes among singletons versus monochorionic and monoamniotic, monochorionic diamniotic, and dichorionic diamniotic twins. STUDY DESIGN: This single-center and retrospective cohort study evaluated DRGs assigned by the investigators, birth weight, gestational age, length of stay (LOS), NICU admission rate, and mortality in twin births between 2014 and 2016. Twins were analyzed depending on chorionicity and amnionicity. Overall, 3 months of singleton births served as the control. The CMI derived from DRG weights were compared across groups. RESULTS: Twins (n = 288) had lower gestational ages and birth weights and higher mortality, LOS, NICU admission rates and DRG weights/CMI compared with singletons (n = 327; p < 0.001 for each). The LOS was no different between twin subtypes; monochorionic monoamniotic twins had the highest mortality and DRG weight (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: DRG weight and CMI values summarize in-hospital complexity and can be a useful tool to evaluate differences in care complexity among groups of patients. KEY POINTS: · Using diagnosis-related group and case mix index to assess morbidities.. · Morbidities of twins are monochorionic-monoamniotic versus monochorionic-diamniotic versus dichorionic-diamniotic twins.. · Only seven diagnosis-related group in neonatology make it a valuable tool for clinicians..

Cost utility of palivizumab prophylaxis among pre-term infants in the United States: a national policy perspective.

OBJECTIVE: The cost-effectiveness of palivizumab has previously been reported among certain guideline-eligible, high-risk premature infants in Medicaid. Because guideline authorities base decisions on a national perspective, the economic model of palivizumab was adapted to include all infants, that is, public and privately insured patients (60% of palivizumab use is public, 40% is private). METHODS: This study examined four groups of premature infants without chronic lung disease of prematurity or congenital heart disease: (1) <32 weeks gestational age (wGA) and ≤ 6 months chronologic age (CA); (2) 32-34 wGA, ≤ 3 months CA, with 2009 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) risk factors (RFs); (3) 32-35 wGA, ≤ 6 months CA, with 2006 AAP RFs; and (4) 32-35 wGA, ≤ 6 months CA, with ≤ 1 RF. An average estimate was used between public and private payors for (1) background rates of respiratory syncytial virus hospitalization (RSV-H), (2) direct medical costs associated with RSV-H, and (3) cost of palivizumab. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are reported in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Palivizumab saved costs and improved QALYs among infants <32 wGA. Palivizumab was cost-effective in infants 32-34 wGA with 2009 AAP RFs ($44,774 per QALY) and in infants 32-35 wGA with 2006 AAP RFs ($79,477 per QALY). The ICER for infants 32-35 wGA with ≤ 1 RF was $464,476 per QALY. Influential variables in the sensitivity analysis included background rate of RSV-H and cost and efficacy of palivizumab. LIMITATIONS: The results are not generalizable to populations outside of the US. The model did not examine all RFs. The wholesale acquisition cost was used as a payment benchmark; actual price paid by end providers varies. CONCLUSIONS: From a national policy perspective, palivizumab remained cost-effective for publically and commercially insured, guideline-eligible, high-risk premature infants. Palivizumab was not cost-effective in infants of 32-35 wGA with ≤ 1 RF.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of palivizumab among pre-term infant populations covered by Medicaid in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Medicaid infants are at high risk of severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease. The study objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of palivizumab in a Medicaid population. METHODS: A societal cost-utility analysis was conducted of prophylaxis with palivizumab vs no prophylaxis among four groups of premature infants: (1) <32 weeks gestational age (wGA) and ≤ 6 months chronologic age (CA); (2) 32-34 wGA, ≤ 3 months CA with 2009 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) risk factors (RF); (3) 32-35 wGA, ≤ 6 months CA with 2006 AAP RF; and (4) 32-35 wGA, ≤ 6 months CA with ≤ 1 RF. Full dosing of palivizumab was assumed throughout the RSV season (consistent with the FDA-approved label). All costs were in 2010 US dollars. The societal public payer spend for palivizumab was estimated using Medicaid reimbursement methodologies for the top 10 palivizumab-using states in 2010 minus mandatory manufacturer rebates. This study reports the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and probabilistic analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: Palivizumab saved costs and improved QALYs among infants <32 wGA. Palivizumab was cost-effective in infants 32-34 wGA with 2009 AAP RF ($16,037 per QALY) and in infants 32-35 wGA with 2006 AAP RF ($38,244 per QALY). The ICER for infants 32-35 wGA with ≤ 1 RF was $281,892 per QALY. Influential variables in the sensitivity analysis included the background rate of RSV hospitalization, the cost of palivizumab, and the efficacy of palivizumab. KEY LIMITATIONS: These results are not generalizable to commercially insured infants or infants outside of the US. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first cost-utility analysis of palivizumab in a Medicaid population. Palivizumab, when dosed consistent with the FDA-approved labeling, was either cost-saving or cost-effective among current guideline-eligible infants in the Medicaid population. Palivizumab did not demonstrate cost-effectiveness in 32-35 wGA infants with ≤ 1 RF.