Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pharmacogenomics (PGx)-Based Warfarin, Apixaban, and Rivaroxaban Versus Standard Warfarin for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomics (PGx)-based warfarin (i.e., warfarin dosing following genetic testing), apixaban, and rivaroxaban oral anticoagulation versus standard warfarin for the treatment of newly diagnosed patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) aged ≥ 65 years. METHODS: We developed a Markov decision-analytic model to compare costs [2017 Canadian dollars (C$)] and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the Ontario health care payer perspective over a life-time horizon. The parameters used in the model were derived from the published literature, the Ontario health care administrative database, and expert opinion. To account for the uncertainty of model parameters, we conducted extensive deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The results were summarized using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: We found that PGx-based warfarin had an ICER of C$17,584/QALY compared with standard warfarin, and apixaban had an ICER of C$64,590/QALY compared with PGx-based warfarin in our base-case analysis. Rivaroxaban was extendedly dominated by PGx-based warfarin and apixaban. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that apixaban, rivaroxaban, PGx-based warfarin, and standard warfarin were cost-effective at some willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. PGx-based warfarin had a higher probability of being cost-effective than apixaban (51.3% versus 14.3%) at a WTP threshold of C$50,000/QALY. At a WTP threshold of C$100,000/QALY, apixaban had a higher probability of being cost-effective than PGx-based warfarin (54.6% versus 22.6%). CONCLUSION: We found that PGx-based warfarin for patients with AF is cost-effective at a WTP threshold of C$50,000/QALY. Apixaban had a higher probability of being cost-effective (> 50%) at a WTP threshold of C$93,000/QALY.

Does prescribing apixaban or rivaroxaban versus warfarin for patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation save health system costs? A multivalued treatment effects analysis.

BACKGROUND: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common heart arrhythmia in the elderly population. AF patients are at high-risk of ischemic strokes, but oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy reduces such risks. Warfarin had been the standard OAC for AF patients, however its effectiveness is highly variable and dependent on close monitoring of the anticoagulant response. Newer OACs such as rivaroxaban and apixaban address these drawbacks but are more costly. It is uncertain which OAC therapy for AF is cost-saving from the healthcare system perspective. METHODS: We followed a cohort of patients in Ontario, Canada, aged ≥ 66 who were newly diagnosed with AF and prescribed OACs between 2012 and 2017. We used a two-stage estimation procedure. First, we account for the patient selection into OACs using a multinomial logit regression model and estimated propensity scores. Second, we used an inverse probability weighted regression adjustment approach to determine cost-saving OAC options. We also examined component-specific costs (i.e., drug, hospitalization, emergency department and physician) to understand the drivers of cost-saving OACs. RESULTS: We found that compared to warfarin, rivaroxaban and apixaban treatments were cost-saving options, with per-patient 1-year healthcare cost savings at $2436 and $1764, respectively. These savings were driven by cost-savings in hospitalization, emergency department visits, and physician visits, outweighing higher drug costs. These results were robust to alternative model specifications and estimation procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Treating AF patients with rivaroxaban and apixaban than warfarin reduces healthcare costs. OAC reimbursement policies for AF patients should consider rivaroxaban or apixaban over warfarin as the first-line treatment.

Is it worth it? Cost-effectiveness analysis of a commercial physical activity app.

BACKGROUND: Government interest in investing in commercial physical activity apps has increased with little evidence of their cost-effectiveness. This is the first study to our knowledge to examine the cost-effectiveness of a commercial physical activity app (Carrot Rewards) despite there being over 100,000 in the major app stores. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the app compared to a no-intervention reference scenario using a five-year time horizon. Primary data was collected between 2016 and 2017. Data synthesis, model creation, and statistical analyses were conducted between 2019 and 2020. An age-, sex-, and geography-dependent Markov model was developed assuming a public healthcare payer perspective. A closed cohort (n = 38,452) representing the population reached by Carrot Rewards in two Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Newfoundland & Labrador) at the time of a 12-month prospective study was used. Costs and effects were both discounted at 1.5% and expressed in 2015 Canadian dollars. Subgroup analyses were conducted to compare ICERs between provinces, sexes, age groups, and engagement levels. RESULTS: Carrot Rewards had an ICER of $11,113 CAD per quality adjusted life year (QALY), well below a $50,000 CAD per QALY willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Subgroup analyses revealed that the app had lower ICERs for British Columbians, females, highly engaged users, and adults aged 35-64 yrs., and was dominant for older adults (65 + yrs). Deterministic sensitivity analyses revealed that the ICER was most influenced by the relative risk of diabetes. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed varying parameter estimates predominantly resulted in ICERs below the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The Carrot Rewards app was cost-effective, and dominant for older adults. These results provide, for the first time, rigorous health economic evidence for a commercial physical activity app as part of public health programming.

Mental Health Services Provision in Primary Care and Emergency Department Settings: Analysis of Blended Fee-for-Service and Blended Capitation Models in Ontario, Canada.

Treating mental illnesses in primary care is increasingly emphasized to improve access to mental health services. Although family physicians (FPs) or general practitioners are in an ideal position to provide the bulk of mental health care, it is unclear how best to remunerate FPs for the adequate provision of mental health services. We examined the quantity of mental health services provided in Ontario's blended fee-for-service and blended capitation models. We evaluated the impact of FPs switching from blended fee-for-service to blended capitation on the provision of mental health services in primary care and emergency department using longitudinal health administrative data from 2007 to 2016. We accounted for the differences between those who switched to blended capitation and non-switchers in the baseline using propensity score weighted fixed-effects regressions to compare remuneration models. We found that switching from blended fee-for-service to blended capitation was associated with a 14% decrease (95% CI 12-14%) in the number of mental health services and an 18% decrease (95% CI 15-20%) in the corresponding value of services. This result was driven by the decrease in services during regular-hours. During after-hours, the number of services increased by 20% (95% CI 10-32%) and the corresponding value increased by 35% (95% CI 17-54%). Switching was associated with a 4% (95% CI 1-8%) decrease in emergency department visits for mental health reasons. Blended capitation reduced provision of mental health services without increasing emergency department visits, suggesting potential efficiency gain in the blended capitation model in Ontario.

Emergency department use following incentives to provide after-hours primary care: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Access to primary care outside of regular working hours is limited in many countries. This study investigates the relation between the after-hours premium, an incentive for primary care physicians to provide services after hours, and less-urgent visits to the emergency department in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We analyzed a retrospective cohort of a random sample of Ontario residents from April 2002 to March 2006, and a subcohort of patients followed from April 2005 to March 2016. We linked patient and primary care physician data with emergency department visit data. We used fixed-effects regression models to analyze the association between the introduction of the after-hours premium, as well as subsequent increases in the value of the premium, and the number of monthly emergency department visits. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 586 534 patients between 2002 and 2006, and 201 594 patients from 2005 to 2016. After controlling for patient and physician characteristics, seasonality and time-invariant patient confounding factors, introduction of the after-hours premium was associated with a reduction of 1.26 less-urgent visits to the emergency department per 1000 patients per month (95% confidence interval -1.48 to -1.04). Most of this reduction was observed in after-hours visits. Sensitivity analysis showed that the monthly reduction in less-urgent visits to the emergency department was in the range of -1.24 to -1.16 per 1000 patients. Subsequent increases in the after-hours premium were associated with a small reduction in less-urgent visits to the emergency department. INTERPRETATION: Ontario's experience suggests that incentivizing physicians to improve access to after-hours primary care reduces some less-urgent visits to the emergency department. Other jurisdictions may consider incentives to limit less-urgent visits to the emergency department.

Physician remuneration schemes, psychiatric hospitalizations and follow-up care: Evidence from blended fee-for-service and capitation models.

Psychiatric hospitalizations could be reduced if mental illnesses were detected and treated earlier in the primary care setting, leading to the World Health Organization recommendation that mental health services be integrated into primary care. The mental health services provided in primary care settings may vary based on how physicians are incentivized. Little is known about the link between physician remuneration and psychiatric hospitalizations. We contribute to this literature by studying the relationship between physician remuneration and psychiatric hospitalizations in Canada's most populous province, Ontario. Specifically, we study family physicians (FPs) who switched from blended fee-for-service (FFS) to blended capitation remuneration model, relative to those who remained in the blended FFS model, on psychiatric hospitalizations. Outcomes included psychiatric hospitalizations by enrolled patients and the proportion of hospitalized patients who had a follow-up visit with the FP within 14 days of discharge. We used longitudinal health administrative data from a cohort of practicing physicians from 2006 through 2016. Because physicians practicing in these two models are likely to be different, we employed inverse probability weighting based on estimated propensity scores to ensure that switchers and non-switchers were comparable at the baseline. Using inverse probability weighted fixed-effects regressions controlling for relevant confounders, we found that switching from blended FFS to blended capitation was associated with a 6.2% decrease in the number of psychiatric hospitalizations and a 4.7% decrease in the number of patients with a psychiatric hospitalization. No significant effect of remuneration on follow-up visits within 14 days of discharge was observed. Our results suggest that the blended capitation model is associated with fewer psychiatric hospitalizations relative to blended FFS.

Quality of Diabetes Care in Blended Fee-for-Service and Blended Capitation Payment Systems.

OBJECTIVES: In the middle to late 2000s, many family physicians switched from a Family Health Group (FHG; a blended fee-for-service model) to a Family Health Organization (FHO; a blended capitation model) in Ontario, Canada. The evidence on the link between physician remuneration schemes and quality of diabetes care is mixed in the literature. We examined whether physicians who switched from the FHG to FHO model provided better care for individuals living with diabetes relative to those who remained in the FHG model. METHODS: Using longitudinal health administrative data from 2006 to 2016, we investigated the impact of physicians switching from FHG to FHO on 8 quality indicators related to diabetes care. Because FHO physicians are likely to be systematically different from FHGs, we employed propensity-score-based inverse probability-weighted fixed-effects regression models. All analyses were conducted at the physician level. RESULTS: We found that FHO physicians were more likely to provide glycated hemoglobin testing by 2.75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.89% to 3.60%), lipid assessment by 2.76% (CI, 1.95% to 3.57%), nephropathy screening by 1.08% (95% CI, 0.51% to 1.66%) and statin prescription by 1.08% (95% CI, 0.51% to 1.66%). Patients under FHOs had a lower estimated risk of mortality by 0.0124% (95% CI, 0.0123% to 0.0126%) per physician per year. However, FHG and FHO physicians were similar for annual eye examination, prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (or angiotensin II receptor blockers) and patients' risk of avoidable diabetes-related hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with blended fee-for-service, blended capitation payment is associated with a small, but statistically significant, improvement in some aspects of diabetes care.

Stirring the pot: Switching from blended fee-for-service to blended capitation models of physician remuneration.

In Canada's most populous province, Ontario, family physicians may choose between the blended fee-for-service (Family Health Group [FHG]) and blended capitation (Family Health Organization [FHO] payment models). Both models incentivize physicians to provide after-hours (AH) and comprehensive care, but FHO physicians receive a capitation payment per enrolled patient adjusted for age and sex, plus a reduced fee-for-service while FHG physicians are paid by fee-for-service. We develop a theoretical model of physician labor supply with multitasking to predict their behavior under FHG and FHO, and estimable equations are derived to test the predictions empirically. Using health administrative data from 2006 to 2014 and a two-stage estimation strategy, we study the impact of switching from FHG to FHO on the production of a capitated basket of services, after-hours services and nonincentivized services. Our results reveal that switching from the FHG to FHO reduces the production of capitated services to enrolled patients and services to nonenrolled patients by 15% and 5% per annum and increases the production of after-hours and nonincentivized services by 8% and 15% per annum.

The impact of the diabetes management incentive on diabetes-related services: evidence from Ontario, Canada.

Financial incentives have been introduced in several countries to improve diabetes management. In Ontario, the most populous province in Canada, a Diabetes Management Incentive (DMI) was introduced to family physicians practicing in patient enrollment models in 2006. This paper examines the impact of the DMI on diabetes-related services provided to individuals with diabetes in Ontario. Longitudinal health administrative data were obtained for adults diagnosed with diabetes and their family physicians. The study population consisted of two groups: DMI group (patients enrolled with a family physician exposed to DMI for 3 years), and comparison group (patients affiliated with a family physician ineligible for DMI throughout the study period). Diabetes-related services was measured using the Diabetic Management Assessment (DMA) billing code claimed by patient's physician. The impact of DMI on diabetes-related services was assessed using difference-in-differences regression models. After adjusting for patient- and physician-level characteristics, patient fixed-effects and patient-specific time trend, we found that DMI increased the probability of having at least one DMA fee code claimed by patient's physician by 9.3% points, and the probability of having at least three DMA fee codes claimed by 2.1% points. Subgroup analyses revealed the impact of DMI was slightly larger in males compared to females. We found that Ontario's DMI was effective in increasing the diabetes-related services provided to patients diagnosed with diabetes in Ontario. Financial incentives for physicians help improve the provision of targeted diabetes-related services.

Evaluating multiple living kidney donor candidates simultaneously is more cost-effective than sequentially.

When multiple living donor candidates come forward to donate a kidney to the same recipient, some living donor programs evaluate one candidate at a time to avoid unnecessary evaluations. Evaluating multiple candidates concurrently rather than sequentially may be cost-effective from a societal perspective if it reduces the time recipients spend on dialysis. We used a simple decision tree to estimate the cost-effectiveness of evaluating two to four candidates simultaneously rather than sequentially as potential kidney donors for the same intended recipient. Evaluating two donor candidates simultaneously cost $1,266 (CAD) more than if they were evaluated sequentially, but living donation occurred one month earlier. This translated into $6,931 in averted dialysis costs and a total cost-savings of $5,665 per intended recipient. Simultaneous evaluations also resulted in one percent more living donor transplants and overall gains in quality-of-life as recipients spent less time on dialysis. If recipients were free from dialysis at the start of donor candidate evaluations, simultaneous evaluations also reduced the rate of dialysis initiation by two percent. Benefits were also observed in the three- and four-candidate scenarios. Thus, living donor programs should consider evaluating up to four living donor candidates simultaneously when they come forward for the same recipient as health care system costs incurred are more than offset by avoided dialysis costs.

Production of physician services under fee-for-service and blended fee-for-service: Evidence from Ontario, Canada.

We examine family physicians' responses to financial incentives for medical services in Ontario, Canada. We use administrative data covering 2003-2008, a period during which family physicians could choose between the traditional fee for service (FFS) and blended FFS known as the Family Health Group (FHG) model. Under FHG, FFS physicians are incentivized to provide comprehensive care and after-hours services. A two-stage estimation strategy teases out the impact of switching from FFS to FHG on service production. We account for the selection into FHG using a propensity score matching model, and then we use panel-data regression models to account for observed and unobserved heterogeneity. Our results reveal that switching from FFS to FHG increases comprehensive care, after-hours, and nonincentivized services by 3%, 15%, and 4% per annum. We also find that blended FFS physicians provide more services by working additional total days as well as the number of days during holidays and weekends. Our results are robust to a variety of specifications and alternative matching methods. We conclude that switching from FFS to blended FFS improves patients' access to after-hours care, but the incentive to nudge service production at the intensive margin is somewhat limited.

Financial Costs Incurred by Living Kidney Donors: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 40% of the kidneys for transplant worldwide come from living donors. Despite advantages of living donor transplants, rates have stagnated in recent years. One possible barrier may be costs related to the transplant process that potential willing donors may incur for travel, parking, accommodation, and lost productivity. METHODS: To better understand and quantify the financial costs incurred by living kidney donors, we conducted a prospective cohort study, recruiting 912 living kidney donors from 12 transplant centers across Canada between 2009 and 2014; 821 of them completed all or a portion of the costing survey. We report microcosted total, out-of-pocket, and lost productivity costs (in 2016 Canadian dollars) for living kidney donors from donor evaluation start to 3 months after donation. We examined costs according to (1) the donor's relationship with their recipient, including spousal (donation to a partner), emotionally related nonspousal (friend, step-parent, in law), or genetically related; and (2) donation type (directed, paired kidney, or nondirected). RESULTS: Living kidney donors incurred a median (75th percentile) of $1254 ($2589) in out-of-pocket costs and $0 ($1908) in lost productivity costs. On average, total costs were $2226 higher in spousal compared with emotionally related nonspousal donors (P=0.02) and $1664 higher in directed donors compared with nondirected donors (P<0.001). Total costs (out-of-pocket and lost productivity) exceeded $5500 for 205 (25%) donors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results can be used to inform strategies to minimize the financial burden of living donation, which may help improve the donation experience and increase the number of living donor kidney transplants.

Healthcare Costs for the Evaluation, Surgery, and Follow-Up Care of Living Kidney Donors.

BACKGROUND: The healthcare costs to evaluate, perform surgery, and follow a living kidney donor for the year after donation are poorly described. METHODS: We obtained information on the healthcare costs of 1099 living kidney donors between April 1, 2004, and March 31, 2014, from Ontario, Canada, using comprehensive healthcare administrative databases. We estimated the cost of 3 periods of the living donation process: the predonation evaluation period (start of evaluation until the day before donation), perioperative period (day of donation until 30-days postdonation), and 1 year of follow-up period (after perioperative period until 1 year postdonation). We analyzed data for donors and healthy matched nondonor controls using regression-based methods to estimate the incremental cost of living donation. Costs are presented from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare payer (2017 CAD $). RESULTS: The incremental healthcare costs (compared with controls) for the evaluation, perioperative, and follow-up periods were CAD $3596 (95% confidence interval [CI], CAD $3350-$3842), CAD $11 694 (95% CI, CAD $11 415-CAD $11 973), and $1011 (95% CI, CAD $793-CAD $1230), respectively, totalling CAD $16 290 (95% CI, CAD $15 814-CAD $16 767). The evaluation cost was higher if the intended recipient started dialysis partway through the donor evaluation (CAD $886; 95% CI, CAD $19, CAD $1752). The perioperative cost varied across transplant centers (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although substantial costs of living donor care are related to the nephrectomy procedure, comprehensive assessment of costs must also include the evaluation and follow-up periods. These estimates are informative for planning future work to support and expand living donation and transplantation, and directing efforts to improve the cost efficiency of living donor care.

Family physician remuneration schemes and specialist referrals: Quasi-experimental evidence from Ontario, Canada.

Understanding how family physicians respond to incentives from remuneration schemes is a central theme in the literature. One understudied aspect is referrals to specialists. Although the theoretical literature has suggested that capitation increases referrals to specialists, the empirical evidence is mixed. We push forward the empirical research on this question by studying family physicians who switched from blended fee-for-service to blended capitation in Ontario, Canada. Using several health administrative databases from 2005 to 2013, we rely on inverse probability weighting with fixed-effects regression models to account for observed and unobserved differences between the switchers and nonswitchers. Switching from blended fee-for-service to blended capitation increases referrals to specialists by about 5% to 7% per annum. The cost of specialist referrals is about 7 to 9% higher in the blended capitation model relative to the blended fee-for-service. These results are generally robust to a variety of alternative model specifications and matching techniques, suggesting that they are driven partly by the incentive effect of remuneration. Policy makers need to consider the benefits of capitation payment scheme against the unintended consequences of higher referrals to specialists.

The Potential Clinical and Economic Value of Primary Tumour Identification in Metastatic Cancer of Unknown Primary Tumour: A Population-Based Retrospective Matched Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Several genomic tests have recently been developed to identify the primary tumour in cancer of unknown primary tumour (CUP). However, the value of identifying the primary tumour in clinical practice for CUP patients remains questionable and difficult to prove in randomized trials. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the clinical and economic value of primary tumour identification in CUP using a retrospective matched cohort study. METHODS: We used the Manitoba Cancer Registry to identify all patients initially diagnosed with metastatic cancer between 2002 and 2011. We defined patients as having CUP if their primary tumour was found 6 months or more after initial diagnosis or never found during the course of disease. Otherwise, we considered patients to have metastatic cancer from a known primary tumour (CKP). We linked all patients with Manitoba Health databases to estimate their direct healthcare costs using a phase-of-care approach. We used the propensity score matching technique to match each CUP patient with a CKP patient on clinicopathologic characteristics. We compared treatment patterns, overall survival (OS) and phase-specific healthcare costs between the two patient groups and assessed association with OS using Cox regression adjustment. RESULTS: Of 5839 patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer, 395 had CUP (6.8%); 1:1 matching created a matched group of 395 CKP patients. CUP patients were less likely to receive surgery, radiation, hormonal and targeted therapy and more likely to receive cytotoxic empiric chemotherapeutic agents. Having CUP was associated with reduced OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31; 95% confidence interval 1.1-1.58), but this lost statistical significance with adjustment for treatment differences. CUP patients had a significant increase in the mean net cost of initial diagnostic workup before diagnosis and a significant reduction in the mean net cost of continuing cancer care. CONCLUSION: Identifying the primary tumour in CUP patients might enable the use of more effective therapies, improve OS and allow more efficient allocation of healthcare resources.

Initiating Maintenance Dialysis Before Living Kidney Donor Transplantation When a Donor Candidate Evaluation Is Well Underway.

BACKGROUND: Preemptive kidney transplants result in better outcomes and patient experiences than transplantation after dialysis onset. It is unknown how often a person initiates maintenance dialysis before living kidney donor transplantation when their donor candidate evaluation is well underway. METHODS: Using healthcare databases, we retrospectively studied 478 living donor kidney transplants from 2004 to 2014 across 5 transplant centers in Ontario, Canada, where the recipients were not receiving dialysis when their donor's evaluation was well underway. We also explored some factors associated with a higher likelihood of dialysis initiation before transplant. RESULTS: A total of 167 (35%) of 478 persons with kidney failure initiated dialysis in a median of 9.7 months (25th-75th percentile, 5.4-18.7 months) after their donor candidate began their evaluation and received dialysis for a median of 8.8 months (3.6-16.9 months) before kidney transplantation. The total cohort's dialysis cost was CAD $8.1 million, and 44 (26%) of 167 recipients initiated their dialysis urgently in hospital. The median total donor evaluation time (time from evaluation start to donation) was 10.6 months (6.4-21.6 months) for preemptive transplants and 22.4 months (13.1-38.7 months) for donors whose recipients started dialysis before transplant. Recipients were more likely to start dialysis if their donor was female, nonwhite, lived in a lower-income neighborhood, and if the transplant center received the recipient referral later. CONCLUSION: One third of persons initiated dialysis before receiving their living kidney donor transplant, despite their donor's evaluation being well underway. Future studies should consider whether some of these events can be prevented by addressing inappropriate delays to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.

Potential implications of a more timely living kidney donor evaluation.

Living donor kidney transplantation is the most promising way to avoid or minimize the amount of time a recipient spends on dialysis before transplantation. We studied 887 living kidney donors at 5 transplant centers in Ontario, Canada, who started their evaluation and donated between April 2006 and March 2014. Using a series of hypothetical scenarios, we estimated the impact of an earlier living donor evaluation completion and donation on the number pre-emptive transplants, the time spent on dialysis, healthcare cost savings from averted dialysis costs (CAD $2016), and the number of additional transplants. During the study period, if the donor transplants occurred 3 months earlier, the healthcare system would save on average $12 055 (standard deviation [SD] $13 594) per recipient; 21 recipients could have avoided dialysis altogether, and 57 additional transplants (a 26% increase) could have occurred each year. For the 220 living kidney donor transplants performed in Ontario, Canada, each year, this translates to a total annual cost savings of $2.7M. In conclusion, a more timely evaluation of living donor candidates and their intended recipients may increase the supply of kidneys for transplantation. Improved evaluation efficiency may also yield more pre-emptive transplants and substantial healthcare cost savings through averted dialysis costs.

Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Sevelamer and Lanthanum versus Calcium-Based Binders for Hyperphosphatemia of Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Phosphate binders are used to treat hyperphosphatemia among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). OBJECTIVES: To conduct an economic evaluation comparing calcium-free binders sevelamer and lanthanum with calcium-based binders for patients with CKD. METHODS: Effectiveness data were obtained from a recent meta-analysis of randomized trials. Effectiveness was measured as life-years gained and translated to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using utility weights from the literature. A Markov model consisting of non-dialysis-dependent (NDD)-CKD, dialysis-dependent (DD)-CKD, and death was developed to estimate the incremental costs and effects of sevelamer and lanthanum versus those of calcium-based binders. A lifetime horizon was used and both costs and effects were discounted at 1.5%. All costs are presented in 2015 Canadian dollars from the Canadian public payer perspective. Results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis were presented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for risk pooling methods, omission of dialysis costs, and persistence of drug effects on mortality. RESULTS: Sevelamer resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $106,522/QALY for NDD-CKD and $133,847/QALY for DD-CKD cohorts. Excluding dialysis costs, sevelamer was cost-effective in the NDD-CKD cohort ($5,847/QALY) and the DD-CKD cohort ($11,178/QALY). Lanthanum was dominated regardless of whether dialysis costs were included. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence does not clearly support the cost-effectiveness of non-calcium-containing phosphate binders (sevelamer and lanthanum) relative to calcium-containing phosphate binders in DD-CKD patients. Our study suggests that sevelamer may be cost-effective before dialysis onset. Because of the remaining uncertainty in several clinically relevant outcomes over time in DD-CKD and NDD-CKD patients, further research is encouraged.

Medialization thyroplasty versus injection laryngoplasty: a cost minimization analysis.

BACKGROUND: Medialization thyroplasty and injection laryngoplasty are widely accepted treatment options for unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Although both procedures result in similar clinical outcomes, little is known about the corresponding medical care costs. Medialization thyroplasty requires expensive operating room resources while injection laryngoplasty utilizes outpatient resources but may require repeated procedures. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to quantify the cost differences in adult patients with unilateral vocal fold paralysis undergoing medialization thyroplasty versus injection laryngoplasty. STUDY DESIGN: Cost minimization analysis conducted using a decision tree model. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed to capture clinical scenarios for medialization thyroplasty and injection laryngoplasty. Probabilities for various events were obtained from a retrospective cohort from the London Health Sciences Centre, Canada. Costs were derived from the published literature and the London Health Science Centre. All costs were reported in 2014 Canadian dollars. Time horizon was 5 years. The study was conducted from an academic hospital perspective in Canada. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess differences in procedure-specific costs and probabilities of key events. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients underwent medialization thyroplasty and 41 underwent injection laryngoplasty. Cost of medialization thyroplasty was C$2499.10 per patient whereas those treated with injection laryngoplasty cost C$943.19. Results showed that cost savings with IL were C$1555.91. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested cost savings ranged from C$596 to C$3626. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with injection laryngoplasty results in cost savings of C$1555.91 per patient. Our extensive sensitivity analyses suggest that switching from medialization thyroplasty to injection laryngoplasty will lead to a minimum cost savings of C$596 per patient. Considering the significant cost savings and similar effectiveness, injection laryngoplasty should be strongly considered as a preferred treatment option for patients diagnosed with unilateral vocal fold paralysis.

Financial Incentives and Cervical Cancer Screening Participation in Ontario's Primary Care Practice Models.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this paper is to compare cervical cancer screening rates of family physicians in Ontario's two dominant reformed practice models, Family Health Group (FHG) and Family Health Organization (FHO), and traditional fee-for-service (FFS) model. Both reformed models formally enrol patients and offer extensive pay-for-performance incentives; however, they differ by remuneration for core services (FHG is FFS; FHO is capitated). The secondary objective is to estimate the average and marginal costs of screening in each model. METHODS: Using administrative data on 7,298 family physicians and their 2,083,633 female patients aged 35-69 eligible for cervical cancer screening in 2011, we assessed screening rates after adjusting for patient and physician characteristics. Predicted screening rates, fees and bonus payments were used to estimate the average and marginal costs of cervical cancer screening. RESULTS: Adjusted screening rates were highest in the FHG (81.9%), followed by the FHO (79.6%), and then the traditional FFS model (74.2%). The cost of a cervical cancer screening was $18.30 in the FFS model. The estimated average cost of screening in the FHGs and FHOs were $29.71 and $35.02, respectively, while the corresponding marginal costs were $33.05 and $39.06. DISCUSSION: We found significant differences in cervical cancer screening rates across Ontario's primary care practice models. Cervical screening rates were significantly higher in practice models eligible for incentives (FHGs and FHOs) than the traditional FFS model. However, the average and marginal cost of screening were lowest in the traditional FFS model and highest in the FHOs.