Health utilities in gynecological oncology and mastology in Germany.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cost increases in the healthcare system are leading to a need to distribute financial resources in accordance with the value of each service performed. Health-economic decision-making models can support these decisions. Due to the previous unavailability of health utilities in Germany (scored states of health as a basis for calculating quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) for women undergoing treatment, international data are often used for such models. However, these may widely deviate from the values for a woman actually living in Germany. It is, therefore, necessary to collect and analyze health utilities in Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a questionnaire survey, health utilities were collected, along with data for a healthy control group, for 580 female patients receiving treatment in the fields of mastology and gynecological oncology using a German version of the EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D) and a visual analogue scale (VAS). Data were also collected for the patients' medical history, tumor disease, and treatment. RESULTS: Significant differences with regard to quality of life were measured in relation to the individual tumor entities and in comparison to the controls. Apart from the healthy control group, patients with breast or cervical carcinoma had the best quality of life. In patients with recurrent and metastatic disease, those with breast carcinoma experienced the greatest impairment of their quality of life. According to current treatment, the most important impairment of life quality occurred in patients under radiotherapy and after surgical treatment. There are significant differences from the health utilities recorded for other countries - for example, the state of health declines much more markedly in patients with metastatic disease among American women with breast carcinoma than among German women, in whom recurrent disease and a first diagnosis of metastasis were comparable. Overall, the VAS was able to distinguish more adequately than the EQ-5D questionnaire between the different situations and impairments resulting from diagnosis and therapy. CONCLUSION: Health utilities are now, for the first time, available for further health-economics analyses in the field of gynecological oncology and mastology for women living in Germany. Important differences in these utilities from those of other countries are evident.

Financing of certified centers: a willingness-to-pay analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Although care in certified breast centers is now established throughout Germany, numerous services are still not being reimbursed. This also affects other centers involved in the specialty of gynecology such as gynecological cancer centers, perinatal centers, and endometriosis centers. Although a certified center is entitled to charge additional fees, these are in most cases not reimbursed. Calculation of additional costs is limited by the fact that data from the Institute for the Hospital Reimbursement System (Institut für das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus, InEK) do not reflect interdisciplinary services and procedures. For decision-makers, society's willingness to pay is an important factor in guiding decisions on the basis of social priorities. A hypothetical maximum willingness to pay can be calculated using a willingness-to-pay analysis, making it possible to identify deficiencies in the arbitrary setting of health budgets at the macro-level. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicenter study conducted between November 2009 and December 2010, 2,469 patients at a university hospital and at a non-university hospital were asked about the extent of their awareness of certified centers, the influence of centers on hospital presentation, and about personal attitudes toward quality-oriented reimbursement. A subjective assessment of possible additional charges was calculated using a willingness-to-pay analysis. RESULTS: In the overall group, 53.4 % of the patients were aware of what a certified center is and 27.4 % had specific information (obstetrics 40.0/32.3 %; mastology 66.8/23.2 %; gynecological oncology 54.7/27.3 %; P < 0.001). For 43.8 %, a certified center was one reason or the major reason for presentation (obstetrics 26.2 %; mastology 66.8 %; gynecological oncology 46.6 %; P < 0.001). A total of 72.6 % were in favor of quality-oriented reimbursement and 69.7 % were in favor of an additional charge for a certified center amounting to €538.56 (mastology €643.65, obstetrics €474.67, gynecological oncology €532.47). In all, 33.9 % would accept an increase in health-insurance fees (averaging 0.3865 %), and 28.3 % were in favor of reduced remuneration for non-certified centers. CONCLUSIONS: The existence of certified centers is being increasingly recognized by patients. Additional charges for certified centers are generally supported. There is therefore a clear demand for them-from patients as well. This may be useful when negotiations are being conducted.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Endocrine Therapy in the Adjuvant Setting for Postmenopausal Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer, Based on Survival Data and Future Prices for Generic Drugs in the Context of the German Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analyses have focused on aromatase inhibitors (AIs), but the results are inconsistent and disease-free survival has often been extrapolated to overall survival. The present study calculates the cost-effectiveness of 5 years of letrozole versus tamoxifen versus anastrozole in the context of the German health care system, using survival data from the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 study and the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) study and generic prices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A hybrid model was developed that incorporates recurrence rates, overall survival, treatment costs and treatment-associated adverse events and the resulting costs. The basic assumption was that generic anastrozole would lead to a price reduction to 75% of the original price. Further analyses were carried out with 50% and 25% of the original prices for anastrozole and letrozole. RESULTS: The cost-benefit model showed a gain of 0.3124 or 0.0659 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for letrozole or anastrozole. Incremental costs of € 29,375.15/QALY for letrozole (100% of original price) were calculated and € 94,648.03/QALY for anastrozole (75% of original price). Marked increases in cost-effectiveness are observed with further decreases in price (anastrozole: 50% price € 54,715.17/QALY, 25% price € 14,779.57/QALY; letrozole 75% price € 20,988.59/QALY, 50% price € 12,602.03/QALY, 25% price € 4,215.46/QALY). CONCLUSION: The present model including the inverse probability of censoring weighted analysis (IPCW) for letrozole and generic prices for both AIs shows that letrozole is cost effective.

Results of the Zometa cost-utility model for the german healthcare system based on the results of the ABCSG-12 study.

BACKGROUND: The ABCSG-12 trial investigated the efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)analogs in combination with tamoxifen or anastrozole + or - zoledronic acid (4 mg, q6m for 3 years) in 1,803 premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. After 48 months of follow-up, there was a 36% improvement in the disease-free survival (DFS) (recurrence-free survival 35%) using zoledronic acid. Based on these data, the costutility of zoledronic acid was calculated for the German healthcare system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Costs of surveillance, adverse effects, recurrence, contralateral breast cancer, metastasis, and end-of-life care were determined based on the Einheitlicher Bewertungsmabetastab (EBM 2009) and the diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system. Utilities were surveyed with a questionnaire (n = 95). Estimation of the cost-utility was made by calculating the incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), using a Markov model. RESULTS: Including zoledronic acid as adjuvant therapy for 3 years resulted in total costs of euro 2,262. The use of zoledronic acid is dominant when clinical efficacy and quality of life are taken into consideration (- euro 45.83/QALY) (95% confidence interval (CI) - euro 1,838 to E 2,375; 0.02-0.41 QALY). The sensitivity analyses present with a probability of 90% that the cost per QALY gained are