Trends in survival and costs in metastatic melanoma in the era of novel targeted and immunotherapeutic drugs.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate trends in survival and health care costs in metastatic melanoma in the era of targeted and immunotherapeutic drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on survival and health care resource use were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival. Health care costs and budget impact were computed by applying unit costs to individual patient resource use. All outcomes were stratified by year of diagnosis. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were balanced across cohort years. The percentage of patients receiving systemic treatment increased from 73% in 2013 to 90% in 2018. Patients received on average 1.85 [standard deviation (SD): 1.14] lines of treatment and 41% of patients received at least two lines of treatment. Median survival increased from 11.8 months in 2013 [95% confidence interval (CI): 10.7-13.7 months] to 21.1 months in 2018 (95% CI: 18.2 months-not reached). Total mean costs were €100 330 (SD: €103 699); systemic treatments accounted for 84% of the total costs. Costs for patients who received systemic treatment [€118 905 (SD: €104 166)] remained reasonably stable over the years even after the introduction of additional (combination of) novel drugs. From mid-2013 to 2018, the total budget impact for all patients was €452.79 million. CONCLUSION: Our study shows a gain in survival in the era of novel targeted and immunotherapeutic drugs. These novel drugs came, however, along with substantial health care costs. Further insights into the cost-effectiveness of the novel drugs are crucial for ensuring value for money in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma.

[Better care and lower costs through registries; a first step to reimbursement based on outcome]. / Gedifferentieerd belonen mogelijk door registratie.

We have recently shown that costs of surgical treatment for colorectal carcinoma differ greatly between various patient groups in the Netherlands. Those cost-differences could mostly be explained by the fact that high-risk patients have a greater risk of complications, which generate higher hospital costs. Hospitals with a high-risk population, for instant tertiary referral centres, spend more than hospitals that treat low-risk patients. Currently reimbursement however is not geared to risk differences. In this article we investigate this shortcoming of the current reimbursement system and discuss how a differential rewarding - in which reimbursement is aligned with the patient's risk profile - could serve as a tool to further quality improvement in healthcare. Current clinical registries may provide the necessary details of patient characteristics for risk profiling and may also contribute to the following goal: reimbursement based on the quality of delivered care.

Comparing colon cancer outcomes: The impact of low hospital case volume and case-mix adjustment.

OBJECTIVE: When comparing performance across hospitals it is essential to consider the noise caused by low hospital case volume and to perform adequate case-mix adjustment. We aimed to quantify the role of noise and case-mix adjustment on standardized postoperative mortality and anastomotic leakage (AL) rates. METHODS: We studied 13,120 patients who underwent colon cancer resection in 85 Dutch hospitals. We addressed differences between hospitals in postoperative mortality and AL, using fixed (ignoring noise) and random effects (incorporating noise) logistic regression models with general and additional, disease specific, case-mix adjustment. RESULTS: Adding disease specific variables improved the performance of the case-mix adjustment models for postoperative mortality (c-statistic increased from 0.77 to 0.81). The overall variation in standardized mortality ratios was similar, but some individual hospitals changed considerably. For the standardized AL rates the performance of the adjustment models was poor (c-statistic 0.59 and 0.60) and overall variation was small. Most of the observed variation between hospitals was actually noise. CONCLUSION: Noise had a larger effect on hospital performance than extended case-mix adjustment, although some individual hospital outcome rates were affected by more detailed case-mix adjustment. To compare outcomes between hospitals it is crucial to consider noise due to low hospital case volume with a random effects model.

Costs of complications after colorectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands: Building the business case for hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers worldwide are struggling with rising costs while hospitals budgets are under stress. Colorectal cancer surgery is commonly performed, however it is associated with a disproportionate share of adverse events in general surgery. Since adverse events are associated with extra hospital costs it seems important to explicitly discuss the costs of complications and the risk factors for high-costs after colorectal surgery. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of clinical and financial outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery in 29 Dutch hospitals (6768 patients). Detailed clinical data was derived from the 2011-2012 population-based Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit database. Costs were measured uniform in all participating hospitals and based on Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing. FINDINGS: Of total hospital costs in this study, 31% was spent on complications and the top 5% most expensive patients were accountable for 23% of hospitals budgets. Minor and severe complications were respectively associated with a 26% and 196% increase in costs as compared to patients without complications. Independent from other risk factors, ASA IV, double tumor, ASA III, short course preoperative radiotherapy and TNM-4 stadium disease were the top-5 attributors to high costs. CONCLUSIONS: This article shows that complications after colorectal cancer surgery are associated with a substantial increase in costs. Although not all surgical complications can be prevented, reducing complications will result in considerable cost savings. By providing a business case we show that investments made to develop targeted quality improvement programs will pay off eventually. Results based on this study should encourage healthcare providers to endorse quality improvement efforts.

Anastomotic leakage as an outcome measure for quality of colorectal cancer surgery.

INTRODUCTION: When comparing mortality rates between hospitals to explore hospital performance, there is an important role for adjustment for differences in case-mix. Identifying outcome measures that are less influenced by differences in case-mix may be valuable. The main goal of this study was to explore whether hospital differences in anastomotic leakage (AL) and postoperative mortality are due to differences in case-mix or to differences in treatment factors. METHODS: Data of the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit were used. Case-mix factors and treatment-related factors were identified from the literature and their association with AL and mortality were analysed with logistic regression. Hospital differences in observed AL and mortality rates, and adjusted rates based on the logistic regression models were shown. The reduction in hospital variance after adjustment was analysed with Levene's test for equality of variances. RESULTS: 17 of 22 case-mix factors and 4 of 11 treatment factors related to AL derived from the literature were available in the database. Variation in observed AL rates between hospitals was large with a maximum rate of 17%. This variation could not be attributed to differences in case-mix but more to differences in treatment factors. Hospital variation in observed mortality rates was significantly reduced after adjustment for differences in case-mix. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital variation in AL is relatively independent of differences in case-mix. In contrast to 'postoperative mortality' the observed AL rates of hospitals evaluated in our study were only slightly affected after adjustment for case-mix factors. Therefore, AL rates may be suitable as an outcome indicator for measurement of surgical quality of care.

[Financial limits to care; a survey among physicians]. / Financiële grenzen aan de zorg; een enquête onder artsen.

OBJECTIVE: To determine physicians' opinions about the role of cost considerations in treatment decisions. DESIGN: Oral inquiry. SETTING: Hospitals in the area of Leiden and Amsterdam, the Netherlands. METHODS: 82 medical specialists (41 surgeons and 41 internists) were interviewed and answered questions regarding cost considerations in medical care. They were also asked to determine the probability of success below which they considered an expensive medical treatment useless. RESULTS: The respondents agreed that the government can set limits to care and incorporate cost considerations, but they also indicated that the role of physicians is to treat individual patients. About half the physicians would agree to discontinue treatment when it became too expensive. Decisions regarding the limitation of care should be made by politicians with or without the advice of physicians. The respondents would discontinue (an expensive) treatment (in a presented case) if the probability of success was on average below 12%, but half the physicians said they would accept a lower probability of success for individual patients than they would recommend as a policy. CONCLUSION: Although physicians agreed about the necessity to set limits to medical care, their behaviour in clinical practice appeared to be not always in agreement with this.