Efficacy, cost-minimization, and budget impact of a personalized discharge letter for basal cell carcinoma patients to reduce low-value follow-up care.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of keratinocyte carcinomas is high and rapidly growing. Approximately 80% of keratinocyte carcinomas consist of basal cell carcinomas (BCC) with 50% of these being considered as low-risk tumors. Nevertheless, 83% of the low-risk BCC patients were found to receive more follow-up care than recommended according to the Dutch BCC guideline, which is one visit post-treatment for this group. More efficient management could reduce unnecessary follow-up care and related costs. OBJECTIVES: To study the efficacy, cost-utility, and budget impact of a personalized discharge letter for low-risk BCC patients compared with usual care (no personalized letter). METHODS: In a multi-center intervention study, a personalized discharge letter in addition to usual care was compared to usual care in first-time BCC patients. Model-based cost-utility and budget impact analyses were conducted, using individual patient data gathered via surveys. The outcome measures were number of follow-up visits, costs and quality adjusted life years (QALY) per patient. RESULTS: A total of 473 first-time BCC patients were recruited. The personalized discharge letter decreased the number of follow-up visits by 14.8% in the first year. The incremental costs after five years were -€24.45 per patient. The QALYs were 4.12 after five years and very similar in both groups. The national budget impact was -€2,7 million after five years. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of a personalized discharge letter decreases the number of unnecessary follow-up visits and implementing the intervention in a large eligible population would results in substantial cost savings, contributing to restraining the growing BCC costs.

Practice Variation in Skin Cancer Treatment and Follow-Up Care: A Dutch Claims Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Quality indicators are used to benchmark and subsequently improve quality of healthcare. However, defining good quality indicators and applying them to high-volume care such as skin cancer is not always feasible. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether claims data could be used to benchmark high-volume skin cancer care and to assess clinical practice variation. METHODS: All skin cancer care-related claims in dermatology in 2016 were extracted from a nationwide claims database (Vektis) in the Netherlands. RESULTS: For over 220,000 patients, a skin cancer diagnosis-related group was reimbursed in 124 healthcare centres. Conventional excision reflected 75% of treatments for skin cancer but showed large variation between practices. Large practice variation was also found for 5-fluorouracil and imiquimod creams. The practice variation of Mohs micrographic surgery and photodynamic therapy was low under the 75th percentile, but outliers at the 100th percentile were detected, which indicates that few centres performed these therapies far more often than average. On average, patients received 1.8 follow-up visits in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Claims data demonstrated large practice variation in treatments and follow-up visits of skin cancer and may be a valid and feasible data set to extract quality indicators. The next step is to investigate whether detected practice variation is unwarranted and if a reduction improves quality and efficiency of care.