How to Use Costs in Value-Based Healthcare: Learning from Real-life Examples.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations measure costs for business operations but do not routinely incorporate costs in decision-making on the value of care. AIM: Provide guidance on how to use costs in value-based healthcare (VBHC) delivery at different levels of the healthcare system. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Integrated practice units (IPUs) for diabetes mellitus (DM) and for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at the Leiden University Medical Center and a collaboration of seven breast cancer IPUs of the Santeon group, all in the Netherlands. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION: VBHC aims to optimize care delivery to the patient by understanding how costs relate to outcomes. At the level of shared decision-making between patient and clinician, yearly check-up consultations for DM type I were analyzed for patient-relevant costs. In benchmarking among providers, quantities of cost drivers for breast cancer care were assessed in scorecards. In continuous learning, cost-effectiveness analysis was compared with radar chart analysis to assess the value of telemonitoring in outpatient follow-up. DISCUSSION: Costs vary among providers in healthcare, but also between provider and patient. The joint analysis of outcomes and costs using appropriate methods helps identify and optimize the aspects of care that drive desired outcomes and value.

Allocation and value of curative oncological treatment in frail and fit older patients with esophageal cancer: An observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The Value-Based Health Care (VBHC) model of care provides insights into patient characteristics, outcomes, and costs of care delivery that help clinicians counsel patients. This study compares the allocation and value of curative oncological treatment in frail and fit older patients with esophageal cancer in a dedicated VBHC pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was collected from patients with primary esophageal cancer without distant metastases, aged 70 years or older, and treated at a Dutch tertiary care hospital between 2015 and 2019. Geriatric assessment (GA) was performed. Outcomes included treatment discontinuation, mortality, quality of life (QoL), and physical functioning over a one-year period. Direct hospital costs were estimated using activity-based costing. RESULTS: In this study, 89 patients were included with mean age 75 years. Of 56 patients completing GA, 19 were classified as frail and 37 as fit. For frail patients, the treatment plan was chemoradiotherapy and surgery (CRT&S) in 68% (13/19) and definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) in 32% (6/19); for fit patients, CRT&S in 84% (31/37) and dCRT in 16% (6/37). Frail patients discontinued chemotherapy more often than fit patients (26% (5/19) vs 11% (4/37), p = 0.03) and reported lower QoL after six months (mean 0.58 [standard deviation (SD) 0.35] vs 0.88 [0.25], p < 0.05). After one year, 11% of frail and 30% of fit patients reported no decline in physical functioning and QoL and survived. Frail and fit patients had comparable mean direct hospital costs (€24 K [SD €13 K] vs €23 K [SD €8 K], p = 0.82). DISCUSSION: The value of curative oncological treatment was lower for frail than for fit patients because of slightly worse outcomes and comparable costs. The utility of the VBHC model of care depends on the availability of sufficient data. Real-world evidence in VBHC can be used to inform treatment decisions and optimization in future patients by sharing results and monitoring performance over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), trial number NL8107 (date of registration: 22-10-2019).