RESUMEN
Objective: To measure the economic impact of conditionally essential amino acids (CEAA) among patients with operative treatment for fractures. Methods: A decision tree model was created to estimate changes in annual health care costs and quality of life impact due to complications after patients underwent operative treatment to address a traumatic fracture. The intervention of interest was the use of CEAA alongside standard of care as compared to standard of care alone. Patients were required to be aged ≥18 and receive the surgery in a US Level 1 trauma center. The primary outcomes were rates of post-surgical complications, changes in patient quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and changes in cost. Cost savings were modeled as the incremental costs (in 2022 USD) of treating complications due to changes in complication rates. Results: The per-patient cost of complications under CEAA use was $12,215 compared to $17,118 under standard of care without CEAA. The net incremental cost savings per patient with CEAA use was $4902, accounting for a two-week supply cost of CEAA. The differences in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) under CEAA use and no CEAA use was 0.013 per person (0.739 vs 0.726). Modeled to the US population of patients requiring fracture fixations in trauma centers, the total value of CEAA use compared to no CEAA use was $316 million with an increase of 813 QALYs per year. With a gain of 0.013 QALYs per person, valued at $150,000, and the incremental cost savings of $4902 resulted in net monetary benefit of $6852 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that the use of CEAA dominated standard of care. Conclusion: CEAA use after fracture fixation surgery is cost saving. Level of Evidence: Level 1 Economic Study.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Organizations such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, and Memorial Sloan Kettering have created distinct tools to help different stakeholders assess the value of oncology treatments. However, the oncology value tools were not necessarily created for payers, and it is unclear whether payers are using these tools as part of their drug management process. OBJECTIVE: To understand what value tools payers are using in oncology management and what benefits and shortcomings the tools may have from the payer perspective. METHODS: A survey targeting drug coverage decision makers at health plans was conducted in August 2016. Respondents attesting to using 2 or more value tools in drug management were eligible for an additional in-depth interview to understand the respondents' perceived benefits and shortcomings of current value tools. Respondents also were asked to describe desired attributes of a hypothetical payer-centric value tool. RESULTS: A total of 28 respondents representing approximately 160 million commercially insured medical lives completed the survey. Twenty respondents (71%) reported using at least 1 value tool in their drug management process. Twelve respondents (43%) used at least 2 tools, and 4 respondents (14%) used at least 3 tools. A total of 6 respondents were selected for in-depth interviews. Interviewees praised value tools for advancing the discussion on drug value and incorporating clinical evidence. However, interviewees felt available value tools varied on providing firm recommendations and relevant price benchmarks. Respondents most commonly recommended the following attributes of a proposed payer-centric value framework: taking a firm position on product value; product comparisons in lieu of comparative clinical trials; web-based tool access; and tool updates at least quarterly. Interview respondents also expressed some support for allowing manipulation of inputs and inclusion of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome data. CONCLUSIONS: Although nearly half of payers surveyed use 2 or more value tools in the drug management process, payers identified a number of areas where the tools could be revised to increase their utility to payers. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding or assistance of any kind was used for this research or in manuscript preparation. Schafer and Galante are employed by Precision for Value, a payer ad marketing agency that works exclusively with life science companies. Shafrin is employed by Precision Health Economics, a consulting company to insurance and life science industries. Shafer, along with Galante and Shafrin, contributed to study design, data collection, and manuscript preparation. The authors contributed equally to data analysis and interpretation and manuscript revision.