Out-of-Pocket Cost Modeling of Adjuvant Antiestrogen and Radiation Therapy After Lumpectomy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Across Medicaid and Medicare Plans.

PURPOSE: The optimal adjuvant therapy (antiestrogen therapy [ET] + radiation therapy or ET alone, or in some reports radiation therapy alone) in older women with early-stage breast cancer has been highly debated. However, granular details on the role of insurance in the out-of-pocket cost for patients receiving ET with or without radiation therapy are lacking. This project disaggregates out-of-pocket costs by insurance plans to increase treatment cost transparency. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Several radiation therapy schedules are accepted standards as per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. For our financial estimate model, we used the 5-fraction and 15-fraction radiation therapy and ET prescribed over a 5-year duration. The total aggregate out-of-pocket costs were determined from the sum of treatment costs, deductibles, and copays/coinsurance based on Medicaid, Original Medicare, Medigap Plan G, and Medicare Part D Rx plans. The model assumes a Medicare- and/or Medicaid-eligible patient ≥70 years of age with node-negative, early-stage estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Patient out-of-pocket costs were estimated from publicly available insurance data from plan-specific benefit coverage materials using a 5-year time horizon. RESULTS: Original Medicare beneficiaries face a total out-of-pocket treatment charge of $2738.52 for ET alone, $2221.26 for 5-fraction radiation therapy alone, $2573.92 for 15-fraction radiation therapy alone, $3361.26 for combined ET+ 5-fraction radiation therapy, and $3713.92 for combined ET + 15-fraction radiation therapy. Medigap Plan G beneficiaries have an out-of-pocket charge of $1130.00 with radiation therapy alone and face an out-of-pocket of $2270.00 for ET alone and combined ET+ radiation therapy. For Medicaid beneficiaries, all treatments approved by Medicaid are covered without limit, resulting in no out-of-pocket expense for either adjuvant treatment option. CONCLUSIONS: This model (based on actual cost estimates per insurance plan rather than claims data), by estimating expenses within Medicare and Medicaid plans, provides a level of transparency to patient cost. With knowledge of the costs borne by patients themselves, treatment decisions informed by patients' individual priorities and preferences may be further enhanced.

Insurance type is associated with appropriate use of surgical and adjuvant care for differentiated thyroid carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to characterize the association between differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) patient insurance status and appropriateness of therapy (AOT) regarding extent of thyroidectomy and radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for DTC patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2016. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) for AOT, as defined by the American Thyroid Association guidelines, and hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) were calculated. A difference-in-differences (DD) analysis examined the association of Medicaid expansion with outcomes for low-income patients aged <65. RESULTS: A total of 224,500 patients were included. Medicaid and uninsured patients were at increased risk of undergoing inappropriate therapy, including inappropriate lobectomy (Medicaid 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-1.54; uninsured 1.30, 95% CI: 1.05-1.60), and under-treatment with RAI (Medicaid 1.20, 95% CI: 1.14-1.26; uninsured 1.44, 95% CI: 1.33-1.55). Inappropriate lobectomy (HR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.7-2.3, P < .001) and under-treatment with RAI (HR 2.3, 95% CI: 2.2-2.5, P < .001) were independently associated with decreased survival, while appropriate surgical resection (HR 0.3, 95% CI: 0.3-0.3, P < .001) was associated with improved odds of survival; the model controlled for all relevant clinico-pathologic variables. No difference in AOT was observed in Medicaid expansion versus non-expansion states with respect to surgery or adjuvant RAI therapy. CONCLUSION: Medicaid and uninsured patients are at significantly increased odds of receiving inappropriate treatment for DTC; both groups are at a survival disadvantage compared with Medicare and those privately insured.

Routine prophylactic central neck dissection for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer is not cost-effective.

BACKGROUND: The role of routine prophylactic central neck dissection (CND) in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost utility of the addition of routine CND in patients with low-risk PTC compared with total thyroidectomy (TT) alone. METHODS: A Markov model for low-risk PTC was constructed with a treatment algorithm based on the American Thyroid Association guidelines for well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Utilities and outcome probabilities were derived from published medical literature. US 2010 costs were examined from a society perspective using Medicare reimbursement rates and opportunity loss based on published US government data. Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis were used to examine the uncertainty of probability, cost and utility estimates. RESULTS: Initial TT alone is more cost-effective than TT with CND, resulting in a cost savings of US $5763 per patient with slightly higher effectiveness per patient (0·03 QALY) for a cost savings of $285 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis shows that TT alone offers no advantage when radioactive iodine (RAI) becomes more detrimental to a patient's state of health, when the incidence of non-neck recurrence increases above 5% in patients undergoing TT alone or decreases below 3·9% in patients undergoing TT with CND or when the rate of permanent hypocalcaemia rises above 4%. CONCLUSIONS: TT with CND is not a cost-effective strategy in low-risk PTC. Initial TT alone is favourable because of the low complication rates and low recurrence rates associated with the initial surgery. Alternative strategies such as unilateral prophylactic neck dissection require additional study to assess their cost-effectiveness.

[Use of radiochemotherapy for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer].

The study was concerned with efficacy and tolerability of radiochemotherapy for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer using fractionated single focal dose of radiation in conjunction with vinorelbine or 5-fluorouracil. The treatment proved moderately toxic and was frequently followed by complete regression and survival lasting 12-36 months. Also, it was cost-effective due to shorter courses of radiotherapy.

Cost savings of patients with a MACIS score lower than 6 when radioactive iodine is not given.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost savings if the current policy of treating patients with a MACIS (metastases, age, completeness of resection, invasion, and size) score lower than 6 using radioactive iodine (RAI) was changed to reflect the findings of recent studies. DESIGN: Retrospective medical record review. SETTING: Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario. PATIENTS: Between January 1, 2002, and July 1, 2005, 199 consecutive patients with a MACIS score lower than 6 who received RAI treatment after total thyroidectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient demographics were analyzed. Costs for the dose of RAI, hospital stay, and health insurance claims were included in the calculations. RESULTS: For 199 consecutive patients, the cost for sodium iodide 131 treatment totaled Can$161 588, and the required 2-day stay in isolation totaled Can$764 558. The overall cost to the health care system was Can$934 106, which translates into approximately Can$4694 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: By following the recommendations of recent evidence-based studies and by ceasing to treat patients with a MACIS score lower than 6 after total thyroidectomy using RAI, cost savings can be accrued for health care systems involved in the treatment of thyroid cancer. Alternate strategies, such as treating patients who need RAI therapy on an outpatient basis and reducing the dose of RAI, can lower costs as well.

Cost comparison of surgery vs organ preservation for laryngeal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost minimization analysis of total laryngectomy with postoperative radiotherapy vs induction chemotherapy with subsequent radiotherapy in patients with advanced (stage III or IV) squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx. DESIGN: Decision-analysis model using data from peer-reviewed trials, case series, meta-analyses, and Medicare diagnosis related group reimbursement rates. SETTING AND PATIENTS: A hypothetical cohort of patients with stage III or IV laryngeal cancer. The perspective is that of a health care payer. INTERVENTIONS: The hypothetical patient cohort could receive (1) surgery (total laryngectomy) with postoperative radiotherapy or (2) induction chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin) with radiotherapy followed by salvage surgery for patients failing to respond to chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Overall difference in direct medical costs in 2003 US dollars between the 2 treatment arms from initiation to completion of treatment. RESULTS: In the baseline analysis, the direct medical costs for the surgical arm were 30,138 US dollars per patient. For the organ preservation arm, the direct medical costs were 33,052 US dollars per patient. The finding that the surgical arm costs were lower was robust to all sensitivity analyses except for the extreme low estimate for the cost of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that total laryngectomy with postoperative radiotherapy costs nearly 3000 US dollars less than organ preservation treatment for advanced laryngeal cancer. Given that survival appears equivalent between the 2 modalities, cost consideration and patient preference may be important factors in decision making for the treatment of advanced laryngeal cancer.