Educational Costs Expended and Career Incomes in Advanced Healthcare Professions.

The financial desirability of dollar/time investments in postbaccalaureate healthcare professional education is needed. We therefore compared postbaccalaureate educational costs and career earnings for nurse anesthetists, eight other advanced degree, nonphysician professions, and 14 physician specialties with internal rate of return (IRR) and net present value (NPV) analysis. The IRR and NPV integrated educational costs (tuition, finance charges, lost salary opportunity costs), and career earnings using U.S. Bureau of Labor and Medscape 2022 Physician Compensation Report data. Costs were discounted to 2022 U.S. real dollars using the 3.97% 50-year, U.S. average inflation rate. Annual IRRs for educational investment were 1) hospital CEOs = 48.8%; 2) managed care finance directors = 48.2%; 3) Doctors of Nurse Anesthesia Practice = 26.0%; 4) specialist physicians = 20.3%; 5) primary care physicians = 19.2%; 6) Doctors of Physical Therapy = 18.8%; 7) healthcare attorneys = 18.4%; 8) Doctors of Dental Surgery (dentists) = 18.1%; 9) Doctors of Pharmacy = 17.2%; and 10) Advanced Nurse Practitioners = 10.8%. Considering the educational money/time invested for career monetary returns, the financial desirability of nurse anesthetist and nonphysician, healthcare executive education exceeded that of physicians. Lifetime earnings for nurse anesthetists exceeded those of Doctors of Dental Surgery (Doctors of Dental Medicine), Doctors of Pharmacy, Doctors of Physical Therapy, managed care MBAs, biomedical engineers, healthcare attorneys, and Advanced Nurse Practitioners.

Cost-Utility Analysis of the Port Delivery System with Ranibizumab for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

PURPOSE: To quantify the cost-utility ratio of the ranibizumab Port Delivery System (PDS; SUSVIMO) versus intravitreal ranibizumab injections for treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) based upon Archway Phase 3 Trial data. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis. SUBJECTS: Archway Phase 3 Clinical Trial nAMD participants previously responsive to anti-VEGF therapy were randomized 3:2. Two hundred forty received PDS refills q 24 weeks and 162 received ranibizumab injections. METHODS: Ophthalmic patient, time tradeoff utilities, direct medical and societal cost perspectives, 12-year, 1-year, and 5-year timelines, United States 2022 real dollars, and a 3% annual discount rate were employed. Utilities were adjusted for nAMD conversion in fellow eyes during the 12-year, mean participant life expectancy. Premature death associated with severe vision loss was integrated as per the population-based Salisbury Eye Evaluation Study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) accruals, costs, and incremental and average cost-utility ratios in $/QALY (dollars expended per QALY gained). RESULTS: Versus no therapy, the 1-year PDS QALY gain was 0.0156 (6.8%) versus 0.0063 (0.82%) for intravitreal injections (P < 0.001), whereas the respective 12-year QALY gains were 1.714 (28%) and 1.639 (26.8%) (P = 0.99). One-year direct PDS ophthalmic costs totaled $21 825 with 2 ranibizumab fills, whereas ranibizumab injection therapy totaled $18 405 with 11.8 injections. The 1-year incremental PDS $/QALY versus injections was cost effective at $75 497/QALY. Five-year PDS therapy was not incrementally cost effective at $304 108/QALY, nor was the 12-year therapy at $761 646/QALY. Average 12-year cost-utility ratios were $78 773/QALY for the PDS and $47 917/QALY for injection therapy. Adding -$476 442 12-year offsetting societal costs netted $314 521 to society per PDS participant versus $370 958 per participant for injection therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Ranibizumab PDS therapy was not incrementally cost effective versus ranibizumab injection therapy at 12 or 5 years but was at 1 year. Injection therapy had a more favorable 12-year average cost-utility ratio. Vision gain was the major determinant of participant value gain and was the same for both interventions. Both interventions were highly cost effective utilizing average cost-utility analysis with the societal cost perspective. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Prevention Surpasses Treatment: 5-year Follow-Up, Cost-Utility, and Cost-Benefit of Zeaxanthin Therapy for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

INTRODUCTION: Oral administration of zeaxanthin (Zx) 20 mg daily in patients with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) treated with triple therapy (photodynamic therapy/intravitreal bevacizumab/intravitreal dexamethasone) reduced fellow-eye 2-year nAMD incidence from 23 to 6% (p = 0.02) in a prior clinical trial. We questioned the long-term benefit and thus analyzed case-control 5-year patient data of trial participants and additional participants with 5-year follow-up, also performing cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses. METHODS: Consecutive, unilateral nAMD patient outcomes for those taking 20 mg Zx supplementation orally for ≥ 5 years were compared with the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) 5-year historical controls for fellow-eye nAMD conversion. Eleven-year mean life expectancy, cost-utility and cost-benefit models were undertaken employing a 3% discount rate and 2020 US real dollars. RESULTS: Among 227 consecutive patients with nAMD/Zx-supplementation, 202 (90%) had 5-year follow-up. The fellow-eye nAMD 5-year conversion incidence using a Kaplan-Meier cumulative event estimate was 22% (49/227), versus 48% (167/348) with CATT control data (p < 0.0001). An 11-year cost-utility model with estimates for years 6-11 demonstrated a 0.42 (7.7%) QALY (quality-adjusted life-year) gain, including 3 months of life saved per patient due to decreased nAMD fellow-eye conversion. This yielded a direct ophthalmic medical cost perspective, incremental cost-utility ratio (CUR) of -$576/QALY and a societal cost perspective CUR of -$125,071/QALY. Zx supplementation for all 2020 US unilateral nAMD cases would have theoretically saved society, primarily patients, $6.0 billion over 11 years, a 1531% return on investment (ROI), or 31.3% annual ROI, on Zx costs. CONCLUSIONS: Oral zeaxanthin supplementation for unilateral nAMD patients appears to decrease fellow-eye long-term incidence and is cost-effective and financially rewarding. It is dominant vs. no supplementation in patients presenting with unilateral nAMD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01527435.

Quality of life associated with no light perception vision.

OBJECTIVE: Time trade-off (TTO) utility analysis quantifies the quality of life associated with best-seeing-eye (BSE) vision. We compared the patient quality of life associated with unilateral and bilateral no light perception (NLP) with that of a control cohort without NLP. DESIGN: Cross-sectional interviews using a validated, reliable TTO vision utility analysis instrument. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1598 consecutive ophthalmology patients from the authors' practices. METHODS: Patient records were reviewed in a case-control fashion The utilities of participants with unilateral or bilateral NLP vision were compared with those from patients without NLP vision. RESULTS: Among 99 NLP patients, 93 (94%) had unilateral NLP and 6 (6%) had bilateral NLP, for a total of 105 NLP eyes. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated the highest correlation between utility and BSE acuity (p = 0.001), with no correlation with age, ophthalmic disease, time of vision loss, race, or education. Mean unilateral NLP utility ranged from 0.55 in the counting fingers to light perception subcohort to 0.80 in the 20/20-20/25 subcohort. The 6-person bilateral NLP subcohort had a 0.54 utility. The 99-patient NLP cohort mean utility was 0.69, a 55% quality-of-life decrease versus a BSE vision-matched 0.80 in 1499 non-NLP patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: TTO utility in unilateral NLP patients correlated with BSE vision at a lower utility than in patients with matched BSE vision without fellow-eye NLP. Decreased unilateral NLP patient quality of life should be considered in cost-utility analysis and clinical management. Bilateral NLP patient utility (0.54) was slightly less than that (0.55) in blind unilateral NLP patients with fellow-eye counting fingers to light perception vision, suggesting that more study is needed.

Preference-based comparison of quality of life associated with vision loss in Black and White ophthalmic populations in the US.

PURPOSE: Utilities are preference-based estimates, typically ranging from 1.00 (normal health) to 0.00 (death), that quantify the quality-of-life improvement associated with a health care intervention. In conjunction with length-of-life gain, depending on the intervention, they measure total interventional value gain in quality-adjusted life years that can be integrated with costs in cost-utility analysis. We believed it relevant to ascertain whether race was a differentiating factor confounding utilities related to vision. METHODS: An analysis of cross-sectional data obtained from consecutive Black and White ophthalmic outpatients from the Wills Eye Hospital (Philadelphia, PA.) practices who participated in a long-standing time trade-off (TTO) vision utility study from 1999 to 2016 was undertaken. Each participant was interviewed by a researcher using a previously validated and reliable TTO vision utility acquisition instrument and assigned to 1 of 5 vision categories according to acuity in the best-seeing eye. Utility outcomes were compared using both the 2-sided t test and the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Eleven hundred and twenty-five consecutive patients able to successfully answer the questions were included. For vision of 20/200-20/800, White/Black mean vision utilities were, respectively, 0.58/0.59 (p = 0.84); for vision of 20/70-20/100, they were, respectively, 0.72/0.70 (p = 0.85); for vision of 20/50-20/60, they were, respectively, 0.78/0.79 (p = 0.86); for vision of 20/25-20/50, they were, respectively, 0.84/0.88 (p = 0.16); and for vision of 20/20, they were, respectively, 0.91/0.90 (p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: TTO vision utilities in Black and White ophthalmic patient cohorts were alike at various levels of visual acuity. This suggests a similar quality of life and that TTO vision utilities used in cost-utility analysis do not require adjustment for race in Black and White ophthalmic populations in the US.

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Bias in Ophthalmic Cost-Utility Analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Select research methods in cost-utility analysis (incremental cost-effectiveness analysis) might potentially bias against patient value (quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) gain and cost-effectiveness associated with common ophthalmic interventions in disabled, elderly, and African American populations. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether using nonpatient vision utilities and/or a maximum limit model constraining vision utility gain to the systemic comorbidity utility level biases against ophthalmic cost-utility outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This economic evaluation predominantly used data from the Center for Value-Based Medicine database to perform preference-based comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analyses for cataract surgery and intravitreal ranibizumab therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD) using vision utilities acquired from patients with ophthalmic disease (ophthalmic patient utilities) and from surrogate individuals (nonophthalmic patient vision utilities) with and without integrating systemic comorbidity utility limits on vision utility gain. Ophthalmic patient data were collected from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2016, and analyzed from April 1 to July 1, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Cost-utility analysis with 3% discount rate in 2018 US dollars. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: QALY gains and dollars expended per QALY gain (the cost-utility ratio). RESULTS: A total of 309 participants in the nonophthalmic patient cohort and 505 patients in the ophthalmic patient cohort were included. A reference case of first-eye cataract surgery using ophthalmic patient vision utilities and no systemic comorbidity utility limits yielded a 2.574 (34.2%) QALY gain vs observation. Substituting nonophthalmic patient utilities resulted in a 1.502 (15.5%) QALY gain, whereas using the 0.76 patient systemic comorbidity utility to limit cataract surgery vision utility gain yielded a 1.337 (17.8%) QALY gain. Using both nonophthalmic patient utilities and systemic comorbidity utility limits yielded a 0.839 (8.7%) QALY gain. The substitutions decreased cataract surgery cost-effectiveness by 71.3% (95% CI, 70.6%-72.1%) for nonophthalmic patient utilities, 92.5% (95% CI, 51.9%-133.1%) for patient systemic comorbidity utility, and 206.8% (95% CI, 202.6%-211.2%) for both. The NVAMD ranibizumab therapy reference case yielded a 1.339 (26.1%) QALY gain. Similar substitutions resulted in QALY gains of 1.164 (22.7%) for nonophthalmic patient utilities while reducing cost-effectiveness by 16.4%, 1.001 (19.5%) for systematic-limiting comorbidity utility while reducing cost-effectiveness by 33.8%, and 0.971 (18.9%) for both while reducing cost-effectiveness by 37.9%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Using nonophthalmic patient vision utilities and/or the maximum limit model of limiting patient utility gains to the population systemic comorbidity utility level resulted in large decreases in patient value (QALY) gain and cost-effectiveness for common ophthalmic interventions. Ophthalmologists should realize these phenomena and consider correcting the potential discrimination against disabled, elderly, and African American populations. This negative potential bias could theoretically result in beneficial intervention denial, less research dollars, curbed therapeutic advances, and decreased interventional reimbursement.

Vision-related quality-of-life estimates in adolescent youths.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate perceptions of quality-of-life (QOL) associated with vision loss in youths under age 21 and compare them with adult general community perceptions and those of ophthalmic patients with vision loss. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, time tradeoff (TTO), utility analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive youths aged 13-20 years who agreed to participate in the study. METHODS: Vision utilities were acquired from adolescents asked to estimate the QOL associated with 3 vision scenarios using a validated, reliable, interviewer-administered TTO utility instrument. The scenarios modeled included: (i) mild vision loss (20/40-20/60), (ii) moderate vision loss (20/70-20/100), and (iii) severe vision loss (≤20/200). Results were compared with utilities previously gathered from the adult general community and from vision-impaired patients with acuity loss to the level of the modeled scenarios. RESULTS: Mean TTO vision utilities were: scenario 1: youths (0.96) versus patients (0.79) (p < 0.0001); scenario 2: youths (0.88) versus patients (0.72) (p < 0.0001); scenario 3: (analysis of variance p < 0.0001) Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference Test, youths (0.79) versus patients (0.60) (p < 0.01), youths (0.79) versus adult general community (0.85) (p < 0.01), adult general community (0.85) versus patients (0.60) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents underestimated the effects of mild, moderate, and severe vision loss upon QOL referent to patients with actual vision loss (p < 0.0001), and thus are not good patient surrogates for utilities used in cost-utility analysis. Nonetheless, youth estimates were closer to those of patients with vision loss than were adult general community estimates. These findings emphasize the importance of using patient utilities in cost-utility analysis.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of VEGF-Inhibitor Therapy for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the United States.

PURPOSE: To perform a societal cost-benefit analysis comparing intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin), ranibizumab (Lucentis), and aflibercept (Eylea) monotherapies for treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD). DESIGN: Cost-benefit analysis. METHODS: Center for Value-Based Medicine using published clinical trial and Medicare data. PATIENT POPULATION: 168,400 estimated 2018 U.S. patients with new-onset NVAMD. Procedure(s): cost-benefit analysis using 2018 U.S. real dollars. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: 11-year direct ophthalmic medical costs expended for bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept monotherapies were compared with ophthalmic and nonophthalmic direct medical, direct nonmedical, and indirect medical (productivity) costs saved by the therapies. RESULTS: Bevacizumab monotherapy had an individual, 11-year $14,772 treatment cost and net $357,680 societal return (11-year 2,421% return on investment [ROI]). Ranibizumab therapy cost $106,582 and returned $265,870 to society (249% ROI), whereas aflibercept treatment cost $61,811 and returned $310,611 to society (503% ROI). The 2018 NVAMD overall treatment cohort, 11-year net societal gain was $28.5 billion to patients and insurers, with $24.2 billion (84.9%) coming from bevacizumab therapy, $0.7 billion (2.5%) from ranibizumab therapy, and $3.6 billion (12.6%) from aflibercept therapy. Substituting bevacizumab for ranibizumab and aflibercept in the 2018 new-onset NVAMD patients would save an estimated $1.343 billion over 11 years. Vascular endothelial growth factor-inhibitor (VEGF-I) therapy in 2018 should contribute $12.2 billion to the Gross Domestic Product over 11 years. Late treatment would decrease this by 78% to $2.7 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal NVAMD bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept monotherapies accrue considerable financial, ROIs to patients and insurers as they increase national wealth.

Cost-Utility Analysis of VEGF Inhibitors for Treating Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

PURPOSE: To perform 11- and 2-year health care sector (ophthalmic) and societal cost perspective reference case, cost-utility analyses comparing bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept monotherapies for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD). DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis. METHODS: The authors performed 11-year and 2-year ophthalmic and societal cost perspective, cost-utility analyses comparing bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept monotherapies for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD). We employed patient utilities, bilateral outcomes, 2018 U.S. dollars, vision-related mortality, a Medicare fee schedule, and CATT (Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments) study and VIEW (VEGF Trap-Eye: Investigation of Efficacy and Safety in Wet AMD) trial. Cochrane data were also used. SETTING: Center for Value-Based Medicine. Patient/study population: patients with NVAMD. INTERVENTION: Cost-utility analyses using published data. Data-modeled 10-year vision outcomes were modeled forward to year 11. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: These included cost-utility ratios (CURs), costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. $100,00/QALY was considered the US cost-effectiveness upper limit. RESULTS: Bevacizumab and ranibizumab each conferred an 11-year, 1.339 QALY gain versus observation. Aflibercept conferred a 1.380 QALY gain. Aflibercept conferred greater QALY gain for less cost than ranibizumab but was not cost-effective compared to bevacizumab ($1,151,451/QALY incremental CUR). The average ophthalmic cost perspective CUR for bevacizumab was $11,033/QALY, $79,600/QALY for ranibizumab, and $44,801/QALY for aflibercept. Eleven-year therapies saved a 1.0 year-of-life loss without treatment from the 11.0-year life expectancy. Early treatment was 138%-149% more cost-effective than late treatment. Two-year therapy prevented a 1-month-of-life loss, and revealed bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept conferred 0.141, 0.141, and 0.164 QALY gains, respectively, with corresponding average CURs of $40,371/QALY, $335,726/QALY, and $168,006/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From an ophthalmic (medical) cost perspective, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept NVAMD monotherapies were all cost-effective over 11 years, with bevacizumab 6.21× more cost-effective than ranibizumab and 3.06× more cost-effective than aflibercept. Two-year modeling revealed bevacizumab was cost-effective, whereas ranibizumab and aflibercept were not. Early treatment was critical for obtaining optimal vision and cost-effectiveness, as is long-term follow-up and adherence to treatment.

Vision utilities in Italy and the United States: Comparison of time tradeoff vision utilities.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To compare time tradeoff vision utilities from two developed Western countries to ascertain whether these vision-related, quality-of-life preferences are similar. METHODS: Time tradeoff utilities were acquired from ophthalmology patient populations with ophthalmic pathologic conditions by personal interview in Italy and the United States using a reliable and previously validated, standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: Data from 47 consecutive Italian participants and 325 consecutive American participants were compared. The populations were matched for gender, age, and ophthalmic pathologic conditions. The utilities for the various vision sub-cohort levels, characterized according to vision in the better-seeing eye for the Italian/American cohorts were as follows: (1) 20/20 sub-cohort, Italian/American mean utilities = 0.82/0.91 (p = 0.10); (2) 20/25-20/30 sub-cohort, Italian/American mean utilities = 0.79/0.86, (p = 0.05); (3) 2040-20/100 sub-cohort, Italian/American mean utilities = 0.76/0.74 (p = 0.70); and (4) 20/200 or less sub-cohort, Italian/American mean utilities = 0.66/0.58 (p = 0.58). CONCLUSION: Vision-related quality of life, as measured by time tradeoff utilities, was similar in Italian and American ophthalmic populations. This information is relevant when comparing quality of life and cost-utility analyses across international borders.

Ethnicity and Diabetic Quality-of-Life.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have addressed ethnic diabetes mellitus (diabetes) care inequalities. But few have assessed whether ethnicity influences patient perceptions of diabetic quality-of-life (QOL). The authors therefore designed a cross-sectional study to quantify the overall QOL associated with diabetes in consecutive white (Caucasian) and black (African-American) participants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A validated, time tradeoff utility instrument was consecutively administered by interview to 518 white and 92 African-American, adult, diabetic participants in an ambulatory setting. The instrument calculates QOL by quantifying a utility associated with their condition, with utility anchors of 1.00 (perfect health for that condition permanently) and 0.00 (death). Utility acquisition as used herein, first requires asking participants to estimate their theoretical remaining time of life, then subtracting from 1.00 the maximum proportion of their estimated remaining time of life they would be willing to hypothetically trade-if any-to permanently cure their condition (diabetes). Thus, a diabetic participant estimating 20 remaining years of life who will theoretically trade 3 of those years to cure their diabetes, has a diabetes-associated utility of [1.00 - (3/20) =)] 0.85. The closer the utility is to 1.00, the better the QOL associated with a condition, while the closer it is to 0.00, the poorer the associated QOL. RESULTS: The mean diabetes utility (QOL) for the white, diabetic participant cohort was 0.87, while that for the black cohort was 0.86 (P = 0.95). The ethnic cohorts were matched for age (P = 0.70), sex (P = 0.64), level of education (P = 0.29), known years of having diabetes (P = 0.10), insulin use (P = 0.23), type of diabetes (P = 0.27) and the number of associated comorbidities (P = 0.23). There was no difference between the cohorts for the presence and severity of the individual, diabetes-related comorbidities of retinopathy (P = 0.15), nephropathy (P = 0.24), neuropathy (P = 0.52), depression (P = 0.23) and heart disease (P = 0.32). Multiple linear regression integrating both cohorts revealed no effect of ethnicity upon diabetes utility (P = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes-related QOL was similar in matched cohorts of adult white and black participants with diabetes mellitus. This study suggests utilities for diabetes mellitus can be used in economic analyses without adjustment for white and black ethnicity.

Cost-utility analysis of cataract surgery in the United States for the year 2018.

PURPOSE: To perform a cost-utility analysis of 2018 United States real dollars for cataract surgery. SETTING: Center for Value-Based Medicine, Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis. METHODS: A base-case 14-year cost-utility model using the ophthalmic cost perspective was used. Third-party insurer and societal cost perspectives were also analyzed. Patient outcomes and costs were discounted with net present value analysis at 3% a year. RESULTS: First-eye cataract surgery resulted in a 2.523 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain, a 33.3% patient value gain, and 25.5% quality-of-life gain. Bilateral surgery yielded a 44.1% patient value gain, while second-eye cataract surgery alone conferred an 8.1% value gain. First-eye cataract surgery resulted in a gain of 2.52 QALYs, while second-eye surgery added an incremental gain of 0.81 QALYs. The ophthalmic-cost-perspective average cost-utility ratio was $2526/2.523 = $1001/QALY for first-eye cataract surgery. The societal-cost-perspective average cost-utility ratio was -$370 018/2.523 = -$146 629/QALY. The second-eye ophthalmic-cost-perspective cost-utility ratio was $2526/0.814 = $3101/QALY, while the ophthalmic-cost-perspective cost-utility ratio for bilateral cataract surgery was $5052/3.338 = $1514/QALY. The 14-year U.S. 2018 real-dollar societal-cost-perspective net return on investment for first-eye cataract surgery was $370 018 above the $2526 cost expended for cataract surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Cataract surgery in both the first eye and second eye, when analyzed by standard health economic methodologies, is highly cost-effective. Cataract surgery in 2018 was 73.7% more cost-effective than in 2000.

Patient Preference-Based Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis of the Prostamides for Open-Angle Glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To perform patient preference-based comparative effectiveness and cost-utility (cost-effectiveness) analyses to evaluate topical bimatoprost 0.01%, latanoprost 0.005%, travoprost 0.004%, tafluprost 0.0015%, and timolol 0.5% for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma (OAG). METHODS: Value-Based Medicine®, incremental cost-utility analysis, and average cost-utility analysis were performed using published systematic review and network meta-analyses with 3-month clinical data for a base case of OAG with an untreated intraocular pressure of 26 mm Hg. Visual acuity and visual field changes were converted to time tradeoff utility format. A 20-year model was undertaken; bilateral therapy was presumed; a national average Medicare Fee Schedule was used; and ophthalmic, third party insurer, and societal cost perspectives were utilized. Patient value outcomes (QALYs or quality-adjusted life-years) and costs were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: Bimatoprost conferred a mean 2.56 QALY gain (22.9% patient quality-of-life gain) for the average OAG patient, while latanoprost for the average OAG patient, while latanoprost conferred a 2.00 QALY gain (17.8% quality-of-life gain), tafluprost a 1.99 QALY gain (17.9% quality-of-life gain), travoprost a l.92 QALY gain (17.2% quality-of-life gain), and timolol a 1.42 QALY gain (12.8% quality-of-life gain). The ophthalmic cost-perspective, incremental cost-utility ratio of bimatoprost referent to travoprost was $6,034/QALY, to latanoprost was $27,973/QALY, and to timolol was $16,063/QALY. Bimatoprost dominated tafluprost, meaning that it conferred greater patient value for lesser cost than tafluprost. CONCLUSIONS: Topical bimatoprost delivers greater patient value than the other prostamides and topical timolol for the treatment of OAG. Bimatoprost is incrementally cost-effective referent to the other prostamides and timolol.

Health care stakeholder perceptions of vision loss.

Perceptions of the quality of life (QOL) associated with vision loss vary widely. Herein, we consider the perceptions of patients with vision loss as the criterion for QOL quantification associated with vision loss. With the QOL instrument, time tradeoff utility analysis, the upper anchor of 1.00 is associated with permanent normal vision, whereas the lower anchor of 0.00 is associated with death. A time tradeoff utility of 0.26 is associated with no light perception bilaterally. Patients with legal blindness in the US (≤20/200 vision bilaterally) have a mean time tradeoff utility of 0.47. The general public, however, associates legal blindness with a time tradeoff utility of 0.86. Thus, legally blind patients consider their QOL loss from blindness to be 279% (1.00-0.47/1.00-0.86) worse than does the American public. Public estimates of the QOL loss from blindness (utility = 0.86) suggest it is less debilitating than patient QOL estimates for migraine headaches (utility = 0.83). The mean medical student blindness utility estimate is 0.86, whereas that for non-ophthalmic physicians is 0.82. Ophthalmologists underestimated the QOL associated with vision loss in macular degeneration patients by 96%-750%. Underestimating the QOL loss from blindness likely diminishes the perceived benefit of blindness interventions. Minimization of interventional benefit by underestimating patient impairment from vision loss could lead to adverse consequences for patients with vision loss, for vision research, for and those who treat vision loss.

Vision-Related Quality of Life Associated with Unilateral and Bilateral Ocular Conditions.

PURPOSE: To present ophthalmic patient time-tradeoff vision utilities for quantifying vision-related quality-of-life when the fellow eye still has good vision. These utilities are important for performing reliable cost-utility analyses. DESIGN: Consecutive time-tradeoff vision utilities were obtained from ophthalmic patients with good vision (20/20-20/25) in one eye and vision ranging from 20/20 to no light perception in the fellow eye over a 15-year period from 2000 through 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred eighty-six ophthalmic participant interviews from Wills Eye Hospital, New York Eye and Ear Hospital, and ophthalmology office practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. METHODS: Participants underwent a full ophthalmic examination, after which time-tradeoff vision utilities were obtained by personal interview by the authors using a standardized, validated instrument. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time-tradeoff vision utilities. RESULTS: Mean time-tradeoff vision utilities were as follows in participants with good vision (20/20-20/25) in at least one eye and the following visions in the fellow eyes: no light perception, 0.79; counting fingers to light perception, 0.87; 20/200 to 20/400, 0.88; 20/60 to 20/100, 0.88; 20/30 to 20/50, 0.87; and 20/20 to 20/25, 0.94. CONCLUSIONS: In people with good vision (20/20-20/25) in one eye, the associated mean time-tradeoff vision utility is a remarkably consistent 0.87 to 0.88 when vision in the fellow eye ranges from 20/30 to light perception. Vision of 20/20 to 20/25 in the fellow eye results in a significantly higher associated utility of 0.94 (P < 0.01), whereas vision of no light perception in the fellow eye results in a significantly lower utility of 0.079 (P < 0.01). These utilities are important for calculating reliable patient value (quality-adjusted life-year) gains in ophthalmic cost-utility analysis populations in which there is unilateral and bilateral disease involvement.

Cost-Utility of Evaluation for Posterior Vitreous Detachment and Prophylaxis of Retinal Detachment.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the costs and cost-utility of examination for posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) and treatment of associated pathology, and of managing various other peripheral retinal disorders to prevent retinal detachment (RD). DESIGN: A decision analysis model of cost-utility. PARTICIPANTS: There were no participants. METHODS: Published retrospective data on the natural course of PVD, retinal tears, and lattice degeneration were used to quantitate the visual benefits of examination and treatment. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services data were used to calculate associated modeled costs in a hospital/facility-based and nonfacility/ambulatory surgical center (ASC)-based setting. Published standards of utility for a given level of visual acuity were used to derive costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost of evaluation and treatment, utility of defined health states, QALY, and cost per QALY. RESULTS: The modeled cost of evaluation of a patient with PVD and treatment of associated pathology in the facility/hospital (nonfacility/ASC)-based setting was $65 to $190 ($25-$71) depending on whether a single or 2-examination protocol was used. The cost per QALY saved was $255 to $638/QALY ($100-$239/QALY). Treatment of a symptomatic horseshoe tear resulted in a net cost savings of $1749 ($1314) and improved utility, whereas treatment of an asymptomatic horseshoe tear resulted in $2981/QALY ($1436/QALY). Treatment of asymptomatic lattice degeneration in an eye in which the fellow eye had a history of RD resulted in $4414/QALY ($2187/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation and management of incident acute PVD (and symptomatic horseshoe tears) offer a low cost and a favorable cost-utility (low $/QALY) as a result of the minimization of the cost and morbidity associated with the development of RD, thus justifying current practice standards.