Patient and work flow and costs associated with staff time and facility usage at a comprehensive cancer centre in Quebec, Canada--a time and motion study.

BACKGROUND: Mapping patient and work flow and cost analysis studies can help determine the most efficient and cost effective way of providing health services while still maintaining the best standards of care. This study used both time and motion methodology and hospital data to assess the contribution of staff time and facility usage to the overall cost of cancer care during patient visits to a comprehensive cancer centre in Quebec, using metastatic colorectal cancer as a model. METHODS: A workflow diagram was created mapping direct and indirect steps involved during a patient's physician or treatment (FOLFOX/bevacizumab or XELOX/bevacizumab) visit. Staff were timed as they performed each task and this data together with compensation amounts were used to calculate personnel costs. Mean work times and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the Centre were calculated using information from hospital databases. All costs were presented in constant Canadian dollars for the 2010-2011 fiscal year period. RESULTS: For physician visits, direct and indirect personnel costs were $9.25 (95%CI:$7.00-$11.51) and O&M costs were $60.21, for a total of $69.46 (95%CI:$67.21-$71.72). For treatment visits, personnel and O&M costs were $71.91 (95%CI:$45.53-$98.29) and $62.00 respectively for a total of $133.91 (95%CI:$107.53-$160.29). When calculated for treatment alone, the total cost was $136.06 (95%CI:$109.16-$162.95) for FOLFOX/bevacizumab and $119.94 (95%CI:$96.89-$142.99) for XELOX/bevacizumab. The highest cumulative personnel costs were for the pharmacists and nurses ($38.87 and $34.82 respectively). Regarding patient flow, total time in between steps was 77.6 and 49.5 minutes for a physician or treatment visit respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study from a health care provider's perspective, demonstrated that in the context of increasingly expensive therapies, costs associated with staff time and facility usage do not contribute greatly to the overall cost of treating cancer at this cancer centre. It also illustrated the need for improvements in patient and work flow to reduce wait times in the clinic.

Economic impact of delays in listing decisions by provincial drug plans after a positive Common Drug Review recommendation: the case of a smoking-cessation treatment.

Although varenicline (Champix), a smoking-cessation treatment, was recommended for listing by the Common Drug Review (CDR) in 2007, only one CDR-participating drug insurance plan listed it in March 2011 (Saskatchewan). This study estimated the economic impact of delays in the public listing of varenicline in Canada. Using statistical data and peer-reviewed research, social costs and benefits of reimbursing varenicline were estimated. Flows of attempted and successful quitters were projected over a five-year period for three scenarios: immediate listing (2007), one- to four-year listing delays, and no reimbursement. Benefits of public reimbursement of varenicline would have been greatest in the first year ($271 million) and then decreased due to the erosion in smoking prevalence. The current three-year listing delay prevented a projected 17,729 current smokers from quitting, translating into a projected additional lifetime social burden of $700 million. The sizeable opportunity cost of delaying varenicline reimbursement implies broader economic issues for policy makers.

Projected economic impact of clinical findings of generic entry of topiramate on G4 European countries.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the effects of generic substitution of the antiepileptic drug (AED) topiramate (Topamax) in Canada; to convert observed Canadian costs into the settings of France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom (UK); and to forecast the economic impact of generic topiramate entry in these four European countries. DESIGN AND METHODS: Health claims from Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ) plan (1/2006-9/2008) and IMS Health data (1998-2008) were used. Patients with epilepsy and > or = 2 topiramate dispensings were selected. An open-cohort design was used to classify observation into mutually-exclusive periods of branded versus generic use of topiramate. Canadian healthcare utilization and costs (2007 CAN$/person-year) were compared between periods using multivariate models. Annualized per-patient costs (2007 euro or 2007 pound sterling/person-year) were converted using Canadian utilization rates, European prices and service-use ratios. Non-parametric bootstrap served to assess statistical significance of cost differences. Topiramate market was forecasted following generic entry (09/2009-09/2010) using autoregressive models based on the European experience. The economic impact of generic topiramate entry was estimated for each country. RESULTS: A total of 1164 patients (mean age: 39.8 years, 61.7% female) were observed for 2.6 years on average. After covariates adjustment, generic-use periods were associated with increased pharmacy dispensings (other AEDs: +0.95/person-year, non-AEDs: +12.28/person-year, p < 0.001), hospitalizations ( + 0.08/person-year, p = 0.015), and lengths of hospital stays (+0.51 days/person-year, p < 0.001). Adjusted costs, excluding topiramate, were CAN$1060/person-year higher during generic use (p = 0.005). Converted per-patient costs excluding topiramate were significantly higher for generic relative to brand periods in all European countries (adjusted cost differences per person-year: 706-815 euro, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). System-wide costs would increase from 3.5 to 24.4% one year after generic entry. LIMITATIONS: Study limitations include the absence of indirect costs, possible claim inaccuracies, and IMS data limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Higher health costs were projected for G4 European countries from the Canadian experience following the generic entry of topiramate.