Do Quality-Adjusted Life Years Discriminate Against the Elderly? An Empirical Analysis of Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.

OBJECTIVES: Critics of quality-adjusted life-years argue that it discriminates against older individuals. However, little empirical evidence has been produced to inform this debate. This study aimed to compare published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) on patients aged ≥65 years and those aged <65 years. METHODS: We used the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry to identify CEAs published in MEDLINE between 1976 and 2021. Eligible CEAs were categorized according to age (≥65 years vs <65 years). The distributions of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were compared between the age groups. We used logistic regression to assess the association between age groups and the cost-effectiveness conclusion adjusted for confounding factors. We conducted sensitivity analyses to explore the impact of mixed age and age-unknown groups and all ICERs from the same CEAs. Subgroup analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 4445 CEAs categorized according to age <65 years (n = 3784) and age ≥65 years (n = 661) were included in the primary analysis. The distributions of ICERs and the likelihood of concluding that the intervention was cost-effective were similar between the 2 age groups. Adjusted odds ratios ranged from 1.132 (95% CI 0.930-1.377) to 1.248 (95% CI 0.970-1.606) (odds ratio >1 indicating that CEAs for age ≥65 years were more likely to conclude the intervention was cost-effective than those for age <65 years). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses found similar results. CONCLUSION: Our analysis found no systematic differences in published ICERs using quality-adjusted life-years between CEAs for individuals aged ≥65 years and those for individuals aged <65 years.

Attitudes on Equal Health Care Access versus Efficient Clinical Decisions across a Not-for-Profit Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: Professional roles within a hospital system may influence attitudes behind clinical decisions. OBJECTIVE: To determine participants' preferences about clinical decisions that either value equal health care access or efficiency. DESIGN: Deidentified survey asking participants to choose between offering a low-cost screening test to a whole population ("equal access") or a more sensitive, expensive test that could be given to only half of the population but resulting in 10% more avoided deaths ("efficient"). Data collection took place from August 18, 2021, to January 24, 2022. Study 1644 was determined to be exempt by Tufts Health Sciences Institutional Review Board (IRB). SETTING: Tufts Medicine Healthcare System. PARTICIPANTS: Approximately 15,000 hospital employees received an e-mail from the Tufts Medicine Senior Vice President of Academic Integration. MEASUREMENTS: Analysis of survey responses with chi-square and 1-sample t tests to determine the proportion who chose each option. Logistic regression models fit to examine relationships between professional role and test choice. RESULTS: A total of 1,346 participants completed the survey (∼9.0% response rate). Overall, approximately equal percentages of respondents chose the "equal access" (48%) and "efficient" option (52%). However, gender, professional role (categorical), and clinical role (dichotomous) were significantly associated with test choice. For example, among those in nonclinical roles, women were more likely than men to choose equal health care access. In multivariable analyses, having clinical roles was significantly associated with 1.73 times the likelihood of choosing equal access (95% confidence interval = 1.33-2.25). LIMITATIONS: Generalizability concerns and survey question wording limit the study results. CONCLUSION: Clinicians were more likely than nonclinicians to choose the equal health care access option, and health care administrators were more likely to choose efficiency. These differing attitudes can affect patient care and health care quality. HIGHLIGHTS: Divergent preferences of valuing equal health care access and efficiency may be in conflict during clinical decision making.In this cross-sectional study that included 1,346 participants, approximately equal percentages of respondents chose the "equal access" (48%) and "efficient" option (52%), a nonsignificant difference. However, gender, professional role (categorical), and clinical role (dichotomous) were significantly associated with test choiceSince clinicians were more likely than nonclinicians to choose the equal health care access option and health care administrators were more likely to choose efficiency, these differing attitudes can affect patient care and health care quality.

Life-Sustaining Treatments Among Medicare Beneficiaries with and without Dementia at the End of Life.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with dementia including Alzheimer's disease may have difficulty communicating their treatment preferences and thus may receive intensive end-of-life (EOL) care that confers limited benefits. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the use of life-sustaining interventions during the last 90 days of life among Medicare beneficiaries with and without dementia. METHODS: This cohort study utilized population-based national survey data from the 2000-2016 Health and Retirement Study linked with Medicare and Medicaid claims. Our sample included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older deceased between 2000 and 2016. The main outcome was receipt of any life-sustaining interventions during the last 90 days of life, including mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, tube feeding, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We used logistic regression, stratified by nursing home use, to examine dementia status (no dementia, non-advanced dementia, advanced dementia) and patient characteristics associated with receiving those interventions. RESULTS: Community dwellers with dementia were more likely than those without dementia to receive life-sustaining treatments in their last 90 days of life (advanced dementia: OR = 1.83 [1.42-2.35]; non-advanced dementia: OR = 1.16 [1.01-1.32]). Advance care planning was associated with lower odds of receiving life-sustaining treatments in the community (OR = 0.84 [0.74-0.96]) and in nursing homes (OR = 0.68 [0.53-0.86]). More beneficiaries with advanced dementia received interventions discordant with their EOL treatment preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Community dwellers with advanced dementia were more likely to receive life-sustaining treatments at the end of life and such treatments may be discordant with their EOL wishes. Enhancing advance care planning and patient-physician communication may improve EOL care quality for persons with dementia.

Improving Food and Drug Administration-Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coordination for Drugs Granted Accelerated Approval.

Policy Points The increasing number of drugs granted accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has challenged the Medicare program, which often pays for expensive therapies despite substantial uncertainty about benefits and risks to Medicare beneficiaries. We recommend several administrative and legislative approaches for improving FDA-Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) coordination around accelerated-approval drugs, including promoting earlier discussions among the FDA, the CMS, and drug companies; strengthening Medicare's coverage with evidence development program; linking Medicare payment to evidence generation milestones; and ensuring that the CMS has adequate staffing and resources to evaluate new therapies. These activities can help improve the integrity; transparency; and efficiency of approval, coverage, and payment processes for drugs granted accelerated approval. CONTEXT: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s accelerated-approval pathway expedites patient access to promising treatments. However, increasing use of this pathway has challenged the Medicare program, which often pays for expensive therapies despite substantial uncertainty about benefits and risks to Medicare beneficiaries. We examined approaches to improve coordination between the FDA and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for drugs granted accelerated approval. METHODS: We argue that policymakers have focused on expedited pathways at the FDA without sufficient attention to complementary policies at the CMS. Although differences between the FDA and CMS decisions are to be expected given the agencies' different missions and statutory obligations, procedural improvements can ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have timely access to novel therapies that are likely to improve health outcomes. To inform policy options and recommendations, we conducted semistructured interviews with stakeholders to capture diverse perspectives on the topic. FINDINGS: We recommend ten areas for consideration: clarifying the FDA's evidentiary standards; strengthening FDA authorities; promoting earlier discussions among the FDA, the CMS, and drug companies; improving Medicare's coverage with evidence development program; tying Medicare payment for accelerated-approval drugs to evidence generation milestones; issuing CMS guidance on real-world evidence; clarifying Medicare's "reasonable and necessary" criteria; adopting lessons from international regulatory-reimbursement harmonization efforts; ensuring that the CMS has adequate staffing and expertise; and emphasizing equity. CONCLUSIONS: Better coordination between the FDA and CMS could improve the transparency and predictability of drug approval and coverage around accelerated-approval drugs, with important implications for patient outcomes, health spending, and evidence generation processes. Improved coordination will require reforms at both the FDA and CMS, with special attention to honoring the agencies' distinct authorities. It will require administrative and legislative actions, new resources, and strong leadership at both agencies.

Follow-On Indications for Orphan Drugs Related to the Inflation Reduction Act.

This cohort study assesses rates at which orphan drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration were also approved for supplemental (follow-on) indications.

A review of HTA guidelines on societal and novel value elements.

OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessment (HTA) organizations vary in terms of how they conduct assessments. We assess whether and to what extent HTA bodies have adopted societal and novel elements of value in their economic evaluations. METHODS: After categorizing "societal" and "novel" elements of value, we reviewed fifty-three HTA guidelines. We collected data on whether each guideline mentioned each societal or novel element of value, and if so, whether the guideline recommended the element's inclusion in the base case, sensitivity analysis, or qualitative discussion in the HTA. RESULTS: The HTA guidelines mention on average 5.9 of the twenty-one societal and novel value elements we identified (range 0-16), including 2.3 of the ten societal elements and 3.3 of the eleven novel value elements. Only four value elements (productivity, family spillover, equity, and transportation) appear in over half of the HTA guidelines, whereas thirteen value elements are mentioned in fewer than one-sixth of the guidelines, and two elements receive no mention. Most guidelines do not recommend value element inclusion in the base case, sensitivity analysis, or qualitative discussion in the HTA. CONCLUSIONS: Ideally, more HTA organizations will adopt guidelines for measuring societal and novel value elements, including analytic considerations. Importantly, simply recommending in guidelines that HTA bodies consider novel elements may not lead to their incorporation into assessments or ultimate decision making.

Developing Criteria for Health Economic Quality Evaluation Tool.

OBJECTIVES: Because existing publication guidelines and checklists have limitations when used to assess the quality of cost-effectiveness analysis, we developed a novel quality assessment tool for cost-effectiveness analyses, differentiating methods and reporting quality and incorporating the relative importance of different quality attributes. METHODS: We defined 15 quality domains from a scoping review and identified 72 methods and reporting quality attributes (36 each). After designing a best-worst scaling survey, we fielded an online survey to researchers and practitioners to estimate the relative importance of the attributes in February 2021. We analyzed the survey data using a sequential conditional logit model. The final tool included 48 quality attributes deemed most important for assessing methods and reporting quality (24 each), accompanied by a free and web-based scoring system. RESULTS: A total of 524 participants completed the methodology section, and 372 completed both methodology and reporting sections. Quality attributes pertaining to the "modeling" and "data inputs and evidence synthesis" domains were deemed most important for methods quality, including "structure of the model reflects the underlying condition and intervention's impact" and "model validation is conducted." Quality attributes pertaining to "modeling" and "Intervention/comparator(s)" domains were considered most important for reporting quality, including "model descriptions are detailed enough for replication." Despite its growing prominence, "equity considerations" were not deemed as important as other quality attributes. CONCLUSIONS: The Criteria for Health Economic Quality Evaluation tool allows users to differentiate methods and reporting as well as quantifies the relative importance of quality attributes. Alongside other considerations, it could help assess and improve the quality of cost-effectiveness evidence to inform value-based decisions.

Cost-effectiveness Thresholds Used by Study Authors, 1990-2021.

This study examines what study authors consider to be appropriate cost-effectiveness analysis thresholds as reflected in the referenced thresholds in their published cost-effectiveness analyses.

Recommendations for economic evaluations of cell and gene therapies: a systematic literature review with critical appraisal.

OBJECTIVE: No consensus exists on the ideal methodology to evaluate the economic impact and value of new, potentially curative gene therapies. We aimed to identify and describe published methodologic recommendations for the economic evaluation of gene therapies and assess whether these recommendations have been applied in published evaluations. METHODS: This study was conducted in three stages: a systematic literature review of methodologic recommendations for economic evaluation of gene therapies; an assessment of the appropriateness of recommendations; and a review to assess the degree to which the recommendations were applied in published evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 2,888 references were screened, 83 articles were reviewed to assess eligibility, and 20 papers were included. Fifty recommendations were identified, and 21 reached consensus thresholds. Most evaluations were based on naive treatment comparisons and did not apply consensus recommendations. Innovative payment mechanisms for gene therapies were rarely considered. The only widely applied recommendations related to modeling choices and methods. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological recommendations for economic evaluations of gene therapies are generally not being followed. Assessing the applicability and impact of the recommendations from this study may facilitate the implementation of consensus recommendations in future evaluations.

Examining US commercial health plans' use of The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's reports in specialty drug coverage decisions.

BACKGROUND: The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) has emerged in a visible role in US health care. However, it is unclear to what extent US commercial health plans use ICER value assessments in their specialty drug coverage decisions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between ICER's reported cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and coverage restrictiveness. Also, to examine the frequency with which plans have cited ICER in their coverage policies and to investigate how frequently health plans adjusted their drug coverage criteria in the 12 months after ICER's assessments. METHODS: We analyzed the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage Database, which includes specialty drug coverage decisions issued by 17 large US commercial health plans. For ICER-assessed drugs, we recorded ICER's estimated CERs in the form of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. First, we used multivariate logistic regression to examine the association between ICER's reported CERs and plan coverage restrictiveness, when controlling for other factors that were likely to affect decision-making. Next, we examined how often plans cited ICER's assessments in coverage decisions issued in years 2017-2020. Lastly, we examined whether plans added or removed coverage restrictions (eg, patient subgroup restrictions or step therapy protocols) in the 12 months following ICER's assessment. RESULTS: Plans tended to cover drugs with higher (less favorable) CERs more restrictively than drugs with CERs less than $100,000 per QALY: odds ratio (OR) = 4.48 if $100,000-$175,000 per QALY; OR = 2.00 if $175,000-$500,000 per QALY; and OR = 2.10 if $500,000 or more per QALY (all P < 0.01). Plans cited ICER in 0.8% (5/622) of coverage policies in 2017, 0.6% (5/833) in 2018, 1.7% (19/1,139) in 2019, and 2.4% (33/1,406) in 2020. For drugs with CERs less than $175,000 per QALY, plans adjusted coverage in 37% of cases: added restrictions in 20%, removed restrictions in 15%, and added one restriction but removed another in 2%. For drugs with CERs of $175,000 or more, plans changed coverage criteria in 29% of cases: added restrictions in 21%, removed restrictions in 5%, and added one restriction but removed another in 4%. CONCLUSIONS: We found that when controlling for other factors, health plans' specialty drug coverage decisions were associated with ICER's estimated CERs. Plans infrequently cited ICER value assessments. We did not observe a trend for plans more often narrowing coverage criteria for drugs with CERs $175,000 or more compared with drugs with CERs less than $175,000. DISCLOSURES: This research study was supported by a consortium of funders: Amgen, Genen-tech, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka, and GSK.

Toward comprehensive value assessment for Alzheimer's disease innovations.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing medical technologies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) creates challenges for current methods of value assessment. New value assessment approaches for AD are also needed. METHODS: We adapted concepts from health economics to help guide decision makers to more informed decisions about AD therapies and diagnostics. RESULTS: We propose a value framework based on five categories: perspective, value elements, analysis, reporting, and decision making. AD value assessments should include the perspective of the patient-caregiver dyad. We propose a broader array of value elements than currently used. Analytics and decision methods can synthesize evidence for all elements of value. Decisions should use a "deliberative appraisal" approach informed by the composite evidence and be transparently reported. DISCUSSION: Using the proposed framework, the value of forthcoming innovations for AD may be more thoroughly assessed for and by all stakeholders. It can guide decision makers to carefully consider all relevant elements of value contributing to more holistic and transparent decision making. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Alzheimer's disease challenges common methods of evaluating medical technology. Using current methods, new AD innovations might not be appropriately valued. Poor value assessments will adversely affect patient access to AD innovations. A full AD value framework expands perspective, elements, analysis, decision-making, reporting.

Alzheimer's disease medication use and adherence patterns by race and ethnicity.

BACKGROUND: We examined racial and ethnic differences in medication use for a representative US population of patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). METHODS: We examined cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine initiation, non-adherence, and discontinuation by race and ethnicity, using data from the 2000-2016 Health and Retirement Study linked with Medicare and Medicaid claims. RESULTS: Among newly diagnosed ADRD patients (n = 1299), 26% filled an ADRD prescription ≤90 days and 36% ≤365 days after diagnosis. Among individuals initiating ADRD-targeted treatment (n = 1343), 44% were non-adherent and 24% discontinued the medication during the year after treatment initiation. Non-Hispanic Blacks were more likely than Whites to not adhere to ADRD medication therapy (odds ratio: 1.50 [95% confidence interval: 1.07-2.09]). DISCUSSION: Initiation of ADRD-targeted medications did not vary by ethnoracial group, but non-Hispanic Blacks had lower adherence than Whites. ADRD medication non-adherence and discontinuation were substantial and may relate to cost and access to care. HIGHLIGHTS: Initiation of anti-dementia medications among newly diagnosed Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) patients was low in all ethnoracial groups. ADRD medication non-adherence and discontinuation were substantial and may relate to cost and access to care. Compared to Whites, Blacks and Hispanics had lower use, poorer treatment adherence, and more frequent discontinuation of ADRD medication, but when controlling for disease severity and socioeconomic factors, racial disparities diminish. Our findings demonstrate the importance of adjusting for socioeconomic characteristics and disease severity when studying medication use and adherence in ADRD patients.

Patient and Caregiver Views on Measures of the Value of Health Interventions.

Purpose: We aimed to investigate patient and caregiver views on the relative importance of traditional and nontraditional domains of value, and to determine if these views differed according to key demographic characteristics. Patients and Methods: We conducted a modified Delphi approach using a web-based survey of adult patients managing a chronic condition or caregivers of a patient with chronic illness who were recruited using purposive sampling focused on demographic and clinical characteristics. The first survey round asked participants to rate the 13 domains of value on a 5-point Likert scale and rank each domain that they rated as important or very important. In the second survey round, participants reconsidered their own and aggregated round 1 results. New questions were added, including "rescuing" domains, challenges faced in taking medication, and a free-text option to add domains not already captured. Results: Initial recruitment resulted in 79 participants. Sixty-three (79.7%) completed the first round, and 58 participants completed both rounds. Overall ratings and rankings were consistent between survey rounds, and respondents ranked most highly domains considered traditional domains of value (for example, survival, costs). Patient activists were about six times more likely to rate each domain as important or very important compared to general disease advocates. Significant factors associated with a higher odds of rating a domain as important or very important were age 35-54 and 55-64 compared to 18-34, while factors associated with a decreased odds were males and patients compared to caregivers. Conclusion: Patients and caregivers place significant emphasis on traditional measures of value compared to nontraditional measures, and participants' prior beliefs impact what aspects of value they deem important.

Low-Value Prostate-Specific Antigen Test for Prostate Cancer Screening and Subsequent Health Care Utilization and Spending.

Importance: Delivering low-value care can lead to unnecessary follow-up services and associated costs, and such care cascades have not been well examined in common clinical scenarios. Objective: To evaluate the utilization and costs of care cascades of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests for prostate cancer screening, as the routine use of which among asymptomatic men aged 70 years and older is discouraged by multiple guidelines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included men aged 70 years and older without preexisting prostate conditions enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan during January 2016 to December 2018 with at least 1 outpatient visit. Medical billing claims data from the deidentified OptumLabs Data Warehouse were used. Data analysis was conducted from September 2020 to August 2021. Exposures: At least 1 claim for low-value PSA tests for prostate cancer screening during the observation period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Utilization of and spending on low-value PSA cancer screening and associated care cascades and the difference in overall health care utilization and spending among individuals receiving low-value PSA cancer screening vs those who did not, adjusting for observed characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results: Of 995 442 men (mean [SD] age, 78.0 [5.6] years) aged 70 years or older in a Medicare Advantage plan included in this study, 384 058 (38.6%) received a low-value PSA cancer screening. Utilization increased for each subsequent cohort from 2016 to 2018 (49 802 of 168 951 [29.4%] to 134 404 of 349 228 [38.5%] to 199 852 of 477 203 [41.9%]). Among those receiving initial low-value PSA cancer screening, 241 188 of 384 058 (62.8%) received at least 1 follow-up service. Repeated PSA testing was the most common, and 27 268 (7.1%) incurred high-cost follow-up services, such as imaging, radiation therapy, and prostatectomy. Utilization and spending associated with care cascades also increased from 2016 to 2018. For every $1 spent on a low-value PSA cancer screening, an additional $6 was spent on care cascades. Despite avoidable care cascades, individuals who received low-value PSA cancer screening were not associated with increased overall health care utilization and spending during the 1-year follow-up period compared with an unscreened population. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, low-value PSA tests for prostate cancer screening remained prevalent among Medicare Advantage plan enrollees and were associated with unnecessary expenditures due to avoidable care cascades. Innovative efforts from clinicians and policy makers, such as payment reforms, to reduce initial low-value care and avoidable care cascades are warranted to decrease harm, enhance equity, and improve health care efficiency.