Health care resource utilization, quality metrics, and costs of bladder cancer within the Oncology Care Model.

OBJECTIVES: New and emerging therapies have significantly changed the bladder cancer (BC) treatment landscape and can potentially affect spending and patient care in CMS' Oncology Care Model (OCM), a service delivery and payment model for voluntarily participating practices. The objectives of this analysis were to estimate health care resource utilization (HCRU) and benchmark spending per OCM episode of BC, and to model spending drivers and quality metrics. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of OCM episodes triggered by receipt of anticancer therapy among Medicare beneficiaries from 2016 to 2018. Based on this, an average performance estimation was conducted to assess the impact of hypothetical changes in novel therapy use by OCM practices. RESULTS: BC accounted for approximately 3% (n = 60,099) of identified OCM episodes. Relative to low-risk episodes, high-risk episodes were associated with greater HCRU and worse OCM quality metrics. Mean spending per high-risk episode was $37,857 (low-risk episode: $9204), with $11,051 spent on systemic therapies and $7158 on inpatient services. In the estimation, high- and low-risk BC exceeded the spending target by 1.7% and 9.4%, respectively. This did not affect payments to practices and no retrospective payments were necessary. CONCLUSIONS: As 3% of OCM episodes were attributed to BC, with only one-third classified as high-risk, controlling expenditure on novel therapies for advanced BC is unlikely to affect overall practice performance. The average performance estimation further emphasized the minimal impact that novel therapy spending in high-risk BC has on OCM payments to practices.

Real-World Phosphate Binder Use among Dialysis-Dependent Patients with CKD.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), the need for phosphate binder (PB) treatment peaks at onset of dialysis. This real-world study assessed rates of PB utilization and switching in patients with dialysis-dependent CKD (DD-CKD). METHODS: We identified patients with PB utilization among those with prevalent DD-CKD using 2018-2019 Medicare Parts A/B/D data. Patients were assigned to cohorts based on primary (most frequently used) PB among calcium acetate, ferric citrate, lanthanum carbonate, sevelamer (hydrochloride and carbonate), sucroferric oxyhydroxide. We measured proportion of patients who were adherent (proportion of days covered >80%) and persistent (patients whose last 90 days of outpatient dialysis reported PB use). Net switching rates were calculated as the difference between switches to and from the primary agent. RESULTS: We identified 136,912 patients with PB use. Proportion of patients adherent ranged from 63.8% (lanthanum carbonate) to 67.7% (sevelamer) and persistent from 85.1% (calcium acetate) to 89.5% (ferric citrate). Most patients (73%) used the same PB throughout the study. Overall, 20.5% of patients experienced one switch and 2.3% two or more. Positive net switching rates were observed for ferric citrate, sucroferric oxyhydroxide, and lanthanum carbonate (2-10%) but negative for sevelamer and calcium acetate (-2% to -7%). CONCLUSION: Adherence and persistence rates were low with slight variation across PBs. Net positive switching occurred for ferric citrate, sucroferric oxyhydroxide, and lanthanum carbonate. Further studies are needed to determine the reasons for these findings and could identify opportunities for better control of phosphate levels among patients with CKD.

Trends In Medical And Pharmacy Spending In The Affordable Care Act Markets, 2015-19.

To control rising costs, it is critical for payers, providers, and policy makers to understand trends in health care spending. Using data from both on- and off-exchange Affordable Care Act (ACA)-compliant small-group and individual insurance markets in the United States for the period 2015-19, we analyzed the contributions of trends in utilization, unit price, and service mix to growth in overall health care spending. Overall annual growth trends in health care spending per member per month during that period were 4.0 percent in the small-group market and 1.1 percent in the individual market. In the small-group market, professional and outpatient facility services contributed the most to spending growth, driven by unit price increases. In the individual market, pharmacy and outpatient facility services accounted for the greatest growth in spending, driven by a combination of unit price increases and changes in the mix of services. Addressing these contributors to growth can help contain costs and premiums and provide more stability to ACA-compliant insurance markets.

Costs by Site of Service for Commercially-Insured Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Receiving Guideline-Recommended Chemotherapy: Comparing Community Oncology and Hospital Outpatient Settings.

Purpose: Compare total cost of care (TCOC) for commercially-insured patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving FDA-approved/NCCN Category 1 preferred regimens in community oncology or hospital outpatient settings. Patients and Methods: We used the 2016-2019 MarketScan® and Milliman Consolidated Health Cost Guidelines Sources Database (CHSD) administrative claims data to compare utilization of healthcare services and expenditures for commercially-insured patients receiving chemotherapy in community oncology or hospital outpatient settings. We identified patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer using ICD-10 diagnosis codes in 2016-2019 MarketScan® and Milliman Consolidated Health Cost Guidelines Sources Database files. Patients were assigned to cohorts based on where they received the plurality of chemotherapy services: community oncology or hospital outpatient settings. Total cost of care (TCOC) and healthcare resource utilization metrics were calculated per line of therapy (LOT) for patients receiving similar chemotherapy regimens in each cohort, and differences between cohorts were evaluated using t-testing and chi-squared statistical methods. Results: Although cohorts had similar demographics, chemotherapy regimen use, and length of therapy, the mean TCOC among all patients receiving chemotherapy in hospital outpatient settings was 41% higher compared to community oncology settings. Median TCOC was 35% higher in hospital outpatient settings than in community oncology settings. Mean admissions and readmissions per beneficiary were 7% and 16% higher, respectively, for thse treated in hospital outpatient versus community oncology settings. We observed no differences in the use of emergency department or hospice care between the cohorts. Conclusion: Our study indicates that patients receiving chemotherapy at community oncology centers are associated with better or equivalent outcomes and lower costs than patients receiving the same regimen in a hospital outpatient setting.

Real-World Cost of Care for Commercially Insured versus Medicare Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Who Received Guideline-Recommended Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Much of the literature about the costs of metastatic pancreatic cancer is focused on the Medicare population, but the cost in the commercially insured population is not well-documented. Differences in treatment patterns between commercially insured and Medicare patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer can provide insights into healthcare utilization and the total cost of care. OBJECTIVE: To compare the total cost of care for commercially insured versus Medicare patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who are receiving National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-recommended treatment regimens. METHODS: We identified 3904 patients (mean age at diagnosis, 56 years) with metastatic pancreatic cancer using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth/Tenth Revision diagnosis codes in claims data in the 2014-2018 MarketScan commercial database and 28,063 patients (mean age at diagnosis, 73 years) with metastatic pancreatic cancer in the 2014-2017 Medicare Parts A, B, and D 100% research identifiable data files. We calculated the total cost of care and resource utilization by NCCN-recommended (category 1) treatment regimen, including 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX); gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel; gemcitabine monotherapy; and liposomal irinotecan. All patients had ≥2 claims with a pancreatic cancer diagnosis more than 30 days apart and ≥1 subsequent claims with a secondary malignancy diagnosis for metastatic disease. RESULTS: The mean total cost of care was 186% higher in the commercially insured cohort than in the Medicare cohort. Excluding gemcitabine monotherapy, the total cost of care for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer was similar between the regimens used in each cohort, ranging from $95,426 to $116,325 in the commercial insurance group and from $39,777 to $40,390 in the Medicare group. The components of hospital-based inpatient and outpatient costs varied between similar regimens in both cohorts. The inpatient admission patterns of patients' regimens were consistent across the 2 cohorts, with patients receiving gemcitabine monotherapy or liposomal irinotecan having the lowest overall number of admissions in each cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment patterns varied across the regimens but were largely consistent between the commercially insured and the Medicare patients who received the same regimen for metastatic pancreatic cancer; the ratio of total cost of care was 3:1 (commercially insured to Medicare). The total costs of care were similar across the regimens in each cohort, but the components of the total cost varied. These results can inform clinical guidelines and pathways for pancreatic cancer therapy as new evidence and treatment options emerge, and in the context of increasing value-based care models.

Small Changes or Big Ones? The Case of Limits on Prescription Drug Copayments in California.

Despite standardization, advocates for various industries and certain patient needs continue to propose changes in coverage rules. Much of the advocacy is occurring at the state level with a focus on pharmaceutical coverage, such as equalizing cost sharing between oral and infused oncology drugs or setting limits on cost sharing for prescriptions.

Newly Diagnosed Hepatitis C in the US Commercially Insured Population Before and After the 2012 Implementation of Expanded Screening Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: In the United States in 2014, more than 3 million individuals were estimated to have chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, including many undiagnosed individuals. In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expanded its HCV testing recommendations to target all adults born between 1945 and 1965, in addition to at-risk individuals, which has led to an increase in newly diagnosed patients. Few studies have explored the medical cost or clinical status of patients who are newly diagnosed with HCV. OBJECTIVE: To compare the demographics, comorbidities, and medical costs of patients who are newly diagnosed and those who were previously diagnosed with HCV infection. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective study using 2013 claims data from the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial database to compare patients newly diagnosed with HCV infection in 2013 and patients who were diagnosed before 2013. The patients were divided into 2 cohorts based on the time of diagnosis before and after 2013. All patients were classified by disease stage and by comorbidities, and were required to have continuous health plan enrollment between January 2010 and December 2013. The full-year costs were tabulated for every patient, regardless of the date of diagnosis. RESULTS: Of the 9193 patients with an HCV diagnosis in 2013 in the database, approximately 26% (N = 2428) were newly diagnosed in 2013, of whom 12% (N = 299) had advanced-stage HCV. The average age of the newly diagnosed patients was 49.5 years versus 54.1 years for previously diagnosed patients. Patients who were previously diagnosed had a higher prevalence of HIV, diabetes, and more severe cancers than patients who were newly diagnosed with HCV. Patients who were newly diagnosed with HCV had a higher prevalence of acute liver failure and drug-induced psychosis. The average annual per-patient per-month (PPPM) medical costs for both groups was approximately $2200 in 2013. The annual medical cost for a patient who was newly diagnosed increased sharply in the year before diagnosis, from approximately $588 PPPM for the 3 years before the diagnosis to approximately $854 PPPM in the year before diagnosis. CONCLUSION: In 2013, the healthcare costs of patients who were newly diagnosed with HCV were similar in their first year of diagnosis to the costs of patients who had been diagnosed previously, although patients who were previously diagnosed had more advanced-stage disease. Patients who were newly diagnosed had 3-fold the healthcare costs in their first year of diagnosis versus the costs in the 3 years before their diagnosis.

Does a One-Size-Fits-All Cost-Sharing Approach Incentivize Appropriate Medication Use? A Roundtable on the Fairness and Ethics Associated with Variable Cost Sharing.

BACKGROUND: Tiered formularies, in which patients pay copays or coinsurance out-of-pocket (OOP), are used to manage costs and encourage more efficient health care resource use. Formulary tiers are typically based on the cost of treatment rather than the medical appropriateness for the patient. Cost sharing may have unintended consequences on treatment adherence and health outcomes. Use of higher-cost, higher-tier medications can be due to a variety of factors, including unsuccessful treatment because of lack of efficacy or side effects, patient clinical or genetic characteristics, patient preferences to avoid potential side effects, or patient preferences based on the route of administration. For example, patients with rheumatoid arthritis may be required to fail low-cost generic treatments before obtaining coverage for a higher-tier tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor for which they would have a larger financial burden. Little is known about stakeholders' views on the acceptability of greater patient cost sharing if the individual patient characteristics lead to the higher-cost treatments. OBJECTIVE: To identify and discuss the trade-offs associated with variable cost sharing in pharmacy benefits. METHODS: To discuss the trade-offs associated with variable cost sharing in pharmacy benefits, we convened an expert roundtable of patient, payer, and employer representatives (panelists). Panelists reviewed background white papers, including an ethics framework; actuarial analysis; legal review; and stakeholder perspectives representing health plan, employer, and patient views. Using case studies, panelists were asked to consider (a) when it would be more (or less) acceptable to require higher cost sharing; (b) the optimal distribution of financial burdens across patients, all plan members, and employers; and (c) the existing barriers and potential solutions to align OOP costs with medically appropriate treatments. RESULTS: Panelists felt it was least acceptable for patients to have greater OOP costs if the use of the higher-cost treatment was due to biological reasons such as step therapy (6 = unacceptable, 9 = neutral, 2 = acceptable) or diagnostic results (5 = unacceptable, 10 = neutral, and 2 = acceptable). In contrast, panelists felt it was more acceptable for patients to pay greater OOP costs when treatment choice was based on preferences to avoid a side-effect risk (1 = unacceptable, 3 = neutral, and 13 = acceptable) or the route/frequency of administration (1 = unacceptable, 1 = neutral, and 15 = acceptable). Five guiding principles emerged from the discussion: When patients have tried lower-cost therapies unsuccessfully, the benefits of higher-cost treatments were certain and significant, the cost difference between treatments was aligned with improved benefits, and penalties due to bad luck were mitigated, then cost-sharing differences should be minimized but not eliminated. CONCLUSIONS: Patient OOP costs can affect the use of both inappropriate and appropriate medications. This study identified 5 guiding principles to determine when it was more (or less) acceptable for patients with the same or similar conditions to have different OOP costs. Barriers that hinder the alignment of care and patient cost sharing exist. Policies that facilitate the alignment of patient cost sharing with appropriate care are needed. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this roundtable was provided by the National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC). Graff and Dubois are employed by the NPC. Shih was employed by the NPC at the time of this study. Barker, Dieguez, Sherman, and Larson received consulting fees for participation in this study. Larson also reports receiving grants and other payment from multiple major pharmaceutical manufacturers outside of this study. The NPC employees developed the study design and chose the case studies in collaboration with the white paper authors. The roundtable was facilitated by Dubois, and the meeting summary and manuscript were written by Graff and Shih, with revisions by all roundtable participants. The abstract for this article was previously presented as a poster at the following meetings: Stakeholder perspectives on balancing patient-centeredness and drug costs in the design of pharmacy benefits. Presented at: Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 27th Annual Meeting & Expo; San Diego, California; April 8, 2015. Considering efficiency and fairness in the design of prescription drug benefits: seeking a balanced approach to improve patient access to medically appropriate medication and manage drug costs. Presented at: AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting; Minneapolis, Minnesota; June 15, 2015. Study concept and design were contributed by Shih, Dubois, and Graff, along with Barker and Dieguez. Barker and Dieguez took the lead in data collection, assisted by Graff, Shih, and Dubois. Data interpretation was performed by Shih, Larson, Sherman, and Graff, with assistance from Dubois. The manuscript was written and revised by Graff and Shih, with assistance from the other authors.

2016 reflections on the favorable cost-benefit of lung cancer screening.

This article gives a basic background on the confusing and often politicized topic of cost-benefit analysis in healthcare, using lung cancer screening as a case study. The authors are actuaries who work with the insurance industry, where real-world data is used to produce audited financial figures; other disciplines which work with cost-benefit analysis include those academic disciplines where randomized controlled trials may be perceived as the gold standard of evidence. In recent years, the finance and academic sectors of healthcare have begun to converge, as academic disciplines have come to increasingly appreciate real-world data, and insurers increasingly appreciate classical evidence-based medicine. Nevertheless, the variation of results in cost-benefit analyses for particular treatments can be bewildering to medical experts unfamiliar with real-world healthcare financing.

The cost of unintended pregnancies for employer-sponsored health insurance plans.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy is associated with a significant cost for employers providing health insurance benefits to their employees. The latest study on the topic was published in 2002, estimating the unintended pregnancy rate for women covered by employer-sponsored insurance benefits to be approximately 29%. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to update the cost of unintended pregnancy to employer-sponsored health insurance plans with current data. The secondary objective was to develop a regression model to identify the factors and associated magnitude that contribute to unintended pregnancies in the employee benefits population. METHODS: We developed stepwise multinomial logistic regression models using data from a national survey on maternal attitudes about pregnancy before and shortly after giving birth. The survey was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through mail and via telephone interviews between 2009 and 2011 of women who had had a live birth. The regression models were then applied to a large commercial health claims database from the Truven Health MarketScan to retrospectively assign the probability of pregnancy intention to each delivery. RESULTS: Based on the MarketScan database, we estimate that among employer-sponsored health insurance plans, 28.8% of pregnancies are unintended, which is consistent with national findings of 29% in a survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These unintended pregnancies account for 27.4% of the annual delivery costs to employers in the United States, or approximately 1% of the typical employer's health benefits spending for 1 year. Using these findings, we present a regression model that employers could apply to their claims data to identify the risk for unintended pregnancies in their health insurance population. CONCLUSION: The availability of coverage for contraception without employee cost-sharing, as was required by the Affordable Care Act in 2012, combined with the ability to identify women who are at high risk for an unintended pregnancy, can help employers address the costs of unintended pregnancies in their employee benefits population. This can also help to bring contraception efforts into the mainstream of other preventive and wellness programs, such as smoking cessation, obesity management, and diabetes control programs.