Impact of Reimbursement Cuts on the Sustainability and Accessibility of Dopamine Transporter Imaging.

PURPOSE: Dopamine transporter single-photon emission computed tomography imaging utilizing iodine-123 ioflupane is accurate for differentiation of Parkinson disease from essential tremor. This study evaluates how reimbursement for I-123 ioflupane imaging changed between 2011 (year of FDA approval) and 2014 (year after loss of pass-through status for hospital-based outpatient imaging from CMS). METHODS: I-123 ioflupane reimbursement data for our institution's hospital-based imaging were compared between two periods: (1) July 2011 to October 2012, and (2) 2014. For each time period separately and in combination, averages and ranges of reimbursement for private insurance and CMS were analyzed and compared. A model to ensure recouping of radiopharmaceutical costs was developed. RESULTS: Review yielded 247 studies from July 2011 to October 2012 and 94 studies from 2014. Average reimbursement per study fell from $2,469 (US dollars) in 2011 to 2012 to $1,657 in 2014. CMS reduced average reimbursement by $1,148 in 2014 because of loss of radiopharmaceutical pass-through status. Average reimbursements from CMS versus private payors markedly differed in 2011 to 2012 at $2,266 versus $2,861, respectively, and in 2014 at $1,118 versus $3,470, respectively. Between 2011 to 2012 and 2014, the CMS percentage increased from 54% to 78%. Assuming that I-123 ioflupane cost $2,000, our model based on 2014 data predicts a practice with greater than 60% CMS patients would no longer recover radiopharmaceutical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Reimbursement levels, payor mix, scanner location, and radiopharmaceutical costs are all critical, variable factors for modeling the financial viability of I-123 ioflupane imaging and, by extrapolation, future radiopharmaceuticals.

The cost-effectiveness of solifenacin vs. trospium in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in the German National Health Service.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a cost-utility analysis comparing initial treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) with solifenacin 5 mg/day versus either trospium 20 mg twice a day or trospium 60 mg/day from the perspective of the German National Health Service. METHODS: A decision analytic model with a 3 month cycle was developed to follow a cohort of OAB patients treated with either solifenacin or trospium during a 1 year period. Costs and utilities were accumulated as patients transitioned through the four cycles in the model. Some of the solifenacin patients were titrated from 5 mg to 10 mg/day at 3 months. Utility values were obtained from the published literature and pad use was based on a US resource utilization study. Adherence rates for individual treatments were derived from a United Kingdom general practitioner database review. The change in the mean number of urgency urinary incontinence episodes/day from after 12 weeks was the main outcome measure. Baseline effectiveness values for solifenacin and trospium were calculated using the Poisson distribution. Patients who failed second-line therapy were referred to a specialist visit. Results were expressed in terms of incremental cost-utility ratios. RESULTS: Total annual costs for solifenacin, trospium 20 mg and trospium 60 mg were €970.01, €860.05 and €875.05 respectively. Drug use represented 43%, 28% and 29% of total costs and pad use varied between 45% and 57%. Differences between cumulative utilities were small but favored solifenacin (0.6857 vs. 0.6802 to 0.6800). The baseline incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from €16,657 to €19,893 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: The difference in cumulative utility favoring solifenacin was small (0.0055-0.0057 QALYs). A small absolute change in the cumulative utilities can have a marked impact on the overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and care should be taken when interpreting the results. CONCLUSION: Solifenacin would appear to be cost-effective with an ICER of no more than €20,000/QALY. However, small differences in utility between the alternatives means that the results are sensitive to adjustments in the values of the assigned utilities, effectiveness and discontinuation rates.