Differences in time to patient access to innovative cancer medicines in six European countries.

Patients across Europe face inequity regarding access to anticancer medicines. While access is typically evaluated through reimbursement status or sales data, patients can receive first access through early access programs (EAPs) or off-label use. This study aims to assess the time to patient access at the hospital level, considering different indications and countries. (Pre-)registered access to six innovative medicines (Olaparib, Niraparib, Ipilimumab, Osimeritinib, Nivolumab and Ibritunib) was measured using a cross-sectional survey. First patient access to medicines and indications were collected using the hospital databases. Nineteen hospitals from Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and France participated. Analysis showed that some hospitals achieved patient access before national reimbursement, primarily through EAPs. The average time from EMA-approval to patient access for these medicines was 2.1 years (Range: -0.9-7.1 years). Hospitals in Italy and France had faster access compared to Hungary and Belgium. Variation was also found within countries, with specialized hospitals (x̄: -0.9 years; SD: 2.0) more likely to provide patient access prior to national reimbursement than general hospitals (x̄: 0.4 years; SD: 2.9). Contextual differences were observed, with EAPs or off-label use being more prevalent in Switzerland than Hungary. Recent EMA-approved indications and drug combinations reached patients at a later stage. Substantial variation in patient access time was observed between and within countries. Improving pricing and reimbursement timelines, fostering collaboration between national health authorities and market authorization holders, and implementing nationally harmonized, data-generating EAPs can enhance timely and equitable patient access to innovative cancer treatments in Europe.

Urologist practice divestment from radiation vault ownership and treatment patterns for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Urologists practicing in single-specialty groups with ownership in radiation vaults are more likely to treat men with prostate cancer. The effect of divestment of vault ownership on treatment patterns is unclear. METHODS: A 20% sample of national Medicare claims was used to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2019. Urology practices were categorized by radiation vault ownership as nonowners, continuous owners, and divested owners. The primary outcome was use of local treatment, and the secondary outcome was use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A difference-in-differences framework was used to measure the effect of divestment on outcomes compared to continuous owners. Subgroup analyses assessed outcomes by noncancer mortality risk (high [>50%] vs. low [≤50%]). RESULTS: Among 72 urology practices that owned radiation vaults, six divested during the study. Divestment led to a decrease in treatment compared with those managed at continuously owning practices (difference-in-differences estimate, -13%; p = .03). The use of IMRT decreased, but this was not statistically significant (difference-in-differences estimate, -10%; p = .13). In men with a high noncancer mortality risk, treatment (difference-in-differences estimate, -28%; p < .001) and use of IMRT (difference-in-differences estimate, -27%; p < .001) decreased after divestment. CONCLUSIONS: Urology group divestment from radiation vault ownership led to a decrease in prostate cancer treatment. This decrease was most pronounced in men who had a high noncancer mortality risk. This has important implications for health care reform by suggesting that payment programs that encourage constraints on utilization, when appropriate, may be effective in reducing overtreatment.

Commercial Versus Medicaid Insurance and Use of High-Priced Anticancer Treatments.

BACKGROUND: Because the markups on cancer drugs vary by payor, providers' financial incentive to use high-price drugs is differential according to each patient's insurance type. We evaluated the association between patient insurer (commercial vs Medicaid) and the use of high-priced cancer treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We linked cancer registry, administrative claims, and demographic data for individuals diagnosed with cancer in North Carolina from 2004 to 2011, with either commercial or Medicaid insurance. We selected cancers with multiple FDA-approved, guideline-recommended chemotherapy options and large price differences between treatment options: advanced colorectal, lung, and head and neck cancer. The outcome was a receipt of a higher-priced option, and the exposure was insurer: commercial versus Medicaid. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for the association between insurer and higher-priced treatment using log-binomial models with inverse probability of exposure weights. RESULTS: Of 812 patients, 209 (26%) had Medicaid. The unadjusted risk of receiving higher-priced treatment was 36% (215/603) for commercially insured and 27% (57/209) for Medicaid insured (RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.02-1.67). After adjustment for confounders the association was attenuated (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.81-1.65). Exploratory subgroup analysis suggested that commercial insurance was associated with increased receipt of higher-priced treatment among patients treated by non-NCI-designated providers (RR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.14-2.04). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with Medicaid and commercial insurance received high-priced treatments in similar proportion, after accounting for differences in case mix. However, modification by provider characteristics suggests that insurance type may influence treatment selection for some patient groups. Further work is needed to determine the relationship between insurance status and newer, high-price drugs such as immune-oncology agents.

Regulatory Aspects of AI-ML.

In the realm of healthcare, numerous generative and non-generative artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI-ML) tools have been developed and deployed. Simultaneously, manufacturers of medical devices are leveraging AI-ML. However, the adoption of AI in healthcare raises several concerns, including safety, security, ethical biases, accountability, trust, economic impact, and environmental effects. Effective regulation can mitigate some of these risks, promote fairness, establish standards, and advocate for more sustainable AI practices. Regulating AI tools not only ensures their safe and effective adoption but also fosters public trust. It is important that regulations remain flexible to accommodate rapid advances in this field to support innovation and also not to add additional burden to some of our preexisting and well-established frameworks. This article covers regional and global regulatory aspects of AI-ML including data privacy, Software as a Medical device (SaMD), agency approval and clearance pathways, reimbursement, and laboratory developed tests (LDTs).

Evolving Economics: The Erosion of Medicare Reimbursement in Breast Surgery (2003-2023).

INTRODUCTION: Medicare significantly influences reimbursement rates, setting a standard that impacts private insurance policies. Despite declining rates in various specialties, the magnitude of these trends has not been examined in breast surgery. This study examines Medicare reimbursement trends for breast surgery operations. METHODS: Data for 10 breast operations from 2003 to 2023 were collected from the Medicare Physician Fee Look-Up Tool and yearly reimbursement was computed using the conversion factor. The year-to-year percentage change in reimbursement was calculated, and the overall median change was compared with the consumer price index (CPI) for inflation evaluation. All data were adjusted to 2023 United States dollars. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) was calculated using inflation-adjusted data. RESULTS: Over the study period, reimbursement for the 10 breast operations had a mean unadjusted percentage increase of + 25.17%, while the CPI increased by 69.15% (p < 0.001). However, after adjustment, overall reimbursement decreased by - 20.70%. Only two operations (lumpectomy and simple mastectomy) saw increased inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement (+ 0.37% and + 3.58%, respectively). The CAGR was - 1.54% overall but remained positive for the same two operations (+ 0.02% and + 0.18%, respectively). Based on these findings, breast surgeons were estimated to be reimbursed $107,605,444 less in 2023 than if rates had kept pace with inflation over the past decade. CONCLUSION: Inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement rates for breast surgeries have declined from 2003 to 2023. This downward trend may strain resources, potentially leading to compromises in care quality. Surgeons, administrators, and policymakers must take proactive measures to address these issues and ensure the ongoing accessibility and quality of breast surgery.

Medicare-mandated shared decision making for left atrial appendage closure in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) required a shared decision-making (SDM) interaction, with an "independent" physician, before left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). The purpose of this study is to better understand how this requirement is implemented in clinical practice. METHODS: We surveyed LAAC-performing centers. The characteristics of respondent and nonrespondent hospitals were compared using the CMS Provider of Services File for 2017. RESULTS: We received 86 responses out of 269 surveys mailed (32%). Respondent and nonrespondent hospital affiliations were similar: mean hospital size 525 beds, 15% for-profit, and 34% teaching hospitals. Thirty-four respondents (39.5%) stated that the implanting physician conducts some or all of the SDM interactions. The percentage of patients who decide not to undergo LAAC after the SDM interaction was estimated at 8.1%. Out of 72 responses to an open-ended question about the benefit of the SDM interaction, 44 (61%) described the requirement in negative terms, of which most felt the requirement was burdensome for patients and providers. Only 28 respondents (39%) described the requirement in positive or mixed terms. CONCLUSION: In violation of the letter of the CMS policy for LAAC, implanting physicians perform the SDM interaction at nearly 40% of responding hospitals. Most respondents felt the SDM requirement was burdensome for patients. More detailed guidance from CMS on how to comply with the policy may result in better alignment between the intent of the policy and how it is implemented.

Current Medicare reimbursement for complex endovascular aortic repair is inadequate based on results from a multi-institutional cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Complex endovascular juxta-, para- and suprarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (comEVAR) is frequently accomplished with commercially available fenestrated (FEVAR) devices or off-label use of aortoiliac devices with parallel branch stents (chEVAR). We sought to evaluate the implantable vascular device costs incurred with these procedures as compared with standard Medicare reimbursement to determine the financial viability of comEVAR in the modern era. METHODS: Five geographically distinct institutions with high-volume, complex aortic centers were included. Implantable aortoiliac and branch stent device cost data from 25 consecutive, recent, comEVAR in the treatment of juxta-, para-, and suprarenal aortic aneurysms at each center were analyzed. Cases of rupture, thoracic aneurysms, reinterventions, and physician-modified EVAR were excluded, as were ancillary costs from nonimplantable equipment. Data from all institutions were combined and stratified into an overall cost group and two, individual cost groups: FEVAR or chEVAR. These groups were compared, and each respective group was then compared with weighted Medicare reimbursement for Diagnosis-Related Group codes 268/269. Median device costs were obtained from an independent purchasing consortium of >3000 medical centers, yielding true median cost-to-institution data rather than speculative, administrative projections or estimates. RESULTS: A total of 125 cases were analyzed: 70 FEVAR and 53 chEVAR. Two cases of combined FEVAR/chEVAR were included in total cost analysis, but excluded from direct FEVAR vs chEVAR comparison. Median Medicare reimbursement was calculated as $35,755 per case. Combined average implantable device cost for all analyzed cases was $28,470 per case, or 80% of the median reimbursement ($28,470/$35,755). Average FEVAR device cost per case ($26,499) was significantly lower than average chEVAR cost per case ($32,122; P < .002). Device cost was 74% ($26,499/$35,755) of total reimbursement for FEVAR and 90% ($32,122/$35,755) for chEVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this multi-institutional analysis show that implantable device cost alone represents the vast majority of weighted total Medicare reimbursement per case with comEVAR, and that chEVAR is significantly more costly than FEVAR. Inadequate Medicare reimbursement for these cases puts high-volume, high-complexity aortic centers at a distinct financial disadvantage. In the interest of optimizing patient care, these data suggest a reconsideration of previously established, outdated, Diagnosis-Related Group coding and Medicare reimbursement for comEVAR.

Medicare billing and utilization trends in vascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Within the past decade, Medicare Part B reimbursements for various surgical procedures have been declining, whereas health care expenses continue to increase. As a result, hospitals may increase service charges to offset losses in revenue, which may disproportionately affect underinsured patients. Our analysis aimed to characterize Medicare billing and utilization trends across common vascular surgical procedures. METHODS: The 2017 to 2021 Medicare Physician and Other Practitioners by Provider and Service dataset was queried for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for common vascular surgery procedures. The average charges, reimbursements, charge-to-reimbursement ratios, and service counts were calculated for the most common interventions performed by vascular surgeons. Data was stratified by care setting, facility (inpatient and outpatient hospital) vs non-facility locations. All monetary values were adjusted to the 2021 United States dollars to account for inflation. RESULTS: For facility settings, the mean charge billed to Medicare Part B increased from $3708 to $3952 (6.6%) from 2017 to 2021, with the average charge-to-reimbursement ratio increasing from 7.2 to 8.6. There were 17 of the 19 facility procedures that had a decline in reimbursements, decreasing from an average of $558 to $499 (-10.4%). Stab phlebectomy had the largest individual decrease in facility reimbursement (-53.5%), followed by above-knee amputation (-11.3%) and below-knee amputation (-11.0%). Both non-facility charges (-10.8%) and reimbursements (-12.2%) declined over the study period. Procedural utilization remained stable from 2017 to 2019. Tibial and femoral-popliteal atherectomy had increases of 45.9% and 33.7%, respectively, in overall procedural utilization when performed in non-facility settings from 2017 to 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of vascular surgery procedures billed to Medicare Part B from 2017 to 2021 demonstrates an increase in charges, a decline in reimbursements, and a resultant increase in charge-to-reimbursement ratios for facility care settings. In contrast, non-facility charges have decreased in the face of declining reimbursements. These markups in submitted charges in facility locations may serve as an additional barrier to accessing care for patients who are underinsured.

Implementation of PET/CT in radiation oncology-a patterns-of-care analysis of the German Society of Nuclear Medicine and the German Society of Radiation Oncology.

BACKGROUND: The use of positron-emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in radiation therapy (RT) has increased. Radiation oncologists (RadOncs) have access to PET/CT with a variety of tracers for different tumor entities and use it for target volume definition. The German Society of Nuclear Medicine (DGN) and the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) aimed to identify current patterns of care in order to improve interdisciplinary collaboration. METHODS: We created an online survey on participating RadOncs' use of PET tracers for different tumor entities and how they affect RT indication, dose prescription, and target volume definition. Further topics were reimbursement of PET/CT and organizational information (fixed timeslots and use of PET with an immobilization device [planning/RT-PET]). The survey contained 31 questions in German language (yes/no questions, multiple choice [MC] questions, multiple select [MS] questions, and free-text entry options). The survey was distributed twice via the DEGRO member mailing list. RESULTS: During the survey period (May 22-August 7, 2023) a total of 156 RadOncs (13% of respondents) answered the survey. Among these, 59% reported access to diagnostic PET/CT within their organization/clinic and 24% have fixed timeslots for their patients. 37% of survey participants can perform RT-PET and 29% have the option of providing a dedicated RT technician for planning PET. Besides [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG; mainly used in lung cancer: 95%), diagnostic prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-PET/CT for RT of prostate cancer is routinely used by 44% of participants (by 64% in salvage RT). Use of amino acid PET in brain tumors and somatostatin receptor PET in meningioma is low (19 and 25%, respectively). Scans are reimbursed through private (75%) or compulsory (55%) health insurance or as part of indications approved by the German Joint Federal Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss; 59%). 98% of RadOncs agree that PET impacts target volume definition and 62% think that it impacts RT dose prescription. DISCUSSION: This is the first nationwide survey on the role of PET/CT for RT planning among RadOncs in Germany. We find high acceptance of PET results for treatment decisions and target volume definition. Planning PET comes with logistic challenges for different healthcare settings (e.g., private practices vs. university hospitals). The decision to request PET/CT is often based on the possibility of reimbursement. CONCLUSION: PET/CT has become an important tool for RadOncs, with several indications. However, access is still limited at several sites, especially for dedicated RT-PET. This study aims to improve interdisciplinary cooperation and adequate implementation of current guidelines for the treatment of various tumor entities.

Current challenges in cell and gene therapy: a joint view from the European Committee of the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy (ISCT) and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT).

Cell and gene therapy poses evolving challenges. The current article summarizes the discussions held by European Regional Committee of the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) on the current challenges in this field, focusing on the European setting. This article emphasizes the imperative assessment of real-world cell and gene therapy activity, advocating for expanded registries beyond hematopoietic transplantation and chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell therapy. Accreditation's role in ensuring standardized procedures, as exemplified by JACIE (The Joint Accreditation Committee of ISCT-Europe and EBMT), is crucial for safety. Access to commercial products and reimbursement variations among countries underscore the need for uniform access to advanced therapy medical products (ATMPs). Academic product development and point-of-care manufacturing face barriers to patient access. Hospital Exemption's potential, demonstrated by some initial experiences, may increase patient accessibility in individual situations. Regulatory challenges, including the ongoing European ATMPs legislation review, necessitate standardized criteria for Hospital Exemption and mandatory reporting within registries. Efforts to combat unproven therapies and fraud involve collaboration between scientific societies, regulatory bodies and patient groups. Finally, is important to highlight the vital role of education and workforce development in meeting the escalating demand for specialized professionals in the ATMP field. Collaboration among scientific societies, academic institutions, industry, regulatory bodies and patient groups is crucial for overcoming all these challenges to increase gene and cell therapy activity in Europe.

Trends of Medicare reimbursement rates for gender affirmation procedures.

BACKGROUND: While nearly 1 in 5 Americans receives health insurance coverage through Medicare, literature suggests that Medicare reimbursement is lagging behind inflation for many plastic surgery procedures. AIM: This article evaluates trends in Medicare reimbursement for gender affirmation procedures. METHODS: The most common gender affirmation procedures performed at an urban academic medical center were identified in this cross-sectional study (level 4 evidence). Five nongender surgery codes were evaluated for reference. A standardized formula utilizing relative value units (RVUs) was used to calculate monetary data. Differences in reimbursement between 2014 and 2021 were calculated for each procedure. OUTCOME: The main outcome was inflation-adjusted difference of charges from 2014 to 2021. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2021, Medicare reimbursement for gender affirmation procedures had an inflation-unadjusted average change of -0.09% (vs +5.63% for the selected nongender codes) and an inflation-adjusted change of -10.03% (vs -5.54% for the selected nongender codes). Trends in reimbursement varied by category of gender-affirming procedure. The overall average compound annual growth rate had a change of -0.99% (vs -0.53% for the selected nongender codes). The average changes in work, facility, and malpractice RVUs were -1.05%, +9.52%, and -0.93%, respectively. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Gender surgeons and patients should be aware that the decrease in reimbursement may affect access to gender-affirming care. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Our study is one of the first evaluating the reimbursement rates associated with the full spectrum of gender affirmation surgery. However, our study is limited by its cross-sectional nature. CONCLUSIONS: From 2014 to 2021, Medicare reimbursement for gender affirmation procedures lagged inflation.

Local practice variations and payer differences underlie state-wide disparities in oncoplastic breast surgery.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about disparities in oncoplastic breast surgery delivery. METHODS: The Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database was queried for patients who received lumpectomy for a diagnosis of breast cancer. Oncoplastic surgery was defined as adjacent tissue transfer, complex trunk repair, reduction mammoplasty, mastopexy, flap-based reconstruction, prosthesis insertion, or unspecified breast reconstruction after lumpectomy. RESULTS: We identified 18 748 patients who underwent lumpectomy between 2016 and 2020. Among those, 3140 patients underwent immediate oncoplastic surgery and 436 patients underwent delayed oncoplastic surgery. Eighty-one percent of patients who underwent oncoplastic surgery did so in the same county as they underwent a lumpectomy. However, the relative frequency of oncoplastic surgery varied significantly among counties. In multivariable regression, public insurance status (odds ratio: 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.80-0.95, p = 0.002) was associated with lower odds of undergoing oncoplastic surgery, even after adjusting for macromastia, other comorbidities, and county of lumpectomy. Average payments for lumpectomy with oncoplastic surgery were more than twice as high from private insurers ($840 vs. $1942, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Disparities in the receipt of oncoplastic surgery were related to differences in local practice patterns and the type of insurance patients held. Expanding services across counties and considering billing reform may help reduce these disparities.

Understanding the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Severity Premium: Exploring Its Implementation and the Implications for Decision Making and Patient Access.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) new severity modifier, which has replaced the end-of-life (EoL) premium, on future NICE recommendations, considering past decision-making patterns. METHODS: NICE technology appraisals (TAs) published between January 2020 and December 2022 were reviewed. Summary statistics were generated to assess how the new severity modifier might affect hypothetical decision making in historical TAs. RESULTS: A total of 138 data points were identified from 132 TAs. Although the EoL premium was applied in 46 appraisals (33%), 57 (39%) qualify for a severity-based quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) multiplier. Only 19 appraisals (14.6%) not receiving an EoL premium met the severity criteria, the majority (17) qualifying for a 1.2× multiplier. In appraisals predicted to meet the severity criteria, 45 (79%) were in oncology, making them 4.04 times (95% CI 1.91-9.02) more likely to qualify for a severity modifier than nononcology indications. Among historically EoL indications, 42 (91%) were predicted to meet the severity criteria, making them 14.8 times (95% CI 6.37-37.6) more likely to qualify for a severity modifier. CONCLUSIONS: The new severity modifier will predominantly benefit oncology indications, continuing their previous explicit prioritization under the EoL decision modifier. However, the new severity modifier is harder to achieve and less generous; only a fraction of appraisals qualify for the highest effective £51 000 per QALY threshold. The vast majority of indications previously approved at £50 000 per QALY would now need to meet a cost-effectiveness threshold of <£36 000. This may necessitate greater pricing flexibility from manufacturers and increase the likelihood of negative recommendations.

Illustrating the Financial Consequences of Outcome-Based Payment Models From a Payers Perspective: The Case of Autologous Gene Therapy Atidarsagene Autotemcel (Libmeldy®).

OBJECTIVES: To illustrate the financial consequences of implementing different managed entry agreements (managed entry agreements for the Dutch healthcare system for autologous gene therapy atidarsagene autotemcel [Libmeldy]), while also providing a first systematic guidance on how to construct managed entry agreements to aid future reimbursement decision making and create patient access to high-cost, one-off potentially curative therapies. METHODS: Three payment models were compared: (1) an arbitrary 60% price discount, (2) an outcome-based spread payment with discounts, and (3) an outcome-based spread payment linked to a willingness to pay model with discounts. Financial consequences were estimated for full responders (A), patients responding according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in health technology assessment reports (B), and unstable responders (C). The associated costs for an average patient during the time frame of the payment agreement, the total budget impact, and associated benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life-years of the patient population were calculated. RESULTS: When patients responded according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in health technology assessment reports (scenario B), implementing outcome-based reimbursement models (models 2 and 3) had lower associated budget impacts while gaining similar benefits compared with the discount (scenario 1, €8.9 million to €6.6 million vs €9.2 million). In the case of unstable responders (scenario C), costs for payers are lower in the outcome-based scenarios (€4.1 million and €3.0 million, scenario 2C and 3C, respectively) compared with implementing the discount (€9.2 million, scenario 1C). CONCLUSIONS: Outcome-based models can mitigate the financial risk of reimbursing atidarsagene autotemcel. This can be considerably beneficial over simple discounts when clinical performance was similar to or worse than predicted.

Sociodemographic Factors and Screening CT Colonography Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND. Approximately one-third of the eligible U.S. population have not undergone guideline-compliant colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Guidelines recognize various screening strategies to increase adherence. CMS provides coverage for all recommended screening tests except CT colonography (CTC). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare CTC and other CRC screening tests in terms of associations of utilization with income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. METHODS. This retrospective study used CMS Research Identifiable Files from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2020. These files contain claims information for 5% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Data were extracted for individuals 45-85 years old, and individuals with high CRC risk were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to determine the likelihood of undergoing CRC screening tests (as well as of undergoing diagnostic CTC, a CMS-covered test with similar physical access as screening CTC) as a function of income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity while controlling for sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, U.S. census region, screening year, and related conditions and procedures. RESULTS. For 12,273,363 beneficiary years (mean age, 70.5 ± 8.2 [SD] years; 2,436,849 unique beneficiaries: 6,774,837 female beneficiaries, 5,498,526 male beneficiaries), there were 785,103 CRC screenings events, including 645 for screening CTC. Compared with individuals living in communities with per capita income of less than US$25,000, individuals in communities with income of US$100,000 or more had OR for undergoing screening CTC of 5.73, optical colonoscopy (OC) of 1.36, sigmoidoscopy of 1.03, guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test of 1.50, stool DNA of 1.43, and diagnostic CTC of 2.00. The OR for undergoing screening CTC was 1.00 for Hispanic individuals and 1.08 for non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Compared with the OR for undergoing screening CTC for residents of metropolitan areas, the OR was 0.51 for residents of micropolitan areas and 0.65 for residents of small or rural areas. CONCLUSION. The association with income was substantially larger for screening CTC than for other CRC screening tests or for diagnostic CTC. CLINICAL IMPACT. Medicare's noncoverage for screening CTC may contribute to lower adherence with CRC screening guidelines for lower-income beneficiaries. Medicare coverage of CTC could reduce income-based disparities for individuals avoiding OC owing to invasiveness, need for anesthesia, or complication risk.

New reimbursement models to promote better patient outcomes and overall value in laboratory medicine and healthcare.

The most widespread healthcare reimbursement models, including diagnostic laboratory services, are Fee-for-Service, Reference Pricing and Diagnosis-Related Groups. Within these models healthcare providers are remunerated for each specific service or procedure they operate. Healthcare payers are increasingly exploring alternative models, such as bundled payments or value-based reimbursement to encourage value of patient care rather than the simple amount of delivered services. These alternative models are advised, as they are more efficient in promoting cost-effective, high-quality laboratory testing, thereby improving patient health outcomes. If outcomes-based evaluation is a pillar in a new vision of "Value-Based Healthcare", an active policy of Value-Based Reimbursement in laboratory medicine will assure both an efficiency-based sustainability and a high-quality effectiveness-based diagnostic activity. This review aims to evaluate current and alternative reimbursement models, to support a wider agenda in encouraging more Value-Based Healthcare and Value-Based Reimbursement in laboratory medicine.

The effect of trans-provincial immediate reimbursement for healthcare expenses on inequity in the utilization of healthcare services for migrants.

BACKGROUND: Improving the accessibility of public services for migrants is an important endeavor to promote equity in economic and social development. As a response to the large-scale movement of migrants and the fragmentation of China's health insurance system, the Chinese Government has launched a policy of trans-provincial immediate reimbursement for healthcare expenses. The present study hopes to examine the effect of immediate reimbursement policy on the utilization of healthcare services for migrants in China. METHODS: This study used two waves of data from the China Migrants Dynamic Survey (CMDS) collected in 2013 and 2017, with the sample comprising 13,540 individuals. We constructed a difference-in-differences (DID) model to investigate the impact of the policy on the utilization of healthcare services for migrants. Meanwhile, we also analyzed the heterogeneity of the policy effect by grouping the samples by industry, gender, income, and education level. RESULTS: The results found that the trans-provincial immediate reimbursement significantly promoted the probability of migrants' utilization of quality healthcare services (average treatment effect on the treated = 0.072, p < 0.05). Heterogeneity analyses revealed that the policy effect was more pronounced among higher-income and better-educated migrants. In addition, the policy effect was more significant for female migrants, and the benefits were more marked for migrants in high-risk industries. CONCLUSIONS: The trans-provincial immediate reimbursement policy has improved the inequity of healthcare services utilization among migrants as a whole; however, within the migrants, inequity still exists. More attention should also be paid to low-income or low-education groups in future policy design.

Responding to the workforce crisis: consensus recommendations from the Second Workforce Summit of the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology.

IMPORTANCE: Pediatric patients with complex medical problems benefit from pediatric sub-specialty care; however, a significant proportion of children live greater than 80 mi. away from pediatric sub-specialty care. OBJECTIVE: To identify current knowledge gaps and outline concrete next steps to make progress on issues that have persistently challenged the pediatric nephrology workforce. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Workforce Summit 2.0 employed the round table format and methodology for consensus building using adapted Delphi principles. Content domains were identified via input from the ASPN Workforce Committee, the ASPN's 2023 Strategic Plan survey, the ASPN's Pediatric Nephrology Division Directors survey, and ongoing feedback from ASPN members. Working groups met prior to the Summit to conduct an organized literature review and establish key questions to be addressed. The Summit was held in-person in November 2023. During the Summit, work groups presented their preliminary findings, and the at-large group developed the key action statements and future directions. FINDINGS: A holistic appraisal of the effort required to cover inpatient and outpatient sub-specialty care will help define faculty effort and time distribution. Most pediatric nephrologists practice in academic settings, so work beyond clinical care including education, research, advocacy, and administrative/service tasks may form a substantial amount of a faculty member's time and effort. An academic relative value unit (RVU) may assist in creating a more inclusive assessment of their contributions to their academic practice. Pediatric sub-specialties, such as nephrology, contribute to the clinical mission and care of their institutions beyond their direct billable RVUs. Advocacy throughout the field of pediatrics is necessary in order for reimbursement of pediatric sub-specialist care to accurately reflect the time and effort required to address complex care needs. Flexible, individualized training pathways may improve recruitment into sub-specialty fields such as nephrology. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The workforce crisis facing the pediatric nephrology field is echoed throughout many pediatric sub-specialties. Efforts to improve recruitment, retention, and reimbursement are necessary to improve the care delivered to pediatric patients.

Epidemiology of Limb Amputations and Prosthetic Use During COVID-19 Pandemic in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the trends in the incidence of major limb amputations and the prevalence of Dutch prosthetic users at the national level in The Netherlands between 2012 and 2021 (during the COVID-19 pandemic). Local hospitals in The Netherlands reported a doubling of major lower limb amputations during COVID-19, information about a change in the incidence of major upper limb amputations was not reported. We could not confirm this remarkable increase in major lower limb amputations in our institution, nor did we observe a change in the incidence of major upper limb amputations. We hypothesize that the COVID-19 pandemic had no effect on the number of major limb amputations. DESIGN: Observational retrospective study analyzing national open-access databases of health insurance claims. SETTING: The Dutch national opensource database www.opendisdata.nl was used to retrieve the incidence of limb amputations in the period 2012-2021, stratified by the level of amputation and the cause of amputation. The results were verified using the www.gipdatabank.nl databank. This period included 4 intervals of nationwide COVID-19 lockdowns. PARTICIPANTS: 60,848 patients who underwent limb amputations at the upper or lower extremity in the Netherlands from 2012 to 2021 (N=60,848) were included in this study. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Upper- and lower-limb amputation and prosthetic use. RESULTS: Data were retrieved for a total of 60,848 patients in the Netherlands, who underwent 68,180 amputations of the upper and lower extremities at any level from 2012 to 2021, including 22,095 major amputations of the lower extremities. The ongoing trend of stable numbers of major lower-limb amputations from 2012 to 2019 continued in 2020 and 2021. The verification of these data at the level of prosthetic users confirmed that the annual trends were unchanged. CONCLUSION: The reported increased numbers of major lower-limb amputations during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands could not be confirmed using nationwide epidemiologic data.

The increasing costs of medicines and their implications for patients, physicians and the health system.

Most new medicines entering the market are high-cost speciality drugs. These drugs can cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per course of treatment and in some cases millions of dollars per dose. Approximately half of all spending on medicines is projected to target only 2-3% of patients, raising important questions about resource allocation. While there is no doubt that breakthrough innovations have transformed clinical care in some disciplines, it is also true that cost is becoming one of the primary barriers to treatment access and that many new medicines do not provide value commensurate with their prices. This article examines pricing trends, the reasons for high prices and their implications for access and clinical practice.