Making the case for cost-effectiveness research

Socioeconomic disparities, financial toxicity, and opportunities for enhanced system efficiencies for patients with cancer

Cancer care continues to stress the US healthcare system with increases in life expectancy, cancer prevalence, and survivors' complex needs. These challenges are compounded by socioeconomic, racial, and cultural disparities that are associated with poor clinical outcomes. One innovative and resource-wise strategy to address this demand on the system is expanded use of telehealth. This paradigm has the potential to decrease healthcare and patient out-of-pocket costs and improve patient adherence to recommended treatment and/or surveillance.

Case mix-adjusted cost of colectomy at low-, middle-, and high-volume academic centers

BACKGROUND

Efforts to regionalize surgery based on thresholds in procedure volume may have consequences on the cost of health care delivery. This study aims to delineate the relationship between hospital volume, case mix, and variability in the cost of operative intervention using colectomy as the model.

METHODS

All patients undergoing colectomy (n = 90,583) at 183 academic hospitals from 2009-2012 in The University HealthSystems Consortium Database were studied. Patient and procedure details were used to generate a case mix-adjusted predictive model of total direct costs. Observed to expected costs for each center were evaluated between centers based on overall procedure volume.

RESULTS

Patient and procedure characteristics were significantly different between volume tertiles. Observed costs at high-volume centers were less than at middle- and low-volume centers. According to our predictive model, high-volume centers cared for a less expensive case mix than middle- and low-volume centers ($12,786 vs $13,236 and $14,497, P < .01). Our predictive model accounted for 44% of the variation in costs. Overall efficiency (standardized observed to expected costs) was greatest at high-volume centers compared to middle- and low-volume tertiles (z score -0.16 vs 0.02 and -0.07, P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Hospital costs and cost efficiency after an elective colectomy varies significantly between centers and may be attributed partially to the patient differences at those centers. These data demonstrate that a significant proportion of the cost variation is due to a distinct case mix at low-volume centers, which may lead to perceived poor performance at these centers.

Comparison of neoadjuvant versus a surgery first approach for gastric and esophagogastric cancer

Gastric cancer remains a significant worldwide health concern. While surgery is required for cure, all but the earliest of cancers will require multimodality therapy. Chemotherapy and chemoradiation in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings have shown to improve overall survival, but the sequencing of treatment is controversial. As healthcare expenses surge, it is increasingly important to impart value to these treatments. This review will look at the intersection of effective treatment and costs for gastric cancer. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:296-303. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Introduction to Cost Analysis in IR: Challenges and Opportunities

Demonstration of value has become increasingly important in the current health care system. This review summarizes four of the most commonly used cost analysis methods relevant to IR that could be adopted to demonstrate the value of IR interventions: the cost minimization study, cost-effectiveness assessment, cost-utility analysis, and cost-benefit analysis. In addition, the issues of true cost versus hospital charges, modeling in cost studies, and sensitivity analysis are discussed.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Cancer Care

With the increasing complexity of modern medical therapies, it is becoming imperative to recognize the marginal cost and gains of increasingly sophisticated (and expensive) interventions. By understanding the incremental cost of a given intervention, investigators must help answer questions about healthcare resource utilization that are not answered by randomized clinical trials. The continued funding of biomedical research and pharmaceuticals will require more objective study of the return on investment for any given treatment modality, and cost-effectiveness analyses will be instrumental in providing solutions to the inequalities in healthcare delivery.

Impact of processes of care aimed at complication reduction on the cost of complex cancer surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Health care providers add multiple processes to the care of complex cancer patients, believing they prevent and/or ameliorate complications. However, the relationship between these processes, complication remediation, and expenditures is unknown.

METHODS

Data for patients with cancer diagnoses undergoing colectomy, rectal resection, pulmonary lobectomy, pneumonectomy, esophagectomy, and pancreatic resection were obtained from hospital and inpatient physician Medicare claims for the years 2005-2009. Risk-adjusted regression analyses measured the association between hospitalization costs and processes presumed to prevent and/or remedy complications common to high-risk procedures.

RESULTS

After controlling for comorbidities, analysis identified associations between increased costs and use of multiple processes, including arterial lines (4-12% higher; P < 0.001) and pulmonary artery catheters (23-33% higher; P < 0.001). Epidural analgesia was not associated with higher costs. Consultations were associated with 24-44% (P < 0.001) higher costs, and total parenteral nutrition was associated with 13-31% higher costs (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Many frequently utilized processes and services presumed to avoid and/or ameliorate complications are associated with increased surgical oncology costs. This suggests that the patient-centered value of each process should be measured on a procedure-specific basis. Likewise, further attention should be focused on defining the efficacy of each of these costly, but frequently unproven, additions to perioperative care.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of an Otolaryngology Emergency Room Using a Contingent Valuation Approach

OBJECTIVES

Dedicated otolaryngology emergency rooms (ERs) provide a unique mechanism of health care delivery. Relative costs and willingness to pay (WTP) for these services have not been studied. This study aims to provide a cost-benefit analysis of otolaryngology-specific ER care.

STUDY DESIGN

Cost-benefit analysis based on contingent valuation surveys.

SETTING

An otolaryngology-specific ER in a tertiary care academic medical center.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Adult English-speaking patients presenting to an otolaryngology ER were included. WTP questions were used to assess patient valuations of specialty emergency care. Sociodemographic data, income, and self-reported levels of distress were assessed. State-level and institution-specific historical cost data were merged with WTP data within a cost-benefit analysis framework.

RESULTS

The response rate was 75.6%, and 199 patients were included in the final analysis. Average WTP for otolaryngology ER services was $319 greater than for a general ER (95% CI: $261 to $377), with a median value of $200. The historical mean cost per visit at a general ER was $575, and mean cost at the specialty ER was $551 (95% CI: $529 to $574). Subtracting incremental cost from incremental WTP yielded a net benefit of $343.

CONCLUSION

Dedicated otolaryngology ER services are valued by patients for acute otolaryngologic problems and have a net benefit of $343 per patient visit. They appear to be a cost-beneficial method for addressing acute otolaryngologic conditions. This study has implications for ER-based otolaryngologic care and direct-to-specialist services.

Cost and effectiveness of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is a minimally invasive alternative to conventional surgery (CS). We aimed to estimate the short-term cost-effectiveness of VATS vs. CS for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC-c-stage-I) patients from the payer's perspective (National Health Insurance).

METHODS

We identified NSCLC-c-stage-I patients diagnosed and received surgery within 2007-2009 through a comprehensive population-based database containing cancer and death registries, and reimbursement data. The duration of interest was 1 year. We included potential confounding covariables through literature searching and our own experience, and used a propensity score to construct a 1:1 population for adjustment.

RESULTS

Our study population constituted 966 patients. The mean hospital stay [days, standard deviation (SD)] were 14.4 [7] and 16.1 (7.7) for VATS and CS respectively (P=0.002). The mean cost (2013 USD) and survival (year) was $22,316 vs. $21,976 and 0.98 vs. 0.974 for VATS vs. CS. The probability for VATS to be cost-effective (i.e., positive net benefit) was 0.49 & 0.56 at willingness-to-pay (WTP) 50,000 & 100,000 USD/life-year, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide the first empirical evidence that when compared to CS, VATS was potentially cost-effective in the short term (1 year) within the common WTP levels in Taiwan.