Costs and reimbursement gaps after implementation of third-generation left ventricular assist devices

The In-Hospital Cost of Ventricular Assist Device Therapy: Implications for Patient Selection

Ventricular assist device (VAD) therapy is increasingly utilized to support patients in end-stage heart failure. However, VAD programs are resource intensive and demand active monitoring to ensure long-term sustainability. The purpose of this study was to analyze total cost trends of the VAD program at our academic medical center. Retrospective analysis of University of California - Los Angeles's VAD program between 2013 and 2014 was performed. Total in-hospital costs from the date of VAD surgery admission were queried and normalized to a z score. Multivariable linear regression analysis with step-wise elimination was used to model total costs. Overall, 42 patients received a VAD during the study period, with 19 (45%) receiving biventricular support. On univariate analysis, high body mass index, biventricular support, time between VAD implantation and discharge, and total length of hospital stay were correlated with higher costs (all p < 0.02). On multivariable analysis, time between VAD implantation and discharge and biventricular support remained significantly related to total costs (overall R = 0.831, p < 0.001). The time between VAD implantation and discharge and the use of biventricular support were the most predictive factors of total cost in our VAD population. Reducing hospital stay post-VAD implantation is important in minimizing the cost of VAD care.

In-hospital cost comparison between percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation and surgery

OBJECTIVES: Today, both surgical and percutaneous techniques are available for pulmonary valve implantation in patients with right ventricle outflow tract obstruction or insufficiency. In this controlled, non-randomized study the hospital costs per patient of the two treatment options were identified and compared.

METHODS: During the period of June 2011 until October 2014 cost data in 20 patients treated with the percutaneous technique and 14 patients treated with open surgery were consecutively included. Two methods for cost analysis were used, a retrospective average cost estimate (overhead costs) and a direct prospective detailed cost acquisition related to each individual patient (patient-specific costs).

RESULTS: The equipment cost, particularly the stents and valve itself was by far the main cost-driving factor in the percutaneous pulmonary valve group, representing 96% of the direct costs, whereas in the open surgery group the main costs derived from the postoperative care and particularly the stay in the intensive care department. The device-related cost in this group represented 13.5% of the direct costs. Length-of-stay-related costs in the percutaneous group were mean $3885 (1618) and mean $17 848 (5060) in the open surgery group. The difference in postoperative stay between the groups was statistically significant (P≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Given the high postoperative cost in open surgery, the percutaneous procedure could be cost saving even with a device cost of more than five times the cost of the surgical device.

Cost and clinical outcome of islet transplantation in Norway 2010-2015

Islet transplantation is a minimally invasive β-cell replacement strategy. Islet transplantation is a reimbursed treatment in Norway. Here, we summarize the cost and clinical outcome of 31 islet transplantations performed at Oslo University Hospital (OUS) from January 2010 to June 2015. Patients were retrospectively divided into three groups. Thirteen patients received either one or two islet transplantation alone (ITA), while five patients received islet transplantation after previous solid organ transplantation. For the group receiving 2 ITA, Kaplan-Meier estimates show an insulin independence of 20% more than 4 years after their last transplantation. An estimated 70% maintain at least partial graft function, defined as fasting C-peptide >0.1 nmol L^-1 , and 47% maintain a HbA1c below 6.5% or 2 percent points lower than before ITA. For all groups combined, we estimate that 44% of the patients have a 50% reduction in insulin requirement 4 years after the initial islet transplantation. The average cost for an islet transplantation procedure was 347 297±60 588 NOK, or 35 424±6182 EUR, of which isolation expenses represent 34%. We hereby add to the common pool of growing experience with islet transplantation and also describe the cost of the treatment at our center.

Cardiac replacement therapies: outcomes and costs for heart transplantation versus circulatory assist

OBJECTIVES

Growing number of patients with terminal heart failure and a shortage of heart donors have increased use of short- and long-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Few studies have analyzed survival rates and healthcare costs for heart transplantation (HTx), with or without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

DESIGN

In a retrospective, single-center study, data were analyzed from patients listed for HTx who died on the waiting list (DWL, n = 12), underwent HTx (n = 206), had ECMO as bridge to HTx (ECHTx, n = 15), or received LVAD treatment, either isolated (LVAD, n = 19) or bridging to HTx (LVADHTx, n = 26) during 2005-2012. Survival and hospital costs were assessed.

RESULTS

One- and five-year survival rates were 96% and 83% for the LVADHTx group, 92% and 81% for HTx, 70% and 70% for ECHTx, 48% and 36% for LVAD and 0% for the DWL group (overall survival, p < 0.001). Total hospital cost at one year was $102,101 ± 202,604 for DWL, $151,685 ± 86,892 for HTx, $292,078 ± 101,915 for ECHTx, $427,337 ± 365,154 for LVAD, and $600,897 ± 198,109 for LVADHTx.

CONCLUSION

The LVADHTx and HTx groups showed excellent one- and five-year survival. The combined group of DWL and HTx patients had similar survival to the combined groups of MCS, but use of LVAD pre-transplant quadrupled the cost.

Mechanical Ventricular Assistance as Destination Therapy for End-Stage Heart Failure: Has it Become a First Line Therapy?

Patients with end-stage heart failure have poor quality of life and prognosis. Therapeutic options are scarce and are not available for all. Only few patients can be transplanted every year. Several medical and surgical strategies have shown limited ability to influence prognosis and quality of life. In the past years, technological progress has realized devices capable of providing appropriate hemodynamic stabilization and recovery of secondary organ failure. Recently, these devices have been assessed as definitive treatment for patients who do not qualify for transplantation or/and instead to transplantation (“destination therapy”). This indication is increasingly considered following the results of newest clinical study reporting long-term survival without device correlated adverse events using last generation devices, and acceptable quality of life. The current knowledge about destination therapy and some original data from the DAVID Study (an Italian multicenter prospective study designed to evaluate the patient’s survival rate and quality of life of patients implanted with these new devices as long-term support or destination therapy) are summarized herein.

Mechanical circulatory support in advanced heart failure: single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Currently, ventricular assist device (VAD) or total artificial heart (TAH) mechanical support provides an effective treatment of unstable patients with advanced heart failure. We report our single-center experience with mechanical circulatory support therapy.

METHODS

From March 2002 to December 2012, 107 adult patients (mean age, 56.8 ± 9.9 y; range, 31-76 y) were primarly supported on temporary or long-term VAD or TAH support as treatment for refractory heart failure at our institution. Temporary extracorporeal radial VAD support (group A) was established in 49 patients (45.7%), and long-term paracorporeal and intracorporeal VAD or TAH (group B) in 58 patients (54.2%). Left ventricular (LVAD) support was established in 55 patients (51.4%; n = 33, Heartmate II; n = 6, Heartmate I XVE; n = 4, Heartware HVAD; and n = 12, Centrimag) and biventricular (BVAD/TAH) support (group B) in 28 patients (26.1%; n = 10, Thoratec paracorporeal; n = 2, Heartware HVAD, n = 1, Thoratec implantable; n = 1, Syncardia TAH; and n = 14, Centrimag). The temporary Centrimag was the only device adopted as isolated right ventricular (RVAD) support, and it was inserted in 24 patients (22.4%).

RESULTS

In group A, overall mean support time was 10.2 ± 6.6 days (range, 3-43 d). In group B, LVAD mean support time was 357 ± 352.3 days (range, 1-902 d) and BVAD/TAH support time was 98 ± 82.6 days (range, 8-832 d). In group A, the overall success rate was 55.1% (27 patients). In group B, LVAD overall success rate was 74.4% (32 patients) and BVAD/TAH success rate was 50% (7 patients). Overall heart transplantation rate for both groups was 27.1% (n = 2, group A; n = 27, group B). Overall 1-year and 5-year survivals after heart transplantation were 72.4% (n = 21) and 58.6% (n = 17), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical circulatory support is an effective strategy even in cases of end-stage heart failure according to our experience. Further improvement of VAD and TAH technologies may support their adoption as an encouraging alternative to heart transplantation in the near future.

Oncologists' and family physicians' views on value for money of cancer and congestive heart failure care

BACKGROUND

Previous studies suggest that cancer-related interventions are valued by policy makers more favorably than interventions for other medical conditions, but the views of practicing physicians have not yet been assessed in Israel. Attitudes and judgments of practicing physicians may assist decision-makers in their deliberations on coverage of new technologies. We conducted a national survey in Israel among oncologists and family physicians to explore their views on access to care, coverage decisions and treatment recommendations for cancer and congestive heart failure (CHF) patients.

METHODS

We administered a web-based survey to 300 family physicians and 156 oncologists. The questionnaire included 24 statements and physicians were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Where relevant, physicians were asked to express their views on interventions for cancer and CHF respectively.

RESULTS

Response rates were 39% for family physicians and 36% for oncologists. Participants expressed similar views on cancer and CHF care and no significant differences were found between the two medical specialties. More than 85% of physicians believe that inclusion of a treatment in the National List of Health Services (NLHS) strongly affects their patients' access to care. Approximately 80% suggest that more use of comparative-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis is needed in coverage decisions. The vast majority of respondents (75%) suggest that assessment of value-for-money should be made by an independent (academic) institution or the national committee responsible for recommending coverage decisions, Seventy percent believe that treatments not included in the NLHS should be included in supplementary health insurance programs and only a small minority of respondents (<30%) believe that cancer-related interventions should receive higher priority than non-cancer interventions in coverage decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that both oncologists and family physicians value cancer and CHF interventions equally. We could not find evidence for a "cancer premium" as implied from previous surveys and analysis of coverage decisions in various countries.

Which is more valuable, longer survival or better quality of life? Israeli oncologists' and family physicians' attitudes toward the relative value of new cancer and congestive heart failure interventions

OBJECTIVES

We determined how Israeli oncologists and family physicians value life-prolongation versus quality-of-life (QOL)-enhancing outcomes attributable to cancer and congestive heart failure interventions.

METHODS

We presented physicians with two scenarios involving a hypothetical patient with metastatic cancer expected to survive 12 months with current treatment. In a life-prolongation scenario, we suggested that a new treatment increases survival at an incremental cost of $50,000 over the standard of care. Participants were asked what minimum improvement in median survival the new therapy would need to provide for them to recommend it over the standard of care. In the QOL-enhancing scenario, we asked the maximum willingness to pay for an intervention that leads to the same survival as the standard treatment, but increases patient's QOL from 50 to 75 (on a 0-100 scale). We replicated these scenarios by substituting a patient with congestive heart failure instead of metastatic cancer. We derived the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained threshold implied by each response.

RESULTS

In the life-prolongation scenario, the cost-effectiveness thresholds implied by oncologists were $150,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY for cancer and CHF, respectively. Cost-effectiveness thresholds implied by family physicians were $50,000/QALY regardless of the disease type. Willingness to pay for the QOL-enhancing scenarios was $60,000/QALY and did not differ by physicians' specialty or disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that family physicians value life-prolonging and QOL-enhancing interventions roughly equally, while oncologists value interventions that extend survival more highly than those that improve only QOL. These findings may have important implications for coverage and reimbursement decisions of new technologies.

Innovative technology-transcatheter aortic valve implantation: cost and reimbursement issues

OBJECTIVE

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) offers a new treatment option for patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis, classified as "inoperable". The purpose of the study was to reveal the association between ascertained hospital costs with the actual patient Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG).

METHOD

We examined 50 consecutive patients who underwent either transapical TAVI, (TAVI-TA) or transfemoral TAVI (TAVI-TF) with the Edwards SAPIEN valve and CoreValve(®) between September 2009 and August 2011.

RESULTS

Fourty-nine patients had successful valve deployment. Seven patients died within 30 days of the operation. The mean length of hospital stay for TAVI-TA was 199 hours (range 77-362), and the mean costs for TAVI-TA were 55,690 US$. For TAVI-TF the mean length of hospital stay was 170 hours (range 49-276) and the mean costs were 52,087 US$.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between TAVI-TA and TAVI-TF patient characteristics. There was a significant discrepancy between actual hospital costs and the current Norwegian DRG reimbursement for the TAVI procedure. This discrepancy can be partly explained by excessive costs related to the introduction of a new program with new technology. Costly innovations should be considered in price-setting of reimbursement for novel technology.

Hospital costs fell as numbers of LVADs were increasing: experiences from Oslo University Hospital

Background

The current study was undertaken to examine total hospital costs per patient of a consecutive implantation series of two 3^rd generation Left Ventricle Assist Devices (LVAD). Further we analyzed if increased clinical experience would reduce total hospital costs and the gap between costs and the diagnosis related grouped (DRG)-reimbursement.

Method

Cost data of 20 LVAD implantations (VentrAssist™) from 2005-2009 (period 1) were analyzed together with costs from nine patients using another LVAD (HeartWare™) from 2009-June 2011 (period 2). For each patient, total costs were calculated for three phases - the pre-LVAD implantation phase, the LVAD implantation phase and the post LVAD implant phase. Patient specific costs were obtained prospectively from patient records and included personnel resources, medication, blood products, blood chemistry and microbiology, imaging and procedure costs including operating room costs. Overhead costs were registered retrospectively and allocated to the specific patient by predefined allocation keys. Finally, patient specific costs and overhead costs were aggregated into total hospital costs for each patient. All costs were calculated in 2011-prices. We used regression analyses to analyze cost variations over time and between the different devices.

Results

The average total hospital cost per patient for the pre-LVAD, LVAD and post-LVAD for period 1 was $ 585, 513 (range 132, 640- 1 247, 299), and the corresponding DRG- reimbursement (2009) was $ 143, 192 . The mean LOS was 54 days (range 12- 127). For period 2 the total hospital cost per patient was $ 413, 185 (range 314, 540- 622, 664) and the corresponding DRG- reimbursement (2010) was $ 136, 963. The mean LOS was 49 days (range 31- 93).

The estimates from the regression analysis showed that the total hospital costs, excluding device costs, per patient were falling as the number of treated patients increased. The estimate from the trend variable was -14, 096 US$ (CI -3, 842 to -24, 349, p < 0.01).

Conclusion

There were significant reductions in total hospital costs per patient as the numbers of patients were increasing. This can possibly be explained by a learning effect including better logistics, selection and management of patients.

Cost-effectiveness of the implantable HeartMate II left ventricular assist device for patients awaiting heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are being proposed as a life-saving therapeutic alternative to conventional medical management for people with end-stage heart failure awaiting transplantation. However, cost-effectiveness assessments of first-generation LVADs have not been encouraging. The cost-effectiveness of the enhanced second-generation LVAD HeartMate II (Thoratec, Pleasanton, CA) is estimated here.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was developed to extrapolate survival, utility, and resource use over the total lifetime of a hypothetic cohort of patients with end-stage heart failure under the 2 competing therapeutic strategies, using the most robust and recently published evidence about their performance. Cost data are based on UK activity to consider reimbursement in the UK National Health Service setting.

RESULTS

HeartMate II had a mean cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of £258,922 ($414,275). The sensitivity analysis showed that 2 factors mainly explain why HeartMate II is not a cost-effectiveness strategy as a bridge-to-transplant: (1) the survival of heart transplant candidates treated conventionally while on the waiting list has significantly improved in recent years, and (2) the high acquisition cost of the device, £94,200 ($150,720).

CONCLUSIONS

Although HeartMate II LVAD implantation significantly increases survival compared with conventional medical management, it does not provide good value for the money spent according to established thresholds of cost-effectiveness in the UK. HeartMate II is unlikely to become cost-effective unless the additional survival gained by its use raises and/or the device is given free of charge. Therefore, its implantation to transplant candidates lacks justification in terms of cost-effectiveness.