Ten-year Medicare budget impact of increased coverage for anti-obesity intervention

Evaluation of Alternate Laparoscopic Stapling Device for Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

As laparoscopic bariatric surgical techniques have matured, the incidence of complications has decreased over time. Surgical stapling devices are commonly used for resection and anastomosis of gastric tissue during bariatric surgery. The purpose of this study is to assess and compare complication rates and clinical outcomes between patient cohorts using 2 different approved stapling devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical outcomes were retrospectively compared for patients undergoing bariatric surgery between April 2019 and December 2020 using laparoscopic surgical stapling device A (LSSD-A) against outcomes between January 2017 and September 2018 using laparoscopic surgical stapling device B (LSSD-B). Tradenames for LSSD-A and LSSD-B were AEON Endostapler and Endo GIA with Tri-Staple Technology, respectively.

RESULTS

In all, 814 patients underwent laparoscopic bariatric operation using LSSD-A and 1034 using LSSD-B. Laparoscopic surgery included sleeve gastrectomy (n=1359, 73.5%), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (n=425, 23.0%), and single anastomosis duodenoileostomy with gastric sleeve (n=64, 3.5%). Stapler-related complications were evenly distributed over the 20.9-month LSSD-B study period. No stapler-related complications were seen in the last 13 months of the LSSD-A study period, during which time 428 (52.5%) laparoscopic bariatric operations were performed. One staple line leak was observed, occurring in the LSSD-B group. Patients undergoing laparoscopic RYGB with LSSD-A had fewer overall complications, fewer transfusions, and fewer reoperations for staple line bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LSSD-A and LSSD-B were safe and effective in the performance of laparoscopic bariatric operations with low complication rates and comparable clinical performance in sleeve gastrectomy and single anastomosis duodenoileostomy with gastric sleeve. Statistically significant differences in complication rates were observed in RYGB favoring LSSD-A.

"Anti-obesity medications" or "medications to treat obesity" instead of "weight loss drugs" - why language matters - an official statement of the Brazilian Association for the Study of Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome (ABESO) and the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM)

Obesity is largely undertreated, in part because of the stigma surrounding the disease and its treatment. The use of the term "weight loss drugs" to refer to medications for the treatment of obesity may contribute to this stigma, leading to the idea that anyone who wants to lose weight could use them and that short-term use, only in the active weight loss phase would be enough. On the contrary, the use of terms such as "medications to treat obesity" or "anti-obesity medications" conveys the idea that the treatment is directed at the disease rather than the symptom. This joint statement by the Brazilian Association for the Study of Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome (ABESO) and the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM) intends to alert the press, healthcare professionals and scientific community about the importance of the appropriate use of language, with the aim of improving obesity care.

Clinical and Cost Benefits of Anti-Obesity Medication for US Veterans Participating in the MOVE! Weight Management Program

Abstract This study investigated the clinical and economic impact of anti-obesity medications (AOMs; orlistat, liraglutide, phentermine/topiramate extended-release [ER], naltrexone ER/bupropion ER) among United States Veterans with obesity participating in Motivating Overweight/Obese Veterans Everywhere! (MOVE!), a government-initiated weight management program. The study population was identified from electronic medical records of the Veterans Health Administration (2010-2020). Clinical indices of obesity and health care resource utilization and costs were evaluated at 6, 12, and 24 months after the initial dispensing of an AOM in the AOM+MOVE! cohort (N = 3732, mean age 57 years, 79% male) or on the corresponding date of an inpatient or outpatient encounter in the MOVE! cohort (N = 7883, mean age 58 years, 81% male). At 6 months postindex, the AOM+MOVE! cohort had better cardiometabolic indices (eg, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, hemoglobin A1c) than the MOVE! cohort, with the trends persisting at 12 and 24 months. The AOM+MOVE! cohort was significantly more likely than the MOVE! cohort to have weight decreases of 5%-10%, 10%-15%, and >15% and lower body mass index at 6, 12, and 24 months. The AOM+MOVE! cohort also had fewer inpatient and emergency department visits than the MOVE! cohort, which was associated with lower mean total medical costs including inpatient costs. These results suggest that combining AOM treatment with the MOVE! program could yield long-term cost savings for the Veterans Affairs network and meaningful clinical improvements for Veterans with obesity.

Impact of a Digitally Enhanced Diabetes Self-Management Program on Glycemia and Medical Costs

OBJECTIVE

To analyze economic savings and health impacts associated with a virtual digitally enhanced diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) program.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Participants (n = 1,494) were nonpregnant adults with diagnosed type 2 diabetes and baseline body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² (23 kg/m² if of Asian descent) or higher who enrolled in virtual DSMES between February 2019 and April 2020 for at least 4 months. Participants' changes in glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and body weight were calculated as the difference between program start and last recorded values between months 4 and 6. Outcomes for all participants were analyzed; subanalyses were done on 628 participants with starting A1C >7% (53 mmol/mol), who could benefit most from DSMES. Markov-based microsimulation approach was used to model the potential reductions in diabetes sequalae and medical expenditures if observed improvements in A1C and BMI were maintained.

RESULTS

DSMES participants with starting A1C >7% experienced average reductions of 0.9% A1C and 2.1 kg of body weight (-1.7% of BMI) within 6 months. If these improvements were maintained, simulated outcomes include reduced 5-year onset of ischemic heart disease by 9.2%, myocardial infarction by 10.6%, stroke by 12.1%, chronic kidney disease by 16.5%, and reduced onset of other sequelae. Simulated cumulative reduction in medical expenditures is $1160 after 1 year, $4150 after 3 years, $7790 after 5 years, and $18 020 after 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in virtual DSMES improves A1C and body weight, with the potential to slow onset of diabetes sequelae and reduce medical expenditures.

Simulating the Fiscal Impact of Anti-Obesity Medications as an Obesity Reduction Strategy

While substantial public health investment in anti-smoking initiatives has had demonstrated benefits on health and fiscal outcomes, similar investment in reducing obesity has not been undertaken, despite the substantial burden obesity places on society. Anti-obesity medications (AOMs) are poorly prescribed despite evidence that weight loss is not sustained using other strategies alone.

We used a simulation model to estimate the potential impact of 100% uptake of AOMs on Medicare and Medicaid spending, disability payments, and taxes collected relative to status quo with negligible AOM use. Relative to status quo, AOM use simulation would result in Medicare and Medicaid savings of $231.5 billion and $188.8 billion respectively over 75 years. Government tax revenues would increase by $452.8 billion. Overall, the net benefit would be $746.6 billion. Anti-smoking efforts have had substantial benefits for society. A similar investment in obesity reduction, including broad use of AOMs, should be considered.

The association of obesity with health insurance coverage and demographic characteristics: a statewide cross-sectional study

We evaluated the statewide burden of obesity and its complications among government and state funded programs (Medicare and Medicaid) and commercial insurance.We calculated the prevalence of obesity and the prevalence of relevant comorbidities among different demographic groups and based on health insurance, among adults (18-65 years old) who visited a statewide health network in the state of Rhode Island, in 2017.The overall prevalence of obesity among 74,089 individuals was 38.88% [Asians 16.77%, Whites 37.49%, Hispanics 44.23%, and Blacks 48.44%]. Medicare or Medicaid beneficiaries were 26% and 27%, respectively, more likely to have obesity than those who had commercial insurance (Odds Ratio:1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.20-1.32; Odds Ratio:1.27, 95%CI:1.22-1.32). Moreover, Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries with obesity had a higher prevalence of diabetes compared with privately insured with obesity (10.58% and 10.44% vs 4.45%). Medicare beneficiaries with obesity had a statistically higher prevalence of ischemic heart disease (4.34%, 95%CI: 3.77-4.91) than privately insured (3.21%, 95%CI: 2.94-3.47).Based on statewide data among 18 to 65 years old adults, Medicare and Medicaid provide health coverage to 40% of individuals with obesity and 46% of those with the obesity-related comorbidities and complications. State and federal health care programs need to support and expand obesity-related services and coverage.