Projecting total costs and health consequences of increasing mt-sDNA utilization for colorectal cancer screening from the payer and integrated delivery network perspectives

Clinical benefits and economic cost-savings of Remote Electrical Neuromodulation (REN) for migraine prevention

AIMS

Assess the clinical benefits and associated direct and indirect cost-savings from Remote Electrical Neuromodulation (REN) for migraine prevention.

METHODS

REN, a prescribed, wearable, FDA-cleared neuromodulation-device for the acute and/or treatment of migraine, recently demonstrated efficacy for migraine prevention when used every-other-day, in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center study. Following baseline (4-weeks), subjects underwent treatment with REN (or placebo; 8-weeks), and electronically reported migraine symptoms and acute treatments daily. Therapeutic-gain was the between-groups difference (REN minus placebo) in change from baseline to the second month of intervention. Health-economics impact was derived as cost-savings associated with REN's clinical benefits.

RESULTS

Out of 248 subjects randomized (128 active, 120 placebo), 179 (95:84) qualified for modifiedintention-to-treat (mITT) analysis. Significant therapeutic gains favoring REN vs placebo were found (Tepper et al., 2023), including mean (±SD) reduction in number of acute medication days (3.4 ± 0.4 vs 1.2 ± 0.5; gain = 2.2; p = 0.001) and presenteeism days (2.7 ± 0.3 vs 1.1 ± 0.4; p = 0.001). Mean changes of provider visits (reduction of 0.09 ± 0.1 vs increase of 0.08 ± 0.2; p = 0.297), and reduction of absenteeism days (0.07 ± 0.1 vs 0.07 ± 0.2; p = 0.997) were not significant. Mean annual cost-saving for one patient using REN for migraine prevention estimated $10,000 (±$1,777) from reductions in these four clinical outcomes relative to baseline without REN treatment. Extrapolated to a hypothetical US commercial health-plan of one-million covered lives, assuming the national prevalence of migraine patients on preventive treatment, annual mean (±SE) cost-saving from using REN migraine prevention estimated $560.0 million (±$99.5 million) from reduction in direct and indirect metrics measured.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical and cost-savings benefits presented are conservative, assessed only from endpoints measured in the clinical trial. Moreover, some of the endpoints had only scarce or no occurrences during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Demonstrated significant and meaningful clinical, and cost-savings benefits for patients, health insurance systems, and employers, from utilizing REN for migraine prevention.

The cost-effectiveness of non-invasive stool-based colorectal cancer screening offerings from age 45 for a commercial and medicare population

AIM

The United States Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) recently recommended lowering the age for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45 years. While initiating screening at age 45 versus 50 provides a greater opportunity for CRC early detection and prevention, the full profile of benefits, risks, and cost-effectiveness of expanding the screen-eligible population requires further evaluation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The costs and clinical outcomes for screening at age 45 for triennial multi-target stool DNA [mt-sDNA], and other non-invasive stool-based modalities (annual fecal immunochemical test [FIT] and annual fecal-occult blood test [FOBT]), were estimated using the validated CRC-AIM microsimulation model over a lifetime horizon. Test sensitivity and specificity inputs were based on 2021 USPSTF modeling analyses; adherence rates were based on published real-world data and the costs of the screening test, follow-up colonoscopies, complications, and CRC care were included. Outcomes are reported from the perspective of a United States payer as clinical, life-years gained (LYG), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); stool-based and follow-up colonoscopy adherence ranges were explored in one-way, probabilistic and threshold analyses.

RESULTS

When compared to initiation of CRC screening at age 45 versus 50, all modalities reduced both the incidence of and mortality from CRC and increased LYG. Initiating CRC screening at age 45 was cost-effective with an ICER of $59,816 and $35,857 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for mt-sDNA versus FIT and FOBT, respectively. In the threshold analyses, at equivalent rates to stool-based screening, mt-sDNA was always cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY versus FIT and FOBT.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating average-risk CRC screening at age 45 instead of age 50 increases the estimated clinical benefit by reducing disease burden while remaining cost-effective. Among stool-based screening modalities, mt-sDNA provides the most clinical benefit in a Commercial and Medicare population.

Cost-Effectiveness of Waiving Coinsurance for Follow-Up Colonoscopy after a Positive Stool-Based Colorectal Screening Test in a Medicare Population

Commercial insurance covers a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive colorectal cancer-screening test with no patient cost-sharing. Instituting a similar policy for Medicare beneficiaries may increase screening adherence and improve outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening was compared across adherence scenarios that assumed Medicare coinsurance status quo (20% for follow-up colonoscopy) or waived coinsurance. The CRC-AIM model simulated previously unscreened eligible Medicare beneficiaries undergoing stool-based colorectal cancer screening at age 65 for 10 years. Medicare costs, colorectal cancer cases, colorectal cancer-related deaths, life-years gained (LYG), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were estimated versus no screening. Scenario 1 (S1) assumed 20% coinsurance for follow-up colonoscopy. Scenario 2 (S2) assumed waived coinsurance without adherence changes. Scenarios 3-7 (S3-S7) assumed that waiving coinsurance increased real-world stool-based screening and/or follow-up colonoscopy adherence by 5% or 10%. Sensitivity analyses assumed 1%-4% increased adherence. Cost-effectiveness threshold was ≤$100,000/QALY. Waiving coinsurance without adherence changes (S2) did not affect outcomes versus S1. S3-S7 versus S1 over 10 years estimated up to 3.6 fewer colorectal cancer cases/1,000 individuals, up to 2.1 fewer colorectal cancer deaths, up to 20.7 more LYG, and had comparable total costs per-patient (≤$6,478 vs. $6,449, respectively) as reduced colorectal cancer medical costs offset increased screening and colonoscopy costs. In sensitivity analyses, any increase in adherence after waiving coinsurance was cost-effective and increased LYG. In simulated Medicare beneficiaries, waiving coinsurance for follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based test improved outcomes and was cost-effective when assumed to modestly increase colorectal cancer screening and/or follow-up colonoscopy adherence.

PREVENTION RELEVANCE

Follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based test is necessary to complete the colorectal cancer-screening process. This analysis demonstrated that in a simulated Medicare population, waiving coinsurance for a follow-up colonoscopy improved estimated outcomes and was cost-effective when it was assumed that waiving the coinsurance modestly increased screening adherence. See related Spotlight, p. 641.

Cost-Effectiveness of Outreach Strategies for Stool-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Medicaid Population

Outreach, including patient navigation, has been shown to increase the uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in underserved populations. This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) versus outreach, with or without a mailed annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT), in a Medicaid population. A microsimulation model estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using quality-adjusted life years (QALY), direct costs, and clinical outcomes in a cohort of Medicaid beneficiaries aged 50–64 years, over a lifetime time horizon. The base case model explored scenarios of either 100% adherence or real-world reported adherence (51.3% for mt-sDNA, 21.1% for outreach with FIT and 12.3% for outreach without FIT) with or without real-world adherence for follow-up colonoscopy (66.7% for all). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.0%. At 100% adherence to both screening tests and follow-up colonoscopy, mt-sDNA costed more and was less effective compared with outreach with or without FIT. When real-world adherence rates were considered for screening strategies (with 100% adherence for follow-up colonoscopy), mt-sDNA resulted in the greatest reduction in incidence and mortality from CRC (41.5% and 45.8%, respectively) compared with outreach with or without FIT; mt-sDNA also was cost-effective versus outreach with and without FIT ($32,150/QALY and $22,707/QALY, respectively). mt-sDNA remained cost-effective versus FIT, with or without outreach, under real-world adherence rates for follow-up colonoscopy. Outreach or navigation interventions, with associated real-world adherence rates to screening tests, should be considered when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening strategies in underserved populations.

The impact of increasing multitarget stool DNA use among colorectal cancer screeners in a self-insured US employer population

Background: In the United States (US), colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. With the majority of the US population covered by employer-based health plans, employers can play a critical role in increasing CRC screening adherence, which may help avert CRC-related deaths. Therefore, it is important for self-insured employers to consider the impact of appropriate utilization of CRC screening options. Objective: To evaluate the impact of increasing multitarget stool DNA [mt-sDNA (Cologuard®)] use among CRC screeners from the perspective of a US self-insured employer. Methods:A 5-year Markov model was developed to quantify the budget impact of increasing mt-sDNA from 6% to 15% among average-risk screeners using colonoscopy, fecal immunological test, and mt-sDNA. Data on direct medical costs were obtained from published literature, Medicare CPT codes, and the Healthcare cost and Utilization project. Indirect costs included productivity loss due to workplace absenteeism for CRC screening and treatment. Results: With a hypothetical population of 100,000 employees with screeners aged 50-64 years, compared to status quo, increased mt-sDNA utilization resulted in no differences in the numbers of cancers detected and the overall direct and indirect cost savings were ~$214,000 ($0.04 per-employee-per-month) over 5 years. Most of the savings were due to a reduction in the direct medical expenditure related to CRC screening, adverse events, and productivity loss due to colonoscopy screening. Similar results were observed in the model simulation among screeners aged 45-64 years. Conclusion: Increased utilization of mt-sDNA for CRC screening averts direct and indirect medical costs from a self-insured US employer perspective.

The health economic impact of varying levels of adherence to colorectal screening on providers and payers

AIMS

To examine the impact of increasing multi-target stool DNA test (mt-sDNA [Cologuard]) utilization for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in cohorts aged 50-75 and 45-75 years old with varying levels of adherence from the perspectives of integrated delivery networks (IDNs) and payers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a budget impact model that simulates CRC screening with colonoscopy over a 10-year time horizon, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and mt-sDNA according to the United States Preventive Services Task Force and American Cancer Society guidelines for average risk adults. We evaluated varying levels of screening adherence for a status quo scenario and for an increased mt-sDNA utilization scenario, from the IDN and payer perspectives. The IDN perspective included CRC screening program costs, whereas the payer perspective did not. Conversely, stool-based screening test and bowel preparation costs were unique to the payer perspective.

RESULTS

The increased mt-sDNA scenarios yielded cost savings relative to the status quo under all adherence scenarios due to a decrease in screening and surveillance colonoscopies. For ages 50-75, in high and low adherence scenarios, savings were $19.8 M ($0.16 per-person-per-month (PPPM)) and $33.3 M ($0.28 PPPM) from the IDN perspective. From the payer perspective, savings were $4.2 M ($0.03 PPPM) and $6.7 M ($0.06 PPPM). For ages 45-75, in high and low adherence scenarios, cost savings were $19.3 M ($0.16 PPPM) and $33.0 M ($0.28 PPPM) from the IDN perspective and $3.9 M ($0.03 PPPM) and $6.2 M ($0.05 PPPM) from the payer perspective. In all imperfect adherence scenarios, the degree of cost-savings with increased mt-sDNA utilization correlated with the aggregate decrease in screening and surveillance colonoscopies.

LIMITATIONS

Estimates of real-world adherence levels were based on cross-sectional screening data from the literature, and assumptions were applied to individual screening modalities and screening scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Among all adherence scenarios, perspectives, and age ranges, increased mt-sDNA utilization yielded cost-savings.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening in a Medicare population

AIM

Multiple screening strategies are guideline-endorsed for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC). The impact of real-world adherence rates on the cost-effectiveness of non-invasive stool-based CRC screening strategies remains undefined.

METHODS

This cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of Medicare as a primary payer used the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model (CRC-AIM) to estimate cost and clinical outcomes for triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening strategies in a simulated cohort of US adults aged 65 years, who were assumed to either be previously unscreened or initiating screening upon entry to Medicare. Reported real-world adherence rates for initial stool-based screening and colonoscopy follow up (after a positive stool test result) were defined as 71.1% and 73.0% for mt-sDNA, 42.6% and 47.0% for FIT, and 33.4% and 47.0% for FOBT, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was defined as the primary outcome of interest; other cost and clinical outcomes were also reported in secondary analyses. Multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

When reported real-world adherence rates were included only for initial stool-based screening, mt-sDNA was cost-effective versus FIT ($62,814/QALY) and FOBT ($39,171/QALY); mt-sDNA also yielded improved clinical outcomes. When reported real-world adherence rates were included for both initial stool-based screening and follow-up colonoscopy (when indicated), mt-sDNA was increasingly cost-effective compared to FIT and FOBT ($31,725/QALY and $28,465/QALY, respectively), with further improved clinical outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

Results are based on real-world cross-sectional adherence rates and may vary in the context of other types of settings. Only guideline-recommended stool-based strategies were considered in this analysis.

CONCLUSION

Comparisons of the effectiveness and benefits of specific CRC screening strategies should include both test-specific performance characteristics and real-world adherence to screening tests and, when indicated, follow-up colonoscopy.