Effects of the Medicare Part D Comprehensive Medication Review on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Medication Adherence

BackgroundSubstantial research has documented inequalities between US minorities and whites in meeting the eligibility criteria for the Medicare Part D medication therapy management (MTM) program. Even though the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services attempted to relax the eligibility criteria, a critical barrier to effective MTM reform is a lack of stronger evidence about the effects of MTM on minorities'' health outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine the effects of comprehensive medication review (CMR), an MTM core component, on racial and ethnic disparities in adherence to diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia medications among Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years.MethodsThis study used full-year 2017 Medicare Parts A, B, and D claims data, including MTM data, linked to the Area Health Resources Files. Racial and ethnic disparities in nonadherence to diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia medications were compared between CMR recipients and nonrecipients matched by their propensity scores. To determine the changes in racial and ethnic disparities after receiving CMR, a difference-in-differences framework was applied, by including in logistic regression analyses interaction terms between dummy variables for CMR receipt and each racial or ethnic minority group.ResultsCompared with CMR nonrecipients, CMR recipients had significantly lower racial and ethnic disparities across the 3 outcome measures, with the exception of the difference between whites and blacks in nonadherence to diabetes medications. For example, compared with CMR nonrecipients, among CMR recipients the differences in the odds of nonadherence to hypertension medications were reduced, respectively, by 8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–0.96) between whites and blacks; by 18% (95% CI, 0.78–0.86) between whites and Hispanics; by 16% (95% CI, 0.77–0.91) between whites and Asians; and by 9% (95% CI, 0.85–0.98) between whites and other racial and ethnic groups.ConclusionReceiving a CMR reduced the racial and ethnic disparities in adherence to diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia medications among Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years. These findings provide critical empirical evidence that may inform the future design of the Medicare Part D MTM program, which is valuable for improving pharmacotherapy outcomes and could further realize its potential when additional people from racial and ethnic minorities are enrolled.     

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Pharmacist-Led Medication Therapy Management Program: Hypertension Management

ObjectivesUncontrolled hypertension is a common cause of cardiovascular disease, which is the deadliest and costliest chronic disease in the United States. Pharmacists are an accessible community healthcare resource and are equipped with clinical skills to improve the management of hypertension through medication therapy management (MTM). Nevertheless, current reimbursement models do not incentivize pharmacists to provide clinical services. We aim to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-led comprehensive MTM clinic compared with no clinic for 10-year primary prevention of stroke and cardiovascular disease events in patients with hypertension.MethodsWe built a semi-Markov model to evaluate the clinical and economic consequences of an MTM clinic compared with no MTM clinic, from the payer perspective. The model was populated with data from a recently published controlled observational study investigating the effectiveness of an MTM clinic. Methodology was guided using recommendations from the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, including appropriate sensitivity analyses.ResultsCompared with no MTM clinic, the MTM clinic was cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $38 798 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The incremental net monetary benefit was $993 294 considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Health-benefit benchmarks at $100 000 per QALY and $150 000 per QALY translate to a 95% and 170% increase from current reimbursement rates for MTM services.ConclusionsOur model shows current reimbursement rates for pharmacist-led MTM services may undervalue the benefit realized by US payers. New reimbursement models are needed to allow pharmacists to offer cost-effective clinical services.     

Association Between Medication Adherence and Healthcare Costs Among Patients Receiving the Low-Income Subsidy

ObjectivesSignificant literature exists on the effects of medication adherence on reducing healthcare costs, but less is known about the effect of medication adherence among Medicare low-income subsidy (LIS) recipients. This study examined the effects of medication adherence on healthcare costs among LIS recipients with diabetes, hypertension, and/or heart failure.MethodsThis retrospective study analyzed Medicare claims data (2012-2013) linked to the Area Health Resources Files. Using measures developed by the Pharmacy Quality Alliance, adherence to 11 medication classes was studied among patients with 7 possible combinations of the diseases mentioned. Adherence was measured in 8 categories of proportion of days covered (PDC): ≥95%, 90% to <95%, 85% to <90%, 80% to <85%, 75% to <80%, 50% to <75%, 25% to <50%, and <25%. Annual Medicare costs were compared across adherence categories. A generalized linear model was used to control for patient/community characteristics.ResultsAmong patients with only one disease, such as diabetes, patients with the lowest adherence (PDC < 25%) had $3152/year higher Medicare costs than patients with the highest adherence (PDC ≥ 95%; $11 101 vs $7949; P < .05). The adjusted costs among patients with PDC < 25% was $1893 higher than patients with PDC ≥ 95% ($9919 vs $8026; P < .05). Among patients with multiple chronic conditions, patients’ adherence to medications for fewer diseases had higher costs.ConclusionsGreater medication adherence is associated with lower Medicare costs in the Medicare LIS population. Future policy affecting the LIS program should encourage better medication adherence among patients with chronic diseases.     

A Profile of Black and Latino Older Adults Receiving Care in Nursing Homes: 2011–2017

ObjectiveTo identify if disparate trends in the access and use of nursing home (NH) services among Black and Latino older adults compared with White older adults persist. Access was operationalized as the NHs that served Black, Latino, and White residents. Use was operationalized as the utilization of NH services by Black, Latino, and White residents.DesignThis was an observational study analyzing facility-level data from LTCfocus for 2011 to 2017.Setting and ParticipantsAll NH residents present in US NHs participating in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services program on the first Thursday in April in the years 2011 to 2017. NHs with fewer than 4500 bed-days per year are excluded in the LCTfocus dataset. Black, Latino, and White were the racial/ethnic groups of interest.MethodsWe calculated the mean percentage of each racial/ethnic group in NHs (Black, Latino, White) annually along with the number of NHs that provided care for these groups. We conducted a simple trend analysis using ordinary least squares to estimate the change in NH access and use by racial/ethnic group over time.ResultsOur NH sample ranged from 15,564 in 2011 to 14,956 in 2017. Latino residents' use of NHs increased by 20.47% and Black residents increased by 11.42%, whereas there was a 1.36% decrease in White residents’ use of NHs. In this 7-year span, there was a 4.44% and 6.41% decline in the number of NHs that serve any Black and Latino older adults, respectively, compared with a 2.26% decline in NHs that serve only White older adults (access).Conclusions and ImplicationsOur findings reveal a continued disproportionate rise in Black and Latino older adults’ use of NHs while the number of NHs that serve this population have declined. This work can inform federal and state policies to ensure access to long-term care services and supports in the community for all older adults and prevent inappropriate NH closures.     

Quality of care, health care costs, and utilization among Medicare Part D enrollees with and without low-income subsidy

The objective of this cross-sectional, retrospective, claims-based analysis was to evaluate disease-specific quality measures, use of acceptable therapies, and health care cost and utilization among Medicare Advantage Part D (MAPD) enrollees overall and by income/subsidy eligibility status. Individuals aged ≥65 years with evidence of ≥1 of 8 common conditions and continuously enrolled in a MAPD plan throughout 2007 were assigned to low-income/dually eligible (LI/DE) or non-LI/DE cohorts. Quality of care metrics were calculated for asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, and new episode depression. Persistence (proportion with percentage of days covered ≥80%), compliance (proportion with medication possession ratio ≥80%), health care costs, and utilization metrics were assessed by condition. All measures were evaluated for calendar year 2007. Bivariate comparisons were made between all LI/DE and non-LI/DE subgroups. A total of 183,213 patients were included. Metrics showed deficiencies in quality of care overall but generally favored non-LI/DE patients. The proportion of patients filling acceptable medication was suboptimal for most conditions, ranging from 40% to 96% across conditions and cohorts, with COPD the lowest and heart failure (HF) the highest. LI/DE patients were significantly more likely than non-LI/DE patients to fill acceptable therapy in each disease group (P<0.001) except HF. Percentages persistent and compliant with acceptable therapies were lowest for asthma and COPD, and highest for HF; percentages were generally higher among LI/DE patients. Mean disease-specific health care costs ranged from $345 (hyperlipidemia) to $2086 (HF) and were significantly higher for LI/DE than for non-LI/DE enrollees (P<0.001) for all diseases except coronary artery disease and HF. Overall, quality indicators, use of acceptable medications, and persistence/compliance metrics were suboptimal. Quality metrics favored non-LI/DE patients but medication metrics favored LI/DE patients. With an aging population and increasing health care costs, the deficits identified highlight the need for comprehensive strategies to improve clinical and economic outcomes across diseases.     

Racial/Ethnic Differences in Risk Factors Associated With Severe COVID-19 Among Older Adults With ADRD

ObjectiveTo examine racial/ethnic differences in risk factors, and their associations with COVID-19–related outcomes among older adults with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD).DesignObservational study.Setting and ParticipantsNational Medicare claims data and the Minimum Data Set 3.0 from April 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, were linked in this study. We included community-dwelling fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD, diagnosed with COVID-19 between April 1, 2020, and December 1, 2020 (N = 138,533).MethodsTwo outcome variables were defined: hospitalization within 14 days and death within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. We obtained information on individual sociodemographic characteristics, chronic conditions, and prior health care utilization based on the Medicare claims and the Minimum Dataset. Machine learning methods, including lasso regression and discriminative pattern mining, were used to identify risk factors in racial/ethnic subgroups (ie, White, Black, and Hispanic individuals). The associations between identified risk factors and outcomes were evaluated using logistic regression and compared across racial/ethnic subgroups using the coefficient comparison approach.ResultsWe found higher risks of COVID-19–related outcomes among Black and Hispanic individuals. The areas under the curve of the models with identified risk factors were 0.65 to 0.68 for mortality and 0.61 to 0.62 for hospitalization across racial/ethnic subgroups. Although some identified risk factors (eg, age, gender) for COVID-19–related outcomes were common among all racial/ethnic subgroups, other risk factors (eg, hypertension, obesity) varied by racial/ethnic subgroups. Furthermore, the associations between some common risk factors and COVID-19–related outcomes also varied by race/ethnicity. Being male was related to 138.2% (95% CI: 1.996–2.841), 64.7% (95% CI: 1.546–1.755), and 37.1% (95% CI: 1.192–1.578) increased odds of death among Hispanic, White, and Black individuals, respectively. In addition, the racial/ethnic disparity in COVID-19–related outcomes could not be completely explained by the identified risk factors.Conclusions and ImplicationsRacial/ethnic differences were detected in the likelihood of having COVID-19–related outcomes, specific risk factors, and relationships between specific risk factors and COVID-19–related outcomes. Future research is needed to elucidate the reasons for these differences.     

Differences in patient perceptions of integrated care among black,hispanic, and white Medicare beneficiaries

ObjectiveThis study sought to identify potential disparities among racial/ethnic groups in patient perceptions of integrated care (PPIC) and to explore how methodological differences may influence measured disparities.Data SourceData from Medicare beneficiaries who completed the 2015 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) and were enrolled in Part A benefits for an entire year.Study DesignWe used 4‐point measures of eight dimensions of PPIC and assessed differences in dimensions among racial/ethnic groups. To estimate differences, we applied a “rank and replace” method using multiple regression models in three steps, balancing differences in health status among racial groups and adjusting for differences in socioeconomic status. We reran all analyses with additional SES controls and using standard multiple variable regression.Data Collection/Extraction MethodsNot applicable.Principal FindingsWe found several significant differences in perceived integrated care between Black versus White (three of eight measures) and Hispanic versus White (one of eight) Medicare beneficiaries. On average, Black beneficiaries perceived more integrated support for self‐care than did White beneficiaries (mean difference = 0.14, SE = 0.06, P =.02). Black beneficiaries perceived more integrated specialists’ knowledge of past medical history than did White beneficiaries (mean difference = 0.12, SE = 0.06, P =.01). Black and Hispanic beneficiaries also each reported, on average, 0.18 more integrated medication and home health management than did White beneficiaries (P <.01 and P <.01). These findings were robust to sensitivity analyses and model specifications.ConclusionsThere exist some aspects of care for which Black and Hispanic beneficiaries may perceive greater integrated care than non‐Hispanic White beneficiaries. Further studies should test theories explaining why racial/ethnic groups perceive differences in integrated care.     

Cost-Effectiveness of a Program to Eliminate Disparities in Pneumococcal Vaccination Rates in Elderly Minority Populations: An Exploratory Analysis

ObjectiveInvasive pneumococcal disease is a major cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in the United States, particularly among the elderly (>65 years). There are large racial disparities in pneumococcal vaccination rates in this population. Here, we estimate the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical national vaccination intervention program designed to eliminate racial disparities in pneumococcal vaccination in the elderly.MethodsIn an exploratory analysis, a Markov decision-analysis model was developed, taking a societal perspective and assuming a 1-year cycle length, 10-year vaccination program duration, and lifetime time horizon. In the base-case analysis, it was conservatively assumed that vaccination program promotion costs were $10 per targeted minority elder per year, regardless of prior vaccination status and resulted in the elderly African American and Hispanic pneumococcal vaccination rate matching the elderly Caucasian vaccination rate (65%) in year 10 of the program.ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness of the vaccination program relative to no program was $45,161 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in the base-case analysis. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the likelihood of the vaccination program being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained was 64% and 100%, respectively.ConclusionsIn a conservative analysis biased against the vaccination program, a national vaccination intervention program to ameliorate racial disparities in pneumococcal vaccination would be cost-effective.     

Lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis of intraoperative radiation therapy versus external beam radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer

Background

To date no one has examined the quality of life and direct costs of care in treating early stage breast cancer with adjunct intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) versus external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) over the life of the patient. As well no one has examined the effects of radiation exposure with both therapies on the longer term sequelae. The purpose of this analysis was to examine the cost-effectiveness of IORT vs. EBRT over the life of the patient.

Methods

A Markov decision-analytic model evaluated these treatment strategies in terms of the direct costs in treating patients over their lifetime (including the downstream costs associated with radiation exposure) and the resultant quality of life of these patients. Medicare reimbursement amounts in treating patients were used for acute, steady state, recurrent cancer(s), and complications associated with radiation exposure. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the medical literature were assessed with each of these states. Life expectancies as well were derived from the medical literature. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated for dominance and net monetary benefit [at a willingness to pay (WTP)] of $50,000/QALY. Sensitivity analysis was also performed.

Results

IORT was the dominant (least costly with greater QALYs) versus EBRT: total costs over the life of the patient = $53,179 (IORT) vs. $63,828 (EBRT) and total QALYs: 17.86 (IORT) vs. 17.06 (EBRT). At a willingness to pay of $50,000 for each additional QALY, the net monetary benefit demonstrated that IORT was the most cost effective option: $839,815 vs. $789,092. The model was most sensitive to the probabilities of recurrent cancer and death for both IORT and EBRT.

Conclusion

IORT is the more valuable (lower cost with improved QALYs) strategy for use in patients presenting with early stage ER+ breast cancer. It should be used preferentially in these patients.

     

Cost-Effectiveness of Tumor Genomic Profiling to Guide First-Line Targeted Therapy Selection in Patients With Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma

ObjectivesA cost-effectiveness analysis comparing comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of 10 oncogenes, targeted gene panel testing (TGPT) of 4 oncogenes, and no tumor profiling over the lifetime for patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ perspective was conducted.MethodsA decision analytic model used 10 000 hypothetical Medicare beneficiaries with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma to simulate outcomes associated with CGP (ALK, BRAF, EGFR, ERBB2, MET, NTRK1, NTRK2, NTRK3, RET, ROS1), TGPT (ALK, BRAF, EGFR, ROS1), and no tumor profiling (no genes tested). First-line targeted cancer-directed therapies were assigned if actionable gene variants were detected; otherwise, nontargeted cancer-directed therapies were assigned. Model inputs were derived from randomized trials (progression-free survival, adverse events), the Veterans Health Administration and Medicare (drug costs), published studies (nondrug cancer-related management costs, health state utilities), and published databases (actionable variant prevalences). Costs (2019 US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% per year. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses used 1000 Monte Carlo simulations.ResultsNo tumor profiling was the least costly/person ($122 613 vs $184 063 for TGPT and $188 425 for CGP) and yielded the least QALYs/person (0.53 vs 0.73 for TGPT and 0.74 for CGP). The costs per QALY gained and corresponding 95% confidence interval were $310 735 ($278 323-$347 952) for TGPT vs no tumor profiling and $445 545 ($322 297-$572 084) for CGP vs TGPT. All probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations for both comparisons surpassed the willingness-to-pay threshold ($150 000 per QALY gained).ConclusionCompared with no tumor profiling in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma, tumor profiling (TGPT, CGP) improves quality-adjusted survival but is not cost-effective.     

Cost Benefit of High-Dose vs Standard-Dose Influenza Vaccine in a Long-Term Care Population During an A/H1N1-Predominant Influenza Season

ObjectivesInfluenza is a leading cause of avoidable admissions for nursing home (NH) residents. We previously evaluated the effectiveness of a high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine (HD) compared to a standard-dose influenza vaccine (SD) through a cluster-randomized trial of NH residents. Fewer residents from facilities randomized to HD were hospitalized. In this article, we extend our analyses to consider direct medical care costs relative to vaccine costs for HD ($31.82/dose) as compared to SD ($12.04/dose).DesignPost hoc, cost-benefit analysis.Setting and participantsFrom the participating NH facilities (n = 817), we identified Medicare fee-for-service enrollees who were long-stay residents (>100 days) at the start of the 2013-2014 influenza season (November 1–May 31). The intervention was residence in a facility randomized to HD or SD influenza vaccine.MethodsWe summed expenditures from long-stay NH residents' Medicare Part A, B, and D fee-for-service claims and compared person-level expenditures between residents of facilities offering HD vs SD. Expenditures were adjusted for clustering of residents within NHs, person-time, and prespecified covariates using 2-part, generalized linear models with bootstrapped standard errors. We examined the incremental cost-benefit of HD vs SD vaccines from a payer perspective.ResultsThere were 18,605 and 18,658 Medicare fee-for-service long-stay residents in facilities offering HD and SD, respectively. Person- and facility-adjusted total expenditures differed by $546 (P = .006). The $20 incremental cost of HD to SD offset adjusted expenditures for a net benefit of $526 per NH resident and a financial return on investment of 546/20 = 27:1.Conclusions/implicationsThe use of HD influenza vaccine in long-stay NH residents reduced total health care expenditures for a net benefit despite HD being more expensive per dose. These cost offsets applied to Medicare beneficiaries residing in NHs could result in important savings to the Medicare program.     

The Kansas Medicaid Buy-In: Factors influencing enrollment and health care utilization

BackgroundMedicaid Buy-Ins are optional programs states may implement to create work incentives for people with disabilities. These programs allow participants to increase earnings without losing Medicaid eligibility—potentially moving them out of poverty without risking loss of health care coverage. They also provide the opportunity for beneficiaries to offset some of their medical costs to the federal and state governments through premiums for coverage and increased taxes paid. State and federal policy makers and administrators have speculated about who might enroll, how they might use the benefits, and whether positive health outcomes for persons with disabilities would result.ObjectiveWe compared characteristics and health care utilization of 184 enrollees and 158 eligible nonenrollees in Kansas' Medicaid Buy-In.ResultsEnrollees were older and significantly more likely to have more than one disability, with mental illness being more prevalent than physical disabilities, and to have both higher Social Security and earned income. A majority of the sample was dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid with Medicaid paying most costs. Home health service costs were the primary difference between enrollee and nonenrollee expenditures.ConclusionsIncreased Medicaid Buy-In enrollment could prevent long-term dependence on federal disability benefits.     

Illustrating Potential Efficiency Gains from Using Cost-Effectiveness Evidence to Reallocate Medicare Expenditures

ObjectivesThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services does not explicitly use cost-effectiveness information in national coverage determinations. The objective of this study was to illustrate potential efficiency gains from reallocating Medicare expenditures by using cost-effectiveness information, and the consequences for health gains among Medicare beneficiaries.MethodsWe included national coverage determinations from 1999 through 2007. Estimates of cost-effectiveness were identified through a literature review. For coverage decisions with an associated cost-effectiveness estimate, we estimated utilization and size of the “unserved” eligible population by using a Medicare claims database (2007) and diagnostic and reimbursement codes. Technology costs originated from the cost-effectiveness literature or were estimated by using reimbursement codes. We illustrated potential aggregate health gains from increasing utilization of dominant interventions (i.e., cost saving and health increasing) and from reallocating expenditures by decreasing investment in cost-ineffective interventions and increasing investment in relatively cost-effective interventions.ResultsComplete information was available for 36 interventions. Increasing investment in dominant interventions alone led to an increase of 270,000 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and savings of $12.9 billion. Reallocation of a broader array of interventions yielded an additional 1.8 million QALYs, approximately 0.17 QALYs per affected Medicare beneficiary. Compared with the distribution of resources prior to reallocation, following reallocation a greater proportion was directed to oncology, diagnostic imaging/tests, and the most prevalent diseases. A smaller proportion of resources went to cardiology, treatments (including drugs, surgeries, and medical devices, as opposed to nontreatments such as preventive services), and the least prevalent diseases.ConclusionsUsing cost-effectiveness information has the potential to increase the aggregate health of Medicare beneficiaries while maintaining existing spending levels.     

Does Medication Adherence Lower Medicare Spending among Beneficiaries with Diabetes?

Objective. To measure 3‐year medication possession ratios (MPRs) for renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors and statins for Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, and to assess whether better adherence is associated with lower spending on traditional Medicare services controlling for biases common to previous adherence studies. Data Source. Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data from 1997 to 2005. Study Design. Longitudinal study of RAAS‐inhibitor and statin utilization over 3 years. Data Collection. The relationship between MPR and Medicare costs was tested in multivariate models with extensive behavioral variables to control for indication bias and healthy adherer bias. Principal Findings. Over 3 years, median MPR values were 0.88 for RAAS‐I users and 0.77 for statin users. Higher adherence was strongly associated with lower Medicare spending in the multivariate analysis. A 10 percentage point increase in statin MPR was associated with U.S.$832 lower Medicare spending (SE=219; p<.01). A 10 percentage point increase in MPR for RAAS‐Is was associated with U.S.$285 lower Medicare costs (SE=114; p<.05). Conclusions. Higher adherence with RAAS‐Is and statins by Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes results in lower cumulative Medicare spending over 3 years. At the margin, Medicare savings exceed the cost of the drugs.     

Evaluating Willingness-to-Pay Thresholds for Dementia Caregiving Interventions: Application to the Tailored Activity Program

ObjectivesThe study aims to apply willingness-to-pay (WTP) values derived from the literature to inform decision-makers of the cost-effectiveness of the Tailored Activity Program (TAP), an intervention proven to reduce caregiver burden.MethodsTAP and other caregiver interventions employ an individual perspective and non–quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) outcome measure where the primary objective is to determine caregiver burden from an individual perspective. Therefore, standard cost/QALY thresholds are not appropriate. To identify relevant WTP values, we searched for studies that: 1) were published in the past 5 years and used contingent valuation methodology to identify WTP; 2) assessed WTP for a dementia-related intervention requiring out-of-pocket expenditure; and 3) asked caregivers their WTP for an outcome related to reducing caregiver burden. Three studies were identified utilizing four WTP values. We also assessed potential financial savings that caregivers could achieve from purchasing TAP. To assess the probability of TAP being cost-effective, we built a Monte Carlo simulation to test the four WTP values applied to two TAP outcome measures: reduction in caregiver hours “on duty;” and “doing things.”ResultsFor outcome measure “on duty,” WTP varied between $1.06/hour and $4.58/hour. For outcome measure “doing things,” WTP varied between $2.21/hour and $9.57/hour. Applying the four identified WTP values from the literature to TAP outcomes resulted in TAP cost-effectiveness varying between 50% and 80% for both outcome measures.ConclusionsWhen WTP data are not collected prospectively or conventional metrics cannot be applied, retrospectively assessing literature-derived WTP may be acceptable for informing decision-makers of potential cost-effectiveness of a proven program. Application of WTP to TAP shows potential cost-effectiveness that can be expected under the tested WTP scenarios.     

An exploratory case study of the impact of expanding cost-effectiveness analysis for second-line nivolumab for patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Canada: Does it make a difference?

IntroductionHealth technology appraisal agencies often rely on cost-effectiveness analyses to inform coverage decisions for new treatments. These assessments, however, frequently measure a treatment’s value from the payer’s perspective, and may not capture value generated from reduced caregiving costs, increased productivity, value based on patient risk preferences, option value or the insurance value to non-patients.MethodsTo examine how using a broader societal perspective of treatment value affects cost-effectiveness estimates, this case study analyzed the net monetary benefit (NMB) of second-line nivolumab treatment of patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Canada. The comparator was treatment with docetaxel. NMB was measured from three perspectives: (i) traditional payer, (ii) traditional societal and (iii) broad societal.ResultsNivolumab was more effective (increased quality-adjusted life years by 0.66 versus docetaxel), but also increased costs by $100,168 CAD. When valuing a quality-adjusted life year at $150,000, the net monetary benefit from the payer perspective suggested that costs modestly exceed benefits (NMB: −$1031). Adopting a societal perspective, however, nivolumab’s benefits outweighed its costs (NMB: +$6752 and +$91,084 from the traditional and broad societal perspectives, respectively).ConclusionBroadening cost-effectiveness analysis beyond the traditional payer perspective had a significant impact on the result and should be considered in order to capture all treatment benefits and costs of societal relevance.