Pursuing Elimination of Hepatitis C in Egypt: Cost-Effectiveness and Economic Evaluation of a Country-Wide Program.

INTRODUCTION: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a global public health crisis. Egypt presents the highest HCV global prevalence. Recently, three different HCV screening/testing/therapy programs were implemented: In 2014 (wave 1), major decisions on HCV therapy were enacted, accompanied by a 99% discount for the HCV therapy sofosbuvir. In 2016 (wave 2), a first testing program was launched to identify patients for free treatment. In 2018 (wave 3), population-wide screening was conducted using a WHO-prequalified finger prick rapid diagnostic test (RDT) to identify/treat all Egyptians with HCV. The financial advantages of HCV screening programs (wave 1-3 results) were estimated vs a baseline period of limited Egyptian HCV testing/therapeutic intervention (2008-2014). METHODS: Using published evidence and model-based estimates from real-world data, we evaluated the direct costs of the different HCV programs, accompanied by a conservative simulation of major HCV health consequences (i.e., liver-related deaths/life years lost) and related indirect costs. Total economic consequences of each HCV program were compared to each other and baseline from a societal perspective. Future costs and health effects were discounted by 3.5% per year. RESULTS: Discounted total costs (in US dollars) were $1,057 billion (baseline), $913 million (wave 1), $457 million (wave 2), and $396 million (wave 3). Discounted HCV-related life years lost were 418,000 (baseline), 377,000 (wave 1), 142,000 (wave 2), and 62,000 (wave 3). With each successive Egyptian HCV screening/testing/therapy wave, total costs and HCV-related mortality were reduced. CONCLUSION: Use of the community-applied, WHO-prequalified RDT was the most dominant approach to cost-effectiveness. These results provide rationale for worldwide scalability of similar HCV elimination programs.

Robotic hysterectomy compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy: is it still more costly to perform?

To establish the economic value of simple robotic hysterectomy vs laparoscopic hysterectomy and assess the impact of surgeon's experience. Retrospective cohort study. University-affiliated US regional healthcare system. Reproductive and post-menopausal women undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications. Robotic or laparoscopic hysterectomy. Between January 2018 and December 2019, a total of 985 simple laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies were performed by 47 different gynecologists. Overall, the mean payment, direct cost, and profit were comparable (p value > 0.05) among simple robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy. However, the mean operative time was significantly shorter for robotic hysterectomy compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy (106 min vs 127 min, respectively, p < 0.05). Operative time decreased as a surgeon's annual robotic case volume increased. Per-minute profitability of robotic hysterectomy increased significantly when a surgeon performed greater than 45 cases annually (p = 0.04). This effect became most pronounced when a surgeon performed 60 or more cases per year (p = 0.01). Simple robotic hysterectomy has shorter operative time compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy, with direct costs being similar. Robotic hysterectomy has higher per-minute profit compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy when a surgeon performs > 45 cases per year.

Senhance surgical system in benign hysterectomy: A real-world comparative assessment of case times and instrument costs versus da Vinci robotics and laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy procedures.

OBJECTIVES: Comparison of retrospective, learning curve benign hysterectomy cost and case time data from Senhance total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) cases with similar da Vinci robot cases and laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) cases. METHODS: Instrument costs, console time, and case time analysis from six surgeons at four U.S. and European hospitals compared with retrospective, sequential da Vinci TLH and standard laparoscopic LAVH cases extracted from the CAVAlytics database. RESULTS: Senhance Gyn surgeons in their learning curve when compared to da Vinci learning curve Gyn surgeons achieved lower median instrument costs ($559 vs. $1393, respectively, p < 0.001) with comparable console times (91.5 vs. 96 min, p = 0.898); Senhance and LAVH case costs were comparable ($559 vs. $498, p = 0.336). CONCLUSION: In benign hysterectomy, the Senhance system may present a lower-cost approach with equivalent case times compared with similar da Vinci robotic cases.

Budget Impact Analysis of a Home-Based Nutrition Program for Adults at Risk for Malnutrition.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-based, nutrition-focused interventions have significantly lowered the cost-associated burden of poor nutrition through a reduction in healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). However, for patients at risk for poor nutrition who receive nutritional care at home, limited evidence exists on the economic impact of nutrition-focused interventions. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the 30-day cost-savings associated with an at-home nutrition-focused quality improvement program in the postacute care setting for patients at risk for poor nutrition from the perspective of a hospital system. METHODS: We compared the HCRU of 1546 patients enrolled in a quality improvement program during 1 year versus 7413 patients in a pre-program historical cohort who received care during the 1 year before the quality improvement program implementation. The analysis included the number of 30-day hospitalizations, emergency department and outpatient visits for both cohorts, and the associated costs. The main analysis included the fixed and variable costs for the program, and the costs of oral nutritional supplement and delivery. The costs for hospitalization, emergency department, and outpatient visit costs were based on the 2013 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. RESULTS: Based on the 2013 survey, the baseline costs for hospitalization, emergency department, and outpatient visit costs were $18,296, $1312, and $535, respectively. Our health economic analysis about the 30-day overall HCRU has shown that the quality improvement program group resulted in a total cost-savings of $2,408,668 for the 1546 patients in the program and a net savings of $1558 per patient compared with the costs for the pre-quality improvement program historical cohort. CONCLUSION: The use of a nutrition-focused quality improvement program led to significant 30-day cost-savings, by reducing HCRU for adults who received nutritional-based care at home. The improvements in HCRU highlight the importance of implementing nutrition-focused quality improvement programs for hospital systems that provide care for patients who are at risk for poor nutrition across a variety of care settings.

Achieving robotic program best practice performance and cost versus laparoscopy: Two case studies define a framework for optimization.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery is seen by many hospital administrators and surgeons as slower and more expensive than laparoscopic surgery despite the implementation of commonly held robotic best practices. Multiple factors, including surgeon learning curves and program governance, are often overlooked, precluding optimal robotic program performance. METHODS: An assessment of several leading robotic surgery publications is presented followed by real-world case studies from two US hospitals: an existing robotic program in a mid-sized, regional hospital system and a small, rural hospital that launched a new program. RESULTS: Improvements in robotic surgery costs/program efficiency were seen at the hospital system vs baseline at 18 months post-implementation; and high-performance robotic efficiency and cost benchmarks were matched or surpassed at the rural hospital at 1 year post-launch. DISCUSSION: When best practices are utilized in robotic programs, surgical case times, costs, and efficiency performance metrics equaling or exceeding laparoscopy can be achieved.

Cost of ownership assessment for a da Vinci robot based on US real-world data.

BACKGROUND: Despite growth of robotic surgery, published literature lacks assessment of the cost of ownership (CoO) of a da Vinci robot by surgical service line and the associated benefit such data provides. METHODS: Based on real-world data (RWD) from 14 US hospitals and ≈6000 da Vinci robotic cases, CoO was assessed using all relevant fixed and variable cost components, calculated by surgical service line. RESULTS: At a representative hospital with an efficient robotic program (n = 424 cases), the weighted average fixed cost per case was $984. Weighted average variable cost per case was $8025 (range: $3325 for Cholecystectomy-multiport, to $16 986 for Rectal Resection). Assessing weighted average by case, main variable cost drivers were non-da Vinci supplies (49.5%), staff costs (28.6%), and da Vinci supplies (21.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Case mix, annual robotic case volumes, and cut-to-close/patient-in-room time by surgical service line represent core variables influencing robotic program CoO, which help drive profitable program management.

Budget Impact of a Comprehensive Nutrition-Focused Quality Improvement Program for Malnourished Hospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND: Nutrition interventions can alleviate the burden of malnutrition by improving patient outcomes; however, evidence on the economic impact of medical nutrition intervention remains limited. A previously published nutrition-focused quality improvement program targeting malnourished hospitalized patients showed that screening patients with a validated screening tool at admission, rapidly administering oral nutritional supplements, and educating patients on supplement adherence result in significant reductions in 30-day unplanned readmissions and hospital length of stay. OBJECTIVES: To assess the potential cost-savings associated with decreased 30-day readmissions and hospital length of stay in malnourished inpatients through a nutrition-focused quality improvement program using a web-based budget impact model, and to demonstrate the clinical and fiscal value of the intervention. METHODS: The reduction in readmission rate and length of stay for 1269 patients enrolled in the quality improvement program (between October 13, 2014, and April 2, 2015) were compared with the pre-quality improvement program baseline and validation cohorts (4611 patients vs 1319 patients, respectively) to calculate potential cost-savings as well as to inform the design of the budget impact model. Readmission rate and length-of-stay reductions were calculated by determining the change from baseline to post-quality improvement program as well as the difference between the validation cohort and the post-quality improvement program, respectively. RESULTS: As a result of improved health outcomes for the treated patients, the nutrition-focused quality improvement program led to a reduction in 30-day hospital readmissions and length of stay. The avoided hospital readmissions and reduced number of days in the hospital for the patients in the quality improvement program resulted in cost-savings of $1,902,933 versus the pre-quality improvement program baseline cohort, and $4,896,758 versus the pre-quality improvement program in the validation cohort. When these costs were assessed across the entire patient population enrolled in the quality improvement program, per-patient net savings of $1499 when using the baseline cohort as the comparator and savings per patient treated of $3858 when using the validated cohort as the comparator were achieved. CONCLUSION: The nutrition-focused quality improvement program reduced the per-patient healthcare costs by avoiding 30-day readmissions and through reduced length of hospital stay. These clinical and economic outcomes provide a rationale for merging patient care and financial modeling to advance the delivery of value-based medicine in a malnourished hospitalized population. The use of a novel web-based budget impact model supports the integration of comparative effectiveness analytics and healthcare resource management in the hospital setting to provide optimal quality of care at a reduced overall cost.

A Comprehensive Nutrition-Focused Quality Improvement Program Reduces 30-Day Readmissions and Length of Stay in Hospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although screening patients for malnutrition risk on hospital admission is standard of care, nutrition shortfalls are undertreated. Nutrition interventions can improve outcomes. We tested effects of a nutrition-focused quality improvement program (QIP) on hospital readmission and length of stay (LOS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: QIP included malnutrition risk screening at admission, prompt initiation of oral nutrition supplements (ONS) for at-risk patients, and nutrition support. A 2-group, pre-post design of malnourished adults with any diagnosis was conducted at 4 hospitals: QIP-basic (QIPb) and QIP-enhanced (QIPe). Comparator patients had a malnutrition diagnosis and ONS orders. For QIPb, nurses screened all patients on admission using an electronic medical record (EMR)-cued Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST); ONS was provided to patients with MST scores ≥2 within 24-48 hours. QIPe had ONS within 24 hours, postdischarge nutrition instructions, telephone calls, and ONS coupons. Primary outcome was 30-day unplanned readmission. We used baseline (January 1-December 31, 2013) and validation cohorts (October 13, 2013-April 2, 2014) for comparison. RESULTS: Patients (n = 1269) were enrolled in QIPb (n = 769) and QIPe (n = 500). Analysis included baseline (n = 4611) and validation (n = 1319) comparator patients. Compared with a 20% baseline readmission rate, post-QIP relative reductions were 19.5% for all QIP, 18% for QIPb, and 22% for QIPe, respectively. Compared with a 22.1% validation readmission rate, relative reductions were 27.1%, 25.8%, and 29.4%, respectively. Similar reductions were noted for LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-day readmissions and LOS were significantly lowered for malnourished inpatients by use of an EMR-cued MST, prompt provision of ONS, patient/caregiver education, and sustained nutrition support.

Insurance companies' perspectives on the orphan drug pipeline.

BACKGROUND: Rare diseases are of increasing concern to private and public healthcare insurance plans. Largely neglected by manufacturers before the 1983 passing of the Orphan Drug Act (ODA), orphan drugs have become a commercialization target of steadily increasing importance to the healthcare industry. The ODA mandates the coverage of rare diseases, which are defined in research communities as diseases that are so infrequent that there is no reasonable expectation of a drugmaker recovering the cost of developing that drug. OBJECTIVES: To determine the views of leading commercial US payers regarding providing access to and coverage for orphan drugs; to assess whether and to what degree cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is viewed by payers as relevant to rare disease coverage. METHODS: The study sample was identified through a call for action sent by America's Health Insurance Plans to its members, resulting in 4 interviews conducted and 3 completed surveys from a total of 7 companies. These 7 US health insurance companies represent approximately 75% of the US private insurance market by revenue and include approximately 157 million covered lives (using self-reported data from insurance companies). Representatives of 3 companies responded to the survey, and representatives of 4 companies were interviewed via the phone. The interviews were conducted with subject matter experts at each company and included 2 senior vice presidents of a pharmacy program, 1 chief medical director, and 1 head of pharmacoeconomics. The surveys were completed by 1 vice president of clinical pharmacy strategy, 1 chief pharmacy director, and 1 medical director. RESULTS: Based on the responses in this study, approximately 67% of US private insurance companies are concerned about orphan drugs, but only approximately 17% have developed meaningful strategies for addressing the cost of orphan drugs. Of the companies who do have such a strategy, 100% are unsure how to determine the best economic assessment tools to control orphan drug costs, and two thirds are relying on prior authorization as a means to control costs. More than 80% of the companies are not using cost-effectiveness methodologies with regard to rare diseases, generally because of a lack of the availability of medicines to facilitate such comparisons. CEA is used by less than 20% of our study sample of payers in dealing with orphan drug policies. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating cost-effectiveness is a valuable strategy for payers seeking to facilitate appropriate access and coverage decision-making related to orphan drugs, but it is not well understood or adapted by private insurance companies. Health economists, along with providers and payers, must work together to design rational methodologies to evaluate the value of orphan drugs, perhaps by adopting cost-effectiveness methodologies to consider a compound's total research and development and commercialization demands relative to its cost-effectiveness.

Optimizing medical device buying. Value analysis models can help you improve decision-making process.

Value Analysis Models (VAMs) are a burgeoning analytical tool that can help materials managers, operating room managers, CFOs and others to make comparative value assessments before reaching a critical purchasing decision. Although relatively new to the hospital field, more and more manufacturers are supporting these initiatives to bring critical information to their customers and the health care industry. VAMs aren't designed to conclude that one product is better than another but to be a tool that can help make the product acquisition process much easier.