Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
J Natl Compr Canc Netw ; 18(10): 1349-1353, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33022648

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The cost of cancer treatment has increased significantly in recent decades, but it is unclear whether these costs have been associated with commensurate improvement in clinical value. This study aimed to assess the association between the cost of cancer treatment and 4 of the 5 NCCN Evidence Blocks (EB) measures of clinical value: efficacy of regimen/agent, safety of regimen/agent, quality of evidence, and consistency of evidence. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, observational study. We obtained NCCN EB ratings for all recommended, first-line, and/or maintenance treatments for the 30 most prevalent cancers in the United States and calculated direct pharmacologic treatment costs (drug acquisition, administration fees, guideline-concordant supportive care medications) using Medicare reimbursement rates in January 2019. We used generalized estimating equations to estimate the association between NCCN EB measures and treatment cost with clustering at the level of the treatment indication. RESULTS: A total of 1,386 treatments were included. Among time-unlimited treatments (those administered on an ongoing basis without a predetermined stopping point), monthly cost was positively associated with efficacy ($3,036; 95% CI, $1,782 to $4,289) and quality of evidence ($1,509; 95% CI, $171 to $2,847) but negatively associated with safety (-$1,470; 95% CI, -$2,790 to -$151) and consistency of evidence (-$2,003; 95% CI, -$3,420 to -$586). Among time-limited treatments (those administered for a predetermined interval or number of cycles), no NCCN EB measure was significantly associated with treatment cost. CONCLUSIONS: An association between NCCN EB measures and treatment cost was inconsistent, and the magnitude of the association was small compared with the degree of cost variation among treatments with the same EB scores. The clinical value of cancer treatments does not seem to be a primary determinant of treatment cost.


Assuntos
Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Neoplasias , Estudos Transversais , Humanos , Medicare , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias/economia , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
2.
Pharmacoeconomics ; 38(7): 737-745, 2020 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32201922

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines' Evidence Blocks has the broadest scope of the several oncology value assessment frameworks. The Evidence Blocks includes the Affordability criterion, which reflects the financial cost of each treatment on a 1-5 scale. The accuracy of Affordability is unknown. METHODS: We calculated Medicare costs for all first-line and maintenance treatments for the 30 cancers with the highest incidence in the USA that had published NCCN Evidence Blocks as of 31 December 2018. We assessed the accuracy and consistency of Affordability across different treatments and cancer types. Among different treatments for the same indication, we determined the frequency with which the Affordability assessment was consistent with calculated treatment costs. RESULTS: There were a total of 1386 treatments in our sample. Lower Affordability scores were associated with higher costs. There was significant variation in cost at each level of Affordability; for treatments with Affordability = 1 (very expensive), costs ranged from $US4551 to $US43,794 per month for treatments administered over an undefined time period and from $US2865 to $US500,982 per course of therapy for treatments administered over a defined time period. Among treatments for the same indication, Affordability was discrepant with calculated treatment costs in 7.9% of pairwise comparisons, identifying the higher-cost treatment as being more affordable. Discrepancies were reduced when we reassigned Affordability scores based on calculated treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence Blocks Affordability generally correlated with treatment costs but contained discrepancies, which may limit its usefulness to clinicians in comparing costs. This study suggests that the Affordability score may be improved by indexing more directly to specified dollar value thresholds.


Assuntos
Custos de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Medicare/economia , Neoplasias/economia , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Custos e Análise de Custo , Humanos , Neoplasias/terapia , Estados Unidos
5.
AMA J Ethics ; 21(8): E645-653, 2019 08 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31397659

RESUMO

Medicaid covers approximately 1 in 5 Americans and accounts for one-sixth of US health care spending. Despite having to navigate increasing and variable spending on prescription drugs, Medicaid programs must balance their annual budgets, and they rely heavily on the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP). The MDRP requires programs to maintain an open formulary covering all of a manufacturer's drugs in exchange for being given the lowest price in the market. Recent attempts by states to close their formularies signal that the benefit of this program might be attenuated by the lack of negotiating leverage in the rest of the market, exposing Medicaid to higher prices. Regardless of whether closed formularies would succeed in constraining Medicaid prescription drug spending, this trend raises important questions about the usefulness of a system that pegs Medicaid drug spending to net prices negotiated by others in the market.


Assuntos
Custos e Análise de Custo , Cobertura do Seguro/tendências , Medicaid/economia , Medicamentos sob Prescrição/economia , Formulários Farmacêuticos como Assunto , Avaliação de Programas e Projetos de Saúde , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...