Estimating Productivity Loss from Breast and Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer among Working-Age Patients and Unpaid Caregivers: A Survey Study Using the Multiplier Method.

Background. Traditional approaches to capturing health-related productivity loss (e.g., the human capital method) focus only on the foregone wages of affected patients, overlooking the losses caregivers can incur. This study estimated the burden of productivity loss among breast cancer (BC) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and individuals caring for such patients using an augmented multiplier method. Design. A cross-sectional survey of BC and NSCLC patients and caregivers measured loss associated with time absent from work (absenteeism) and reduced effectiveness (presenteeism). Respondents reported pre- and postcancer diagnosis income, hours worked, and time to complete tasks. Exploratory multivariable analyses examined correlations between respondents' clinical/demographic characteristics-including industry of employment-and postdiagnosis productivity. Results. Of 204 patients (104 BC, 100 NSCLC) and 200 caregivers (100 BC, 100 NSCLC) who completed the survey, 319 participants (162 BC, 157 NSCLC) working ≥40 wk/y prediagnosis were included in the analysis. More than one-third of the NSCLC (33%) and BC (43%) patients left the workforce postdiagnosis, whereas only 15% of caregivers did. The traditional estimate for the burden of productivity loss was 66% lower on average than the augmented estimate (NSCLC patients: 60%, BC patients: 69%, NSCLC caregivers: 59%, and BC caregivers: 73%). Conclusions. Although patients typically experience greater absenteeism, productivity loss incurred by caregivers is also substantial. Failure to account for such impacts can result in substantial underestimation of productivity gains novel cancer treatments may confer by enabling patients and caregivers to remain in the workforce longer. Our results underscore the importance of holistic approaches to understanding this impact on both patients and their caregivers and accounting for such considerations when making decisions about treatment and treatment value. Highlights: Cancer can have a profound impact on productivity. This study demonstrates how the disease affects not only patients but also the informal or unpaid individuals who care for patients.An augmented approach to calculating health-related productivity loss suggests that productivity impacts are much larger than previously understood.A more comprehensive understanding of the economic burden of cancer for both patients and their caregivers suggests the need for more support in the workplace for these individuals and a holistic approach to accounting for these impacts in treatment decision making.

Measuring the Value Healthy Individuals Place on Generous Insurance Coverage of Severe Diseases: A Stated Preference Survey of Adults Diagnosed With and Without Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the ex ante willingness to pay (WTP) of healthy individuals for generous insurance coverage of novel lung cancer treatments to the WTP for coverage of such treatment among individuals with lung cancer. METHODS: A survey was administered to 2 cohorts of US adults: (1) healthy individuals without cancer and (2) individuals diagnosed with lung cancer. A multiple random staircase survey design was used to elicit respondent WTP for coverage of novel lung cancer therapy associated with survival gains. RESULTS: Of the 84 937 healthy individuals invited, 300 completed the survey. Of the 36 249 in the lung cancer cohort invited, 250 completed the survey. Mean age by cohort was 50.0 (SD 14.6) and 48.4 (SD 16.8) years, and 55.2% and 47.2% were female, respectively. Respondents in the healthy and lung cancer cohorts were willing to pay $97.52 (95% confidence interval (CI) $89.89-$105.15) and $22 304 (95% CI $20 194-$24 414) per month, respectively, for coverage of a novel therapy providing 5-year survival of 15% versus standard-of-care therapy with a 5-year survival of 4%. After accounting for the likelihood that healthy individuals are diagnosed with lung cancer in the future, we estimated that 89.8% of the total value of new lung cancer treatments comes from the WTP healthy individuals place on generous insurance coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Total societal willingness to pay for lung cancer is much higher than conventionally thought, as most healthy individuals are risk-averse and highly value having lung cancer treatments available to them in the future.

Two steps forward, one step back: 50 years of societal value from LDL-C-lowering therapies.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the evolving landscape of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering therapies (LLTs) and quantify their effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related mortality and morbidity. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary data came from LLT clinical trials and 1999-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data. 1996-2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data were used to estimate LLT spending. Nonfatal CVD events prevented by LLTs were calculated from clinical trials and NHANES. The value of nonfatal events prevented was calculated as the product of event treatment costs and the number of events prevented. The value of mortality reduction was calculated as the product of a value of a life-year and the life expectancy gain from LLTs. This was compared with LLT spending estimated using MEPS. METHODS: Total LLT expenditures were calculated based on MEPS LLT utilization and expenditure data. Values of prevented hospitalizations, prevented CVD events, and other LLT utilization-related outcomes were pulled from the published literature. RESULTS: Combined, statins and ezetimibe prevented 2.8 million nonfatal heart attacks and 1.7 million nonfatal strokes from 1999 to 2014. Statin use generated $2.6 trillion in societal value through CVD deaths avoided from 1987 to 2014, and 85% accrued to patients. CONCLUSIONS: LLTs have yielded significant societal value, and the majority of this value has accrued to patients.

The impact of vaso-occlusive crises and disease severity on quality of life and productivity among patients with sickle cell disease in the US.

AIM: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a lifelong blood disorder affecting approximately 100,000 individuals in the United States (US). A number of new treatments have recently become available to improve SCD clinical outcomes, but it is unclear how treatment innovations that reduce disease severity could affect patients' humanistic and economic outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: To answer this question, an online survey of US adult residents with a self-reported SCD diagnosis was conducted. Humanistic outcomes based on health-related quality of life (HRQoL)) were assessed during and outside of vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs). Economic outcomes were measured by annual household income and whether the respondent received disability insurance. RESULTS: Among the 301 respondents completing the survey, average age was 34.4 years and 73.4% were female. Average HRQoL, measured using health utilities, were 0.311 (95% CI: 0.286, 0.337) during a VOC and 0.738 (0.720, 0.756) not during a VOC. The likelihood of claiming disability insurance was correlated with more frequent VOCs (0 VOCs: 12% vs. ≥4 VOCs: 47%, p = .002) and disease severity (Severity Class II: 16% vs. Severity Class III: 39%, p = .03). There was a weak relationship between VOC frequency and household income (0 VOCs: $47,488 vs. ≥4 VOCs: $34,569, p = .06) and no evidence of a relationship between disease severity class and income (Severity Class II: $42,443 vs. Severity Class III: $36,842, p = .29). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, disease severity, strongly predicted worse self-reported HRQoL, moderately predicted increased likelihood of collecting disability insurance, and weakly predicted lower household income levels.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patient Preferences for First-Line Treatment: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Background. There has been much innovation in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in recent years. In particular, use of immuno-oncology (IO) therapies has been growing. Methods. Patients with NSCLC in the United States were surveyed online using a discrete choice experiment to elicit first-line (1L) treatment preferences across six treatment attributes: survival, adverse events (AEs), mechanism of action (MOA), subsequent treatment options (STOs), genetic testing treatment delay, and out-of-pocket cost (OOPC). Preferences were estimated using a latent-class model. Preference shares were estimated for IO-IO, IO-chemo, and chemo-like regimens. Results. Of the 199 patients who completed the survey, 55% were male, 76% were white, 19% had not begun or were on 1L treatment, and the median age was 43 years. Based on a latent-class model with 3 preference classes, 53.0% of patients considered survival and OOPC alone and were less likely to choose an option with a higher OOPC and lower survival, 12.7% of patients were likely to choose the more expensive option, and for 34.3% of patients, survival, AE risk, and treatment delays all significantly influenced choices. MOA and STOs did not significantly influence treatment choices in any preference class. Approximately 53%, 27%, and 20% of patients preferred IO-IO-like, IO-chemo-like, and chemo-like regimens in 1L, respectively. Respondents were younger, more likely to be Caucasian, and more likely to speak English than the general NSCLC patient population. Conclusions. OOPC, effectiveness, treatment delays, and safety influenced NSCLC patients' 1L treatment decisions, and most patients preferred an IO-IO followed by IO-chemo-like regimen in 1L. Cancer treatment decisions are complex and patient preferences are unique; therefore, patients' treatment objectives should be discussed in shared treatment decision making.