Out-of-Pocket Cost Modeling of Adjuvant Antiestrogen and Radiation Therapy After Lumpectomy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Across Medicaid and Medicare Plans.

PURPOSE: The optimal adjuvant therapy (antiestrogen therapy [ET] + radiation therapy or ET alone, or in some reports radiation therapy alone) in older women with early-stage breast cancer has been highly debated. However, granular details on the role of insurance in the out-of-pocket cost for patients receiving ET with or without radiation therapy are lacking. This project disaggregates out-of-pocket costs by insurance plans to increase treatment cost transparency. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Several radiation therapy schedules are accepted standards as per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. For our financial estimate model, we used the 5-fraction and 15-fraction radiation therapy and ET prescribed over a 5-year duration. The total aggregate out-of-pocket costs were determined from the sum of treatment costs, deductibles, and copays/coinsurance based on Medicaid, Original Medicare, Medigap Plan G, and Medicare Part D Rx plans. The model assumes a Medicare- and/or Medicaid-eligible patient ≥70 years of age with node-negative, early-stage estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Patient out-of-pocket costs were estimated from publicly available insurance data from plan-specific benefit coverage materials using a 5-year time horizon. RESULTS: Original Medicare beneficiaries face a total out-of-pocket treatment charge of $2738.52 for ET alone, $2221.26 for 5-fraction radiation therapy alone, $2573.92 for 15-fraction radiation therapy alone, $3361.26 for combined ET+ 5-fraction radiation therapy, and $3713.92 for combined ET + 15-fraction radiation therapy. Medigap Plan G beneficiaries have an out-of-pocket charge of $1130.00 with radiation therapy alone and face an out-of-pocket of $2270.00 for ET alone and combined ET+ radiation therapy. For Medicaid beneficiaries, all treatments approved by Medicaid are covered without limit, resulting in no out-of-pocket expense for either adjuvant treatment option. CONCLUSIONS: This model (based on actual cost estimates per insurance plan rather than claims data), by estimating expenses within Medicare and Medicaid plans, provides a level of transparency to patient cost. With knowledge of the costs borne by patients themselves, treatment decisions informed by patients' individual priorities and preferences may be further enhanced.

First-line Treatment with Ribociclib plus Endocrine Therapy for Premenopausal Women with Hormone-receptor-positive Advanced Breast Cancer: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis incorporating recent phase III clinical trial (MONALEESA-7) data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib (RIB) as a first-line treatment for premenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) from the United States healthcare payer perspective. In addition, because RIB has not been marketed in China, we identified the range of drug costs for which RIB could be considered cost effective from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding RIB to endocrine therapy over a lifetime. The clinical outcomes and utility data were obtained from published literature. Costs data were obtained from United States and Chinese official websites, and we determined the potential price for RIB in China based on its price in the United States. The main outcomes of this study were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: The model projected that mean outcome was better with RIB and endocrine combined (3.83366 QALYs) than with endocrine therapy alone (2.71203 QALYs). In the United States, RIB and endocrine therapy cost an additional $604,960.06, resulting in an ICER of $539,357.95/QALY compared with endocrine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses indicated that, in China, the projected mean outcomes were better for RIB and endocrine therapy (6.37 QALYs) than for endocrine monotherapy (2.71 QALYs). The corresponding incremental costs were $224,731.88943. Thus, the ICER comparing RIB and endocrine therapy with endocrine therapy alone represented a $61,454.96/QALY gain. CONCLUSION: Additional use of RIB is estimated to not be cost effective as a first-line treatment for premenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative ABC in the United States. A value-based price for the cost of RIB is less than $31.74/200 mg for China.

Budget impact analysis of chemoprevention of breast cancer with tamoxifen and raloxifene among high-risk women in Japan.

'Cost saving' was suggested in our recent economic evaluation of chemoprevention of breast cancer targeting women at high risk in Japan. However, this budget impact analysis reveals that the introduction of chemoprevention appears to be not budget saving for approximately 20 years, whereas the level of budget impact seems affordable.

Economic impact of Tibolone compared with Continuous-Combined Hormone Replacement Therapy in the management of climacteric symptoms in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Deciding whether to treat postmenopausal women suffering from climacteric symptoms with Continuous Combined Hormone Replacement Therapy (CCHRT) has become increasingly difficult after the release of the Women's Health Initiative results. As a result, development of alternatives to CCHRT is required. Tibolone, which is a synthetic steroid that has estrogenic, progestogenic and androgenic properties, is reported to be a promising alternative. It has been used in Europe, in the same indication as CCHRT, for approximately 20 years but is not yet available in Canada. OBJECTIVE: We carried out a cost-utility analysis comparing a 3-year-treatment course with Tibolone 2.5mg and conjugated equine estrogens (CEE)/medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) (0.625 mg/2.5 mg) in the management of postmenopausal women with climacteric symptoms. METHODS: A Markov model, considering persistence, vaginal bleeding and climacteric symptoms, was elaborated to compare the different options in terms of cost and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), according to a public third-party payer perspective. RESULTS: Compared with CEE/MPA, Tibolone led to an increase in cost (dollars 485 for Tibolone versus dollars 232 for CEE/MPA) and a slight increase in QALYs (2.08 for Tibolone versus 2.05 for CEE/MPA). Consequently, the incremental cost per QALY gained ratio was dollars 9198. CONCLUSION: According to the results, Tibolone seems to be a cost-effective alternative to CEE/MPA. However, those results should be interpreted with caution insofar as the difference in terms of QALY is clinically difficult to value and taking into account the limited data on Tibolone's long-term innocuity.