-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We sought to determine whether health insurance coverage of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening varied based on risk.
Population-wide screening guidelines for cancer often incorporate risk information, with modified screening recommendations for those at higher risk due to family history or other factors.
In a nationwide Internet- and mail-based survey of health insurance plan medical directors, respondents were asked about their organization's policies towards coverage of CRC screening for persons at average and higher risk of CRC. Additional questions asked about whether the insurer had a definition of increased risk, and coverage of genetic testing for familial CRC syndromes.
Survey invitations were sent to 1158 medical directors; 133 (11%) completed the survey. All plans covered screening for average and high-risk persons. The onset of screening was earlier and intervals were more frequent for higher risk compared to average risk persons, with most respondents stating coverage was determined by "physician discretion." While 75% had a definition of high risk, only 55% covered genetic testing.
Most insurers offer enhanced coverage of CRC screening, most commonly following the discretion of the physician. Whether this coverage results in earlier, more frequent, or more complete screening of higher risk persons remains uncertain.
Journal of insurance medicine (New York, N.Y.) 01/2012; 43(2):92-101.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine the impact of primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor (CSF) use on febrile neutropenia in a large patient population receiving contemporary chemotherapy regimens to treat breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Retrospective claims analysis.
The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Puget Sound cancer registry and insurance claims records.
A total of 2728 patients aged 25 years or older who received a diagnosis of breast cancer (998 patients), colorectal cancer (688 patients), or NSCLC (1042 patients) between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2005, and received chemotherapy.
Initial chemotherapy regimen, CSF use (filgrastim or pegfilgrastim), and febrile neutropenia events were evaluated after the first chemotherapy administration. Subsequently, febrile neutropenia rates in patients receiving primary prophylactic CSF were compared with febrile neutropenia rates in patients receiving CSF in settings other than primary prophylaxis or not at all. The impact of primary prophylactic CSF could not be assessed for patients with colorectal cancer or NSCLC because only 1 and 18 febrile neutropenia events, respectively, occurred in those receiving primary prophylactic CSF. Of the 998 patients with breast cancer, 72 (7.2%) experienced febrile neutropenia, 28 of whom received primary prophylactic CSF. In the patients with breast cancer, we observed that primary prophylactic CSF use was associated with reduced febrile neutropenia rates; however, the analysis may have been confounded by unmeasured factors associated with febrile neutropenia.
The impact of primary prophylactic CSFs on febrile neutropenia rates could not be demonstrated. Given the substantive cost of CSFs to pharmacy budgets, there are numerous opportunities for pharmacists to optimize CSF use. Research studies are needed to evaluate if guideline-directed prescribing of primary prophylactic CSFs can improve clinical outcomes.
Pharmacotherapy 01/2012; 32(1):7-19. · 2.90 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To examine variables influencing colony-stimulating factor (CSF) prescription as primary prophylaxis versus other use during patients' initial chemotherapy course among a large sample of health insurance records.
Retrospective cohort study.
Adults 25 years or older with a diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2005, were identified from the western Washington State Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Seattle Puget Sound registry. We linked these records to health insurance claims. Chemotherapy regimens identified from insurance claims were categorized as carrying high, intermediate, or low risk of myelosuppression according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and the literature. Colony-stimulating factor use was described as primary prophylaxis, other use, or no use, and logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with CSF use.
For patients with breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and NSCLC, respectively, 58%, 0%, and 28% received CSFs as primary prophylaxis in conjunction with high-risk chemotherapy regimens, whereas 10%, 7%, and 21% did so in conjunction with low-risk chemotherapy regimens. Prophylactic CSF use increased from 2002 to 2005 for breast cancer but remained constant for colorectal cancer and for NSCLC.
As primary prophylaxis, CSF use is underutilized based on recommendations for patients having cancer who receive chemotherapy regimens carrying high febrile neutropenia risk and may be overutilized for patients who receive chemotherapy regimens carrying low febrile neutropenia risk. Further research is needed to understand the barriers to implementing guidelines in clinical practice.
The American journal of managed care 09/2010; 16(9):678-86. · 2.46 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: Several gene variants conveying a modestly increased risk for disease have been described for colorectal cancer. Patient acceptance of gene variant testing in clinical practice is not known. We evaluated the potential impact of hypothetical colorectal-cancer-associated gene variant testing on quality of life, health habits and cancer screening behavior. Methods: First-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients and controls from the Seattle Colorectal Cancer Familial Registry were invited to participate in a web-based survey regarding testing for gene variants associated with colorectal cancer risk. Results: 310 relatives and 170 controls completed the questionnaire. Quality of life for the hypothetical carrier state was modestly and nonsignificantly lower than current health after adjustment for sociodemographic and health factors. In the positive test scenario, 30% of respondents expressed willingness to change their diet, 25% to increase exercise, and 43% to start colorectal cancer screening. The proportions willing to modify these habits did not differ between groups. Conclusions: Testing for gene variants associated with colorectal cancer risk may not influence quality of life, but may impact health habits and screening adherence. Changing behaviors as a result of testing may help to reduce cancer incidence and mortality, particularly among those at higher risk for colorectal cancer.
Public Health Genomics 01/2010; 13(1):1-12. · 2.33 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of treatment of hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive chronic hepatitis B (CHB) with entecavir compared with lamivudine with adefovir salvage, based primarily on the results of a recent 2-year, randomised, multicentre, clinical trial (n = 709). Previous economic analyses have been limited by the lack of comparative clinical data for entecavir and lamivudine beyond 1-year duration and for salvage therapy.
We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a Markov model from a US-payer perspective over a lifetime time horizon. The hypothetical cohort was 35-year-old patients with HBeAg-positive CHB. We evaluated 2 years of treatment with entecavir 0.5mg/day versus lamivudine 100mg/day, plus addition of adefovir 10mg/day for patients who developed virologic breakthrough due to resistance to either drug. In a scenario analysis, we considered adefovir plus lamivudine combination therapy for treatment-naive patients. Clinical and economic inputs ($US, year 2006 values) were derived from publicly available data, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate uncertainty in the results.
The estimated 10-year cumulative incidence of cirrhosis for patients initiated on entecavir was 2.3% lower than for those on lamivudine (20.5% vs 22.8%). The discounted incremental cost per QALY gained was $US7600 in the base-case analysis, and the 95% central range from probabilistic sensitivity analysis was $US2500-$US19 100. Combination therapy for treatment-naive patients led to an increase in costs without improvement in patient outcomes compared with entecavir monotherapy.
Our analysis suggests entecavir improves health outcomes in a cost-effective manner compared with lamivudine with adefovir salvage or combination therapy, and highlights the importance of using evidence-based effectiveness estimates in economic studies of CHB therapies.
PharmacoEconomics 02/2007; 25(11):963-77. · 2.66 Impact Factor
-
Donald A. Berry,
Kathleen A. Cronin,
Sylvia Plevritis,
Dennis G. Fryback, Lauren Clarke,
Marvin Zelen,
Jeanne S. Mandelblatt,
Andrei Y. Yakovlev,
J Dik F. Habbema,
Eric Feuer,
for the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Collaborators
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In several countries, a drop in mortality from breast cancer has been documented starting in 1975. Both early detection by mammographic screening and advances in management are plausible explanations. The National Institutes of Health have used a competitive peer review process to develop 7 independent statistical models of breast cancer incidence and mortality. A consortium of investigators used the same sources to obtain data on screening mammography, adjuvant treatment, and health benefits relating to the rate of death from breast cancer in the years 1975-2000.
The use of mammographic screening in women age 40 and over increased markedly over the period 1985 to 2000. The use of adjuvant treatment depended on numerous factors beside the calendar year, including age, tumor stage, and estrogen-receptor status. The proportion of women given adjuvant treatment increased from virtually none in 1975 to approximately 80% in 2000. By 2000, half of all women were using tamoxifen. All 7 models predicted similar proportional reductions in mortality from a combination of screening and adjuvant therapy. The proportion of overall reduction in breast cancer deaths ascribed to screening ranged from 28% to 65% (median, 46%). The remaining decrease in mortality was associated with adjuvant treatment. Variation between models in the absolute contribution of screening was greater than for treatment. Combined screening and adjuvant therapy reduced breast cancer mortality by 25 to 38% (median, 30%). The proportion of decreased mortality ascribed to adjuvant treatment was 12 to 21% (median, 19%). For each of the 7 models, the combination of screening and adjuvant treatment lowered mortality slightly less than the sum of contributions from screening and adjuvant therapy alone.
The investigators conclude from these findings that both mammographic screening and adjuvant treatment have helped to lower deaths from breast cancer in the United States.
Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 02/2006; 61(3):179-180. · 2.51 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although the rationale for earlier screening of persons with a family history of colorectal cancer is plausible, there is no direct evidence that earlier assessment is either effective or cost-effective.
To estimate the clinical and economic effect of using family history assessment to identify persons for colorectal cancer screening before age 50.
We developed a decision model to compare costs and outcomes for two scenarios: (a) standard population screening starting at age 50; (b) family history assessment at age 40, followed by screening colonoscopy at age 40 for those with a suggestive family history of colorectal cancer. The analysis was conducted using the health insurer perspective.
Using U.S. population estimates, 22 million would be eligible for family history assessment, and one million would be eligible for early colonoscopy; 2,834 invasive cancers would be detected, and 29,331 life years would be gained. The initial program cost would be USD $900 million. The discounted cost per life year gained of family history assessment versus no assessment equals USD $58,228. The results were most sensitive to the life expectancy benefit from earlier screening, the cost of colonoscopy, and the relative risk of colon cancer in those with a family history.
The cost-effectiveness of family history assessment for colorectal cancer approaches that of other widely accepted technologies; yet, the results are sensitive to several assumptions where better data are needed. Because of the relatively high prevalence of family history in the population, careful analysis and empirical data are needed.
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 12/2005; 14(11 Pt 1):2494-500. · 4.12 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine the cost-effectiveness of combined androgen blockade (CAB) with bicalutamide versus CAB with flutamide in men with Stage D2 prostate cancer. Both bicalutamide and flutamide are commonly used in CAB for prostate cancer. Although the cost of bicalutamide is more than that of flutamide, it is important that the efficacy, quality of life, and side effects are also considered when determining whether CAB with bicalutamide is a cost-effective option.
A decision model was created to compare treatment strategies. Survival and side-effect information was based on a randomized trial that directly compared bicalutamide and flutamide. The costs and quality-of-life effects related to therapy were determined from published sources.
The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained for bicalutamide versus flutamide was 22,000 dollars and 16,000 dollars at 5 and 10 years, respectively. If a quality adjustment was not included, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CAB with bicalutamide compared with CAB with flutamide was even more favorable (20,000 dollars/life year gained at 5 years). One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness estimates were most sensitive to drug costs and survival (baseline survival was not significantly different between therapies). Multi-way uncertainty analysis revealed that the median value of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at 5 years was 13,637 dollars/quality-adjusted life year when all the parameters were varied over a clinically reasonable range.
Bicalutamide is cost-effective compared with flutamide when used for androgen blockade as part of CAB for men with advanced prostate cancer.
Urology 11/2005; 66(4):835-9. · 2.43 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We used modeling techniques to assess the relative and absolute contributions of screening mammography and adjuvant treatment to the reduction in breast-cancer mortality in the United States from 1975 to 2000.
A consortium of investigators developed seven independent statistical models of breast-cancer incidence and mortality. All seven groups used the same sources to obtain data on the use of screening mammography, adjuvant treatment, and benefits of treatment with respect to the rate of death from breast cancer.
The proportion of the total reduction in the rate of death from breast cancer attributed to screening varied in the seven models from 28 to 65 percent (median, 46 percent), with adjuvant treatment contributing the rest. The variability across models in the absolute contribution of screening was larger than it was for treatment, reflecting the greater uncertainty associated with estimating the benefit of screening.
Seven statistical models showed that both screening mammography and treatment have helped reduce the rate of death from breast cancer in the United States.
New England Journal of Medicine 11/2005; 353(17):1784-92. · 53.30 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Combined androgen blockade therapy (CAB) has been shown to have a small survival advantage over luteinizing hormone releasing hormone LH-RH agonists (LH-RHa) alone in men with metastatic prostate cancer. The goal of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of CAB with bicalutamide and LH-RH agonist therapy to LH-RH agonist therapy alone.
A macro-simulation model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 interventions for stage D2 prostate cancer, 1) CAB with bicalutamide 50 mg per day and monthly dosing of an LH-RHa or 2) monthly LH-RH agonist therapy. Cost and outcomes are tabulated in 5 and 10-year time horizons. Model assumptions were taken from the published literature. Appropriate 1-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses were performed.
At 5 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CAB, when compared with LH-RHa monotherapy, was US dollars 33,677 per quality-adjusted life-year. In other words, for every additional quality-adjusted life year that a patient lived because he received CAB, it cost US dollars 33,677. At 10 years the ICER for CAB was US dollars 20,053 (well within the accepted cost-effectiveness threshold). If quality adjustment was not included, the ICER for CAB was even more favorable (US dollars 20,489 at 5 years and US dollars 13,313 at 10 years). The model was most sensitive to the estimates of effectiveness (survival) of LH-RHa therapy alone and CAB therapy. The model was also fairly sensitive to the quality of life effect of having late stage prostate cancer and the cost of bicalutamide.
CAB with bicalutamide is cost-effective when compared with LH-RH monotherapy in men with stage D2 prostate cancer.
The Journal of Urology 09/2005; 174(2):547-52; discussion 552. · 3.75 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The National Cancer Institute-sponsored Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network program on breast cancer is composed of seven research groups working largely independently to model the impact of screening and adjuvant therapy on breast cancer mortality trends in the US from 1975 to 2000. Each of the groups has chosen a different modeling methodology without purposeful attempt to be in contrast with each other. The seven groups have met biannually since November 2000 to discuss their methodology and results. This article investigates the differences in methodology. To facilitate this comparison, each of the groups submitted a description of their model into a uniformly structured web based 'model profiler'. Six of the seven models simulate a preclinical natural history that cannot be observed directly with parameters estimated from published evidence concerning screening and therapy effects. The remaining model regards published evidence on intervention effects as prior information and updates that with information from the US population in a Bayesian type analysis. In general, the differences between the models appear to be small, particularly among the models driven by natural history assumptions. However, we demonstrate that such apparently small differences can have a large impact on surveillance of population trends. We describe a systematic approach to evaluating differences in model assumptions and results, as well as differences in modeling culture underlying the differences in model structure and parameters.
Statistical Methods in Medical Research 01/2005; 13(6):525-38. · 2.44 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There is uncertainty regarding the optimal strategy for identifying mutation carriers among those with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC).
We used decision analysis to compare the cost-effectiveness of 4 strategies among those with newly diagnosed colon cancer: (1) clinical and family history followed by microsatellite instability testing and germline testing (Bethesda guidelines); (2) universal microsatellite instability testing; (3) germline testing of those who meet clinical and family history criteria; and (4) universal germline testing.
The added cost per year of life saved (YLS) for each strategy was as follows: (1) 11,865 US dollars/YLS, (2) 35,617 US dollars/YLS, (3) 49,702 US dollars/YLS, and (4) 267,548 US dollars/YLS.
The Bethesda guidelines are the most cost-effectiveness approach to screen persons for HNPCC.
Genetics in Medicine 5(5):353-63. · 4.76 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Lung cancer is the most common non-skin cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among men and women in North America. More than half of all patients diagnosed with lung cancer are diagnosed with advanced disease. Most cases of lung cancer are non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Erlotinib monotherapy is indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after failure of at least 1 prior chemotherapy regimen.
To assess the budgetary impact, from the health plan perspective, of covering erlotinib for treating patients with NSCLC stage IIIb/IV who have failed at least 1 prior chemotherapy regimen.
An Excel-based model was developed to evaluate costs for U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-recommended treatment options for second- and third-line NSCLC from the perspective of a U.S. health insurer. In particular, the model compares a formulary with erlotinib and a formulary without erlotinib, including the costs of treatment, drug administration, and adverse effects. The incidence of advanced NSCLC is based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Cancer Registry and adverse effects related to treatment (all agents) in published results of clinical trials. Drug and treatment costs were obtained from publicly available sources in 2005.
The base case considers a health plan of 500,000 enrollees. Assuming that erlotinib comprises 30% of second-line treatments and 90% for third-line, total costs of treating stage IIIb/IV NSCLC patients over 1 year are Dollars 382,418 with erlotinib and Dollars 380,968 without erlotinib (difference: Dollars 1,450; 90% confidence interval, -Dollars 61,376 to Dollars 29,855), less than Dollars 0.01 per member per month (PMPM) in 2005. Erlotinib direct cost is offset by reductions in standard chemotherapy-related infusion costs and adverse events.
Based on the analysis, the inclusion of erlotinib on a formulary appears to have a relatively small impact on the annual health care budget or PMPM expenditures if it is used consistent with the product label indications.
Journal of managed care pharmacy: JMCP 12(6):472-8. · 2.25 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We examined health care use in conjunction with primary prophylaxis use of colony stimulating factors (CSF) during patients' initial course of chemotherapy.
This retrospective cohort study identified adults aged 25 years and older with a diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or nonsmall cell lung cancer between 2002 and 2005 from the Western Washington Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Puget Sound registry. We linked these records to health insurance claims from four payers representing 75% of those insured in the state. Claims records were used to determine chemotherapy regimen type, CSF use, febrile neutropenia occurrences, and supportive care. Chemotherapy regimens were categorized as conferring high, intermediate, or low risk of myelosuppression according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. CSF use was described as primary prophylaxis, other, or none. Antibiotics and antifungal and antiviral agents per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for supportive care for cancer infection were categorized using Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System and National Drug Code assignments.
Use of CSF as primary prophylaxis is not significantly associated with a reduction in antibiotic use or inpatient or outpatient visits. Primary prophylactic CSF use was associated with less use of antiviral drugs.
CSF use is not associated with a reduction in health care use, with the exception of antiviral drug use. Given the expense associated with CSF use, pragmatic trials and additional research are needed to further assess the affects of CSF on health care use.
Value in Health 14(2):247-52. · 2.19 Impact Factor
