Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research最新文献

{"title":"Development of a Conceptual Model to Understand Disease Burden in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Organ Damage.","authors":"Lynne Broderick, Wen-Hung Chen, Roger A Levy, April Mitchell Foster, Cindy Umanzor Figueroa, Kerry Gairy, Deven Chauhan","doi":"10.36469/001c.82228","DOIUrl":"10.36469/001c.82228","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disease that can lead to irreversible organ damage (OD). Data describing the patient burden of OD, as compared with SLE without OD, are limited. <b>Objective:</b> To develop a comprehensive conceptual model describing the burden experienced by patients living with SLE-associated OD. <b>Methods:</b> There were three phases to this qualitative study. First, a targeted literature review was conducted to inform a draft conceptual model. Second, key opinion leaders (KOLs) were interviewed to assess the draft conceptual model and help shape patient interview materials. Third, patients of different demographic backgrounds from across the United States were interviewed individually to gather their perspectives on living with SLE-associated OD. Data from concept elicitation interviews with KOLs and patients were coded and analyzed using NVivo software to identify the key concepts of the overall patient burden of SLE-associated OD. Findings from the KOL and patient interviews were used to finalize the conceptual model. <b>Results:</b> KOLs highlighted that SLE-associated OD carried a higher rate of mortality than SLE alone. Participants with SLE-associated OD (n = 40) experienced detrimental impacts across 4 areas of their lives: physical, cognitive, psychosocial functioning, and economic and work-related well-being. Physical impacts were described by all participants, often affecting their ability to perform everyday tasks. Many also described deterioration of cognitive functioning. Almost all participants experienced emotional impacts and challenges to their relationships and social lives resulting from living with SLE-associated OD. Additionally, SLE-associated OD imposed an economic burden including increased healthcare costs. SLE-associated OD had a more severe and debilitating impact on all aspects of the patient's quality of life than SLE prior to OD development, including further limitations in activities of daily living after the development of OD. <b>Discussion:</b> Study findings guided the development of a comprehensive conceptual model that fully represents the patient experience of living with SLE-associated OD, highlighting the additional burden of OD when compared with SLE alone. <b>Conclusions:</b> The conceptual model will inform improvements in disease management, which may result in better patient outcomes and aid development of clinical outcome assessments of disease burden.</p>","PeriodicalId":16012,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","volume":"10 2","pages":"30-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10440069/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10051645","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Development of a Conceptual Model to Understand Disease Burden in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Organ Damage","authors":"Lynne Broderick, Wen-Hung Chen, Roger Levy, April Mitchell Foster, Cindy Umanzor Figueroa, Kerry Gairy, Deven Chauhan","doi":"10.36469/jheor.2023.82228","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36469/jheor.2023.82228","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disease that can lead to irreversible organ damage (OD). Data describing the patient burden of OD, as compared with SLE without OD, are limited. Objective: To develop a comprehensive conceptual model describing the burden experienced by patients living with SLE-associated OD. Methods: There were three phases to this qualitative study. First, a targeted literature review was conducted to inform a draft conceptual model. Second, key opinion leaders (KOLs) were interviewed to assess the draft conceptual model and help shape patient interview materials. Third, patients of different demographic backgrounds from across the United States were interviewed individually to gather their perspectives on living with SLE-associated OD. Data from concept elicitation interviews with KOLs and patients were coded and analyzed using NVivo software to identify the key concepts of the overall patient burden of SLE-associated OD. Findings from the KOL and patient interviews were used to finalize the conceptual model. Results: KOLs highlighted that SLE-associated OD carried a higher rate of mortality than SLE alone. Participants with SLE-associated OD (n = 40) experienced detrimental impacts across 4 areas of their lives: physical, cognitive, psychosocial functioning, and economic and work-related well-being. Physical impacts were described by all participants, often affecting their ability to perform everyday tasks. Many also described deterioration of cognitive functioning. Almost all participants experienced emotional impacts and challenges to their relationships and social lives resulting from living with SLE-associated OD. Additionally, SLE-associated OD imposed an economic burden including increased healthcare costs. SLE-associated OD had a more severe and debilitating impact on all aspects of the patient’s quality of life than SLE prior to OD development, including further limitations in activities of daily living after the development of OD. Discussion: Study findings guided the development of a comprehensive conceptual model that fully represents the patient experience of living with SLE-associated OD, highlighting the additional burden of OD when compared with SLE alone. Conclusions: The conceptual model will inform improvements in disease management, which may result in better patient outcomes and aid development of clinical outcome assessments of disease burden.","PeriodicalId":16012,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136019836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Projecting the Potential Budget Impact Analysis of Paliperidone Palmitate in Egyptian Adult Patients with Schizophrenia.","authors":"Gihan Elsisi, Mohamed Ezzat, Mohamed Ramadan","doi":"10.36469/001c.83240","DOIUrl":"10.36469/001c.83240","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Schizophrenia is a serious mental disorder that has greater negative consequences on role functioning than many other severe chronic diseases. <b>Objective:</b> We evaluated the economic impact of long-acting injections of paliperidone palmitate (PP) vs daily oral antipsychotics to treat chronic schizophrenia from a societal perspective over a 2-year period. <b>Methods:</b> A static budget impact model was developed to compare PP with daily oral antipsychotics (risperidone, olanzapine, and aripiprazole) in the treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia. Our study included treatments used during relapse and hospitalization, validated by an expert panel. The clinical parameters were extracted from the PRIDE trial. Direct medical costs and indirect costs were measured. The unit cost of drug acquisition for all medications was extracted from the public sector. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. <b>Results:</b> The target population in our model was estimated to be 142 incident patients. In the first year, the total drug costs in Egyptian pounds (EGP) for PP and oral antipsychotics were £2.7 million and £724 004, respectively, while the total medical costs for PP and oral antipsychotics were £3 million and £5.6 million, respectively. In the second year, the total drug costs for PP and oral antipsychotics were £2.7 million and £724 004, respectively, while the total medical costs for PP and oral antipsychotics were £3 million and £5 million, respectively. The total costs for PP (£11.6 million) over 2 years were less than those of oral antipsychotics without PP (£12.7 million). PP produced an estimated budget savings of £1 046 561 (budget savings per patient per year, £3667). In addition, PP resulted in the avoidance of 18 hospitalizations per year compared with the without-PP arm. Sensitivity analyses showed that the percent of hospitalizations for both oral antipsychotics and PP had the greatest impact on the results. <b>Conclusion:</b> The lower hospitalization rates associated with PP offset the increase in drug costs. PP may potentially be cost-saving compared with the standard of care in chronic schizophrenia in Egyptian representative healthcare settings. Policy makers may consider this approach to improve patient outcomes and budget sustainability.</p>","PeriodicalId":16012,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","volume":"10 2","pages":"23-29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10439680/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10200237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Cost of Serum Versus Skin Allergy Testing Among Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries in the United States","authors":"Kenny Kwong, Yang Lu","doi":"10.36469/jheor.2023.77482","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36469/jheor.2023.77482","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Testing for allergic sensitization can be achieved similarly via skin or serum specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) testing, although the costs of each method differ. Objective: This study compared cost and utilization of allergy testing utilizing skin vs sIgE testing and whether equal access (parity) to both testing methods affects overall allergy testing costs among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in the United States. Methods: Allergy test utilization and payment data were analyzed using 100% 2019 Medicare fee-for-service claims data. Beneficiaries with any sIgE test, skin prick test, or intradermal skin test associated with ICD-10 codes of allergic rhinitis, asthma, and food allergy were included. Aggregate and per-beneficiary testing cost, number of allergens tested, and number of allergy-related specialist visits incurred were estimated by the testing patterns of sIgE only, skin prick only, intradermal only, skin prick and intradermal, and sIgE plus prick and/or intradermal. Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) with parity for all allergy tests and those which restricted sIgE testing were compared. Multivariate linear regression was performed on the association between testing patterns and each cost and utilization measure, controlling for parity, age, sex, race/ethnicity, and dual-eligible status. Results: We analyzed 270 831 patients and 327 263 allergy-related claims. Total payment for all allergy tests was $71 380 866, including $15 903 954 for sIgE tests, $42 223 930 for skin prick tests, and $13 252 982 for intradermal tests. Beneficiaries receiving sIgE tests had only 1.8 fewer allergist visits than those with skin prick tests only (0.8 vs 2.6). Cost of testing per beneficiary was also lower in sIgE testing only compared with skin prick tests only ($161 vs $247). Multivariable regression results showed per-beneficiary payments for allergy testing were on average $22 lower in MACs with parity compared with MACs without parity. Discussion: Serum specific IgE testing is associated with lower costs and fewer allergy specialist visits compared with skin testing. Insurance coverage with parity toward sIgE and skin testing is associated with lower overall costs of allergy testing. Conclusion: Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in the United States, sIgE testing may be more cost effective compared with skin testing in the management of allergic disease.","PeriodicalId":16012,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","volume":"585 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134966063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Cost of Serum Versus Skin Allergy Testing Among Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries in the United States.","authors":"Kenny Y Kwong, Yang Z Lu","doi":"10.36469/001c.77482","DOIUrl":"10.36469/001c.77482","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Testing for allergic sensitization can be achieved similarly via skin or serum specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) testing, although the costs of each method differ. <b>Objective:</b> This study compared cost and utilization of allergy testing utilizing skin vs sIgE testing and whether equal access (parity) to both testing methods affects overall allergy testing costs among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in the United States. <b>Methods:</b> Allergy test utilization and payment data were analyzed using 100% 2019 Medicare fee-for-service claims data. Beneficiaries with any sIgE test, skin prick test, or intradermal skin test associated with ICD-10 codes of allergic rhinitis, asthma, and food allergy were included. Aggregate and per-beneficiary testing cost, number of allergens tested, and number of allergy-related specialist visits incurred were estimated by the testing patterns of sIgE only, skin prick only, intradermal only, skin prick and intradermal, and sIgE plus prick and/or intradermal. Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) with parity for all allergy tests and those which restricted sIgE testing were compared. Multivariate linear regression was performed on the association between testing patterns and each cost and utilization measure, controlling for parity, age, sex, race/ethnicity, and dual-eligible status. <b>Results:</b> We analyzed 270 831 patients and 327 263 allergy-related claims. Total payment for all allergy tests was $71 380 866, including $15 903 954 for sIgE tests, $42 223 930 for skin prick tests, and $13 252 982 for intradermal tests. Beneficiaries receiving sIgE tests had only 1.8 fewer allergist visits than those with skin prick tests only (0.8 vs 2.6). Cost of testing per beneficiary was also lower in sIgE testing only compared with skin prick tests only ($161 vs $247). Multivariable regression results showed per-beneficiary payments for allergy testing were on average $22 lower in MACs with parity compared with MACs without parity. <b>Discussion:</b> Serum specific IgE testing is associated with lower costs and fewer allergy specialist visits compared with skin testing. Insurance coverage with parity toward sIgE and skin testing is associated with lower overall costs of allergy testing. <b>Conclusion:</b> Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in the United States, sIgE testing may be more cost effective compared with skin testing in the management of allergic disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":16012,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","volume":"10 2","pages":"14-21"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10387329/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9910792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"QALYs: The Math Doesn’t Work","authors":"Tia Sawhney, Angela Dobes, Sirimon O'Charoen","doi":"10.36469/jheor.2023.83387","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36469/jheor.2023.83387","url":null,"abstract":"The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is a metric widely used when assessing the cost-effectiveness of drugs and other health interventions. The assessments are used in the development of recommendations for pricing, formulary placement decisions, and health policy decisions. A new bill, H.R. 485, the Protecting Health Care for All Patients Act of 2023, was approved by the US House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee that will, if passed, end the practice of using QALYs in all federal programs.1,2 Proponents of the ban say that QALYs undervalue the positive effects of therapeutics on people with disabilities.3 We share their concerns. Furthermore, our review of the mathematical properties of QALYs, including an analysis of quality-of-life utility (QOL utility) data recently collected from patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), has led us to conclude that QALYs are an inappropriate metric of drug and treatment cost-effectiveness for all people, both disabled and nondisabled, and should not be the basis for US healthcare policy decisions.","PeriodicalId":16012,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","volume":"89 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135701573","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"QALYs: The Math Doesn't Work.","authors":"Tia G Sawhney, Angela Dobes, Sirimon O'Charoen","doi":"10.36469/001c.83387","DOIUrl":"10.36469/001c.83387","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is a metric widely used when assessing the cost-effectiveness of drugs and other health interventions. The assessments are used in the development of recommendations for pricing, formulary placement decisions, and health policy decisions. A new bill, H.R. 485, the Protecting Health Care for All Patients Act of 2023, was approved by the US House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee that will, if passed, end the practice of using QALYs in all federal programs.^1,2 Proponents of the ban say that QALYs undervalue the positive effects of therapeutics on people with disabilities.³ We share their concerns. Furthermore, our review of the mathematical properties of QALYs, including an analysis of quality-of-life utility (QOL utility) data recently collected from patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), has led us to conclude that QALYs are an inappropriate metric of drug and treatment cost-effectiveness for all people, both disabled and nondisabled, and should not be the basis for US healthcare policy decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":16012,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","volume":"10 2","pages":"10-13"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10386792/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9916606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An Insurance Value Modeling Approach That Captures the Wider Value of a Novel Antimicrobial to Health Systems, Patients, and the Population.","authors":"Mei S Chan, Richard Holloway, Robert King, Rosie Polya, Rebecca Sloan, Jack C Kowalik, Tom Ashfield, Luke S P Moore, Thomas Porter, Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard","doi":"10.36469/001c.75206","DOIUrl":"10.36469/001c.75206","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Traditional health economic evaluations of antimicrobials currently underestimate their value to wider society. They can be supplemented by additional value elements including insurance value, which captures the value of an antimicrobial in preventing or mitigating impacts of adverse risk events. Despite being commonplace in other sectors, constituents of the impacts and approaches for estimating insurance value have not been investigated. <b>Objectives:</b> This study assessed the insurance value of a novel gram-negative antimicrobial from operational healthcare, wider population health, productivity, and informal care perspectives. <b>Methods:</b> A novel mixed-methods approach was used to model insurance value in the United Kingdom: (1) literature review and multidisciplinary expert workshops to identify risk events for 4 relevant scenarios: ward closures, unavoidable shortage of conventional antimicrobials, viral respiratory pandemics, and catastrophic antimicrobial resistance (AMR); (2) parameterizing mitigable costs and frequencies of risk events across perspectives and scenarios; (3) estimating insurance value through a Monte Carlo simulation model for extreme events and a dynamic disease transmission model. <b>Results:</b> The mean insurance value across all scenarios and perspectives over 10 years in the UK was £718 million, should AMR remain unchanged, where only £134 million related to operational healthcare costs. It would be 50%-70% higher if AMR steadily increased or if a more risk-averse view (1-in-10 year downside) of future events is taken. <b>Discussion:</b> The overall insurance value if AMR remains at current levels (a conservative projection), is over 5 times greater than insurance value from just the operational healthcare costs perspective, traditionally the sole perspective used in health budgeting. Insurance value was generally larger for nationwide or universal (catastrophic AMR, pandemic, and conventional antimicrobial shortages) rather than localized (ward closure) scenarios, across perspectives. Components of this insurance value match previously published estimates of operational costs and mortality impacts. <b>Conclusions:</b> Insurance value of novel antimicrobials can be systematically modeled and substantially augments their traditional health economic value in normal circumstances. These approaches are generalizable to similar health interventions and form a framework for health systems and governments to capture broader value in health technology assessments, improve healthcare access, and increase resilience by planning for adverse scenarios.</p>","PeriodicalId":16012,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","volume":"10 2","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10359113/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9919005","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fast In-House Next-Generation Sequencing in the Diagnosis of Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Hospital Budget Impact Analysis","authors":"Ubong Silas, Maximilian Blüher, Antonia Bosworth Smith, Rhodri Saunders","doi":"10.36469/jheor.2023.77686","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36469/jheor.2023.77686","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Targeted therapy for cancer is becoming more frequent as the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis increases. Molecular testing must be done to use targeted therapy. Unfortunately, the testing turnaround time can delay the initiation of targeted therapy. Objective: To investigate the impact of a next-generation sequencing (NGS) machine in the hospital that would allow for in-house NGS testing of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) in a US setting. Methods: The differences between 2 hospital pathways were established with a cohort-level decision tree that feeds into a Markov model. A pathway that used in-house NGS (75%) and the use of external laboratories (so-called send-out NGS) (25%), was compared with the standard of exclusively send-out NGS. The model was from the perspective of a US hospital over a 5-year time horizon. All cost input data were in or inflated to 2021 USD. Scenario analysis was done on key variables. Results: In a hospital with 500 mNSCLC patients, the implementation of in-house NGS was estimated to increase the testing costs and the revenue of the hospital. The model predicted a $710 060 increase in testing costs, a $1 732 506 increase in revenue, and a $1 022 446 return on investment over 5 years. The payback period was 15 months with in-house NGS. The number of patients on targeted therapy increased by 3.38%, and the average turnaround time decreased by 10 days when in-house NGS was used. Discussion: Reducing testing turnaround time is a benefit of in-house NGS. It could contribute to fewer mNSCLC patients lost to second opinion and an increased number of patients on targeted therapy. The model outcomes predicted that, over a 5-year period, there would be a positive return on investment for a US hospital. The model reflects a proposed scenario. The heterogeneity of hospital inputs and the cost of send-out NGS means context-specific inputs are needed. Conclusion: Using in-house NGS testing could reduce the testing turnaround time and increase the number of patients on targeted therapy. Additional benefits for the hospital are that fewer patients will be lost to second opinion and that in-house NGS could generate additional revenue.","PeriodicalId":16012,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135608974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fast In-House Next-Generation Sequencing in the Diagnosis of Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Hospital Budget Impact Analysis.","authors":"Ubong Silas, Maximilian Blüher, Antonia Bosworth Smith, Rhodri Saunders","doi":"10.36469/001c.77686","DOIUrl":"10.36469/001c.77686","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Targeted therapy for cancer is becoming more frequent as the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis increases. Molecular testing must be done to use targeted therapy. Unfortunately, the testing turnaround time can delay the initiation of targeted therapy. <b>Objective:</b> To investigate the impact of a next-generation sequencing (NGS) machine in the hospital that would allow for in-house NGS testing of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) in a US setting. <b>Methods:</b> The differences between 2 hospital pathways were established with a cohort-level decision tree that feeds into a Markov model. A pathway that used in-house NGS (75%) and the use of external laboratories (so-called send-out NGS) (25%), was compared with the standard of exclusively send-out NGS. The model was from the perspective of a US hospital over a 5-year time horizon. All cost input data were in or inflated to 2021 USD. Scenario analysis was done on key variables. <b>Results:</b> In a hospital with 500 mNSCLC patients, the implementation of in-house NGS was estimated to increase the testing costs and the revenue of the hospital. The model predicted a $710 060 increase in testing costs, a $1 732 506 increase in revenue, and a $1 022 446 return on investment over 5 years. The payback period was 15 months with in-house NGS. The number of patients on targeted therapy increased by 3.38%, and the average turnaround time decreased by 10 days when in-house NGS was used. <b>Discussion:</b> Reducing testing turnaround time is a benefit of in-house NGS. It could contribute to fewer mNSCLC patients lost to second opinion and an increased number of patients on targeted therapy. The model outcomes predicted that, over a 5-year period, there would be a positive return on investment for a US hospital. The model reflects a proposed scenario. The heterogeneity of hospital inputs and the cost of send-out NGS means context-specific inputs are needed. <b>Conclusion:</b> Using in-house NGS testing could reduce the testing turnaround time and increase the number of patients on targeted therapy. Additional benefits for the hospital are that fewer patients will be lost to second opinion and that in-house NGS could generate additional revenue.</p>","PeriodicalId":16012,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","volume":"10 1","pages":"111-118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10306161/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9736598","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}