Low-value care and excess out-of-pocket expenditure among older adults with incident cancer - A machine learning approach

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.

Describing financial toxicity among cancer patients in different income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

There is limited evidence of financial toxicity (FT) among cancer patients from countries of various income levels. Hence, this study aimed to determine the prevalence of objective and subjective FT and their measurements in relation to cancer treatment.

Methods

PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched to find studies that examined FT. There was no limit on the design or setting of the study. Random-effects meta-analysis was utilized to obtain the pooled prevalence of objective FT.

Results

Out of 244 identified studies during the initial screening, only 64 studies were included in this review. The catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) method was often used in the included studies to determine the objective FT. The pooled prevalence of CHE was 47% (95% CI: 24.0-70.0) in middle- and high-income countries, and the highest percentage was noted in low-income countries (74.4%). A total of 30 studies focused on subjective FT, of which 9 used the Comprehensive Score for FT (COST) tool and reported median scores ranging between 17.0 and 31.9.

Conclusion

This study shows that cancer patients from various income-group countries experienced a significant financial burden during their treatment. It is imperative to conduct further studies on interventions and policies that can lower FT caused by cancer treatment.

The application of artificial intelligence in health financing: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Artificial Intelligence (AI) represents a significant advancement in technology, and it is crucial for policymakers to incorporate AI thinking into policies and to fully explore, analyze and utilize massive data and conduct AI-related policies. AI has the potential to optimize healthcare financing systems. This study provides an overview of the AI application domains in healthcare financing.

METHOD

We conducted a scoping review in six steps: formulating research questions, identifying relevant studies by conducting a comprehensive literature search using appropriate keywords, screening titles and abstracts for relevance, reviewing full texts of relevant articles, charting extracted data, and compiling and summarizing findings. Specifically, the research question sought to identify the applications of artificial intelligence in health financing supported by the published literature and explore potential future applications. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched between 2000 and 2023.

RESULTS

We discovered that AI has a significant impact on various aspects of health financing, such as governance, revenue raising, pooling, and strategic purchasing. We provide evidence-based recommendations for establishing and improving the health financing system based on AI.

CONCLUSIONS

To ensure that vulnerable groups face minimum challenges and benefit from improved health financing, we urge national and international institutions worldwide to use and adopt AI tools and applications.

Chemotherapy Treatment Costs and Clinical Outcomes of Colon Cancer in the U.S. Military Health System's Direct and Private Sector Care Settings

INTRODUCTION

Identifying low-value cancer care may be an important step in containing costs associated with treatment. Low-value care occurs when the medical services, tests, or treatments rendered do not result in clinical benefit. These may be impacted by care setting and patients' access to care and health insurance. We aimed to study chemotherapy treatment and the cost paid by the Department of Defense (DoD) for treatment in relation to clinical outcomes among patients with colon cancer treated within the U.S. Military Health System's direct and private sector care settings to better understand the value of cancer care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cohort of patients aged 18 to 64 years with primary colon cancer diagnosed between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2014, were identified in the Military Cancer Epidemiology database. Multivariable time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the relationship between chemotherapy treatment and the cost paid by the DoD (in quartiles, Q) and the outcomes of cancer progression, cancer recurrence, and all-cause death modeled as adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The Military Cancer Epidemiology data were approved for research by the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences' Institutional Review Board.

RESULTS

The study included 673 patients using direct care and 431 patients using private sector care. The median per patient chemotherapy costs in direct care ($111,202) were lower than in private sector care ($350,283). In direct care, higher chemotherapy costs were associated with an increased risk of any outcome but not with all-cause death. In private sector care, higher chemotherapy costs were associated with a higher risk of any outcome and with all-cause death (aHR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.20-5.92 for Q4 vs. Q1).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings in the private sector may indicate low-value care in terms of the cost paid by the DoD for chemotherapy treatment and achieving desirable survival outcomes for patients with colon cancer in civilian health care. Comprehensive evaluations of value-based care among patients treated for other tumor types may be warranted.

Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments

Background: Advances in cancer medicines have resulted in tangible health impacts, but the magnitude of benefits of approved cancer medicines could vary greatly. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process used to inform resource allocation through a systematic value assessment of health technology. This paper reviews the challenges in conducting HTA for cancer medicines arising from oncology trial designs and uncertainties of safety-efficacy data. Methods: Multiple databases (PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar) and grey literature (public health agencies and governmental reports) were searched to inform this policy narrative review. Results: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data from clinical trials and other relevant sources of evidence has made HTA for cancer medicines challenging. The approval of cancer medicines through expedited pathways has increased in recent years, in which surrogate endpoints or biomarkers for patient selection have been widely used. Using these surrogate endpoints has created uncertainties in translating surrogate measures into patient-centric clinically (survival and quality of life) and economically (cost-effectiveness and budget impact) meaningful outcomes, with potential effects on diverting scarce health resources to low-value or detrimental interventions. Potential solutions include policy harmonization between regulatory and HTA authorities, commitment to generating robust post-marketing efficacy-safety data, managing uncertainties through risk-sharing agreements, and using value frameworks. Conclusion: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data is a central problem for conducting HTA of cancer medicines, potentially resulting in misinformed resource allocation.