Can Pay-for Performance Incentive Levels be Determined Using a Cost-Effectiveness Framework?

Time to publication of cost-effectiveness analyses for medical devices

OBJECTIVES

Academic researchers and physicians have called for greater use of cost-effectiveness analyses in informing treatment and reimbursement decisions. This study examines the availability of cost-effectiveness analyses for medical devices, in terms of both the number of studies and when studies are published.

STUDY DESIGN

Analysis of the number of years between FDA approval/clearance and publication for cost-effectiveness analyses of medical devices in the United States published between 2002 and 2020 (n = 86).

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analyses of medical devices were identified using the Tufts University Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. Studies in which the model and manufacturer of the medical device used in the intervention were identifiable were linked to FDA databases. Years between FDA approval/clearance and publication of cost-effectiveness analyses were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 218 cost-effectiveness analyses of medical devices in the United States published between 2002 and 2020 were identified. Of these studies, 86 (39.4%) were linked to FDA databases. Studies examining devices approved via premarket approval were published a mean of 6.0 years after the device received FDA approval (median, 4 years), whereas studies examining devices that were cleared via the 510(k) process were published a mean of 6.5 years after the device received FDA clearance (median, 5 years).

CONCLUSIONS

There are few studies describing the cost-effectiveness of medical devices. Most of these studies' findings are not published until several years after the studied devices received FDA approval/clearance, meaning that decision makers will likely not have evidence of cost-effectiveness when making initial decisions related to newly available medical devices.

Medicaid payer status is associated with increased 90-day morbidity and resource utilization following primary shoulder arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Medicaid payer status has been shown to affect risk-adjusted patient outcomes and health care utilization across multiple medical specialties and orthopedic procedures. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the impact of Medicaid payer status on 90-day morbidity and resource utilization following primary shoulder arthroplasty (reverse total shoulder arthroplasty [rTSA], anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty [aTSA], and hemiarthroplasty [HA]). The purpose of this study was to examine 90-day readmission and reoperation rates, hospital length of stay (LOS), and direct cost following primary shoulder arthroplasty in the Medicaid population.

METHODS

The National Readmission Database was queried for all patients undergoing primary aTSA, rTSA, and HA from 2011 to 2016. Medicaid or non-Medicaid payer status was determined. Patient demographic characteristics and comorbidities, along with 90-day readmission, 90-day reoperation, LOS, and inflation-adjusted cost, were queried. Propensity score matching was used to control for baseline differences in cohorts that could be acting as confounders in the exposure-outcome relationship. This was achieved with 1-to-1 propensity score matching between Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 90-day readmission and reoperation rates were calculated, and a comparison of LOS and cost was performed between the propensity score-matched cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 4667 Medicaid and 161,147 non-Medicaid patients were identified from the 2011-2016 National Readmission Databases. Propensity score analysis was performed, and 4637 Medicaid patients were matched to 4637 non-Medicaid patients; each group comprised 1504 rTSAs (32.4%), 1934 aTSAs (41.7%), and 1199 HAs (25.9%). Patients with Medicaid payer status yielded significant increases in the 90-day all-cause readmission rate of 11.6% vs. 9.3% (P < .001; OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.12-1.46]), 90-day shoulder-related readmission rate of 3.3% vs. 2.3% (P = .004; OR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.12-1.85]), and 90-day reoperation rate of 2.0% vs. 1.3% (P = .008; OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.12-1.94]). Furthermore, there was an increased risk of an extended LOS (ie, LOS > 2 days) (28.4% vs. 25.7%; P = .004; OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.04-1.25]) along with increased direct cost (median, $17,612 vs. $16,775; P < .001).

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates that Medicaid payer status is independently associated with increased 90-day readmission and reoperation rates, LOS, and direct cost following primary shoulder arthroplasty. Providers may have a disincentive to treat patient populations who require increased resource utilization following surgery. Risk adjustment models accounting for Medicaid payer status will be necessary to ensure good access to care for this patient population by avoiding penalties for physicians and hospital systems.

Financial Incentives for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Ontario, Canada: A Cost-Utility Analysis

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a minimally invasive therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis, which has become standard of care. The objective of this study was to determine the maximum cost‐effective investment in TAVI care that should be made at a health system level to meet quality indicator goals.

Methods and Results

We performed a cost‐utility analysis using probabilistic patient‐level simulation of TAVI care from the Ontario, Canada, Ministry of Health perspective. Costs and health utilities were accrued over a 2‐year time horizon. We created 4 hypothetical strategies that represented TAVI care meeting ≥1 quality indicator targets, (1) reduced wait times, (2) reduced hospital length of stay, (3) reduced pacemaker use, and (4) combined strategy, and compared these with current TAVI care. Per‐person costs, quality‐adjusted life years, and clinical outcomes were estimated by the model. Using these, incremental net monetary benefits were calculated for each strategy at different cost‐effectiveness thresholds between $0 and $100 000 per quality‐adjusted life year. Clinical improvements over the current practice were estimated with all comparator strategies. In Ontario, achieving quality indicator benchmarks could avoid ≈26 wait‐list deaths and 200 wait‐list hospitalizations annually. Compared with current TAVI care, the incremental net monetary benefit for this strategy varied from $10 765 (±$8721) and $17 221 (±$8977). This would translate to an annual investment of between ≈$14 to ≈$22 million by the Ontario Ministry of Health to incentivize these performance measures being cost‐effective.

Conclusions

This study has quantified the modest annual investment required and substantial clinical benefit of meeting improvement goals in TAVI care.

A nationwide cohort investigation on pay-for-performance and major adverse limb events in patients with diabetes

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using claims data from Taiwan's National Health Insurance program to assess the effect of diabetic pay-for-performance (P4P) program on major adverse limb events (MALE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study included patients with T2DM who had completed or not completed a 1-year P4P program from 2002 to 2013. Propensity-score matching was used to balance the baseline characteristics between groups. The Cox proportional-hazard model and Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard model were used to examine the association between P4P and the risks of MALE, MACE, systemic thromboembolism (ST), heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. Patients who underwent the P4P program had a significantly decreased incidence of MALE (2.0% vs. 2.6%, subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 0.73, 95% CI 0.71-0.76). Regarding the individual components, the P4P group demonstrated lower risks for foot ulcer (1.1% vs 1.3%, SHR 0.80, 95% CI 0.77-0.84), gangrene (0.57% vs 0.93%, SHR 0.59, 95% CI 0.56-0.63), percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (0.61% vs 0.79%, SHR 0.72, 95% CI 0.68-0.77), and amputation (0.46% vs 0.75%, SHR 0.58, 95% CI 0.55-0.62). In addition, the risks of MACE, ST, HF hospitalization, and all-cause mortality were remarkably lower in the P4P group. The P4P program might significantly reduce critical events of MALE, MACE, ST, HF, and mortality in the diabetic population.

Lack of Awareness of Reimbursement and Compensation Models amongst Cardiothoracic Surgery Trainees

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to identify trainee knowledge gaps in reimbursement and compensation, determine the perceived importance of understanding these topics, and to explore if the Thoracic Surgery Curriculum needs additional educational material.

METHODS

The Thoracic Surgical Residents Association (TSRA) Executive committee selected the research proposal and distributed an anonymous electronic survey to 531 ACGME cardiothoracic surgery trainees. Standard descriptive statistics and regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

114 responses were collected (response rate 21.5%). Most trainees understand little or not at all about how attending surgeons are reimbursed (n=74, 69%). Most trainees reported knowing little or nothing about pay-for-performance compensation (n=73, 67%), bundled care (n=82, 75%) or value-based reimbursement (n=84, 77%). Only approximately 20% of trainees were accurate in estimating surgeon reimbursement for three common cardiothoracic surgery procedures to within 20% of the true reimbursement value, while approximately 30% were accurate to within 50% of the true reimbursement value. No respondent characteristics were found to be associated with a more or less accurate reimbursement response. Additionally, 81% of trainees responded that by the conclusion of training, understanding surgeon reimbursement is very important or extremely important (n=87) and 90% of trainees either somewhat agree or strongly agree with including these topics in the Thoracic Surgical Curriculum (n=95).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite acknowledging the importance of understanding physician compensation and reimbursement, cardiothoracic surgery trainees do not understand how the current models work. This study exemplifies the need for a succinct curriculum in this domain for trainees nationwide.

Innovative Managed Care May Be Related to Improved Prognosis for Acute Myocardial Infarction Survivors

BACKGROUND

Mortality following discharge in myocardial infarction survivors remains high. Therefore, we compared outcomes in myocardial infarction survivors participating and not participating in a novel, nationwide managed care program for myocardial infarction survivors in Poland.

METHODS

We used public databases. We included all patients hospitalized due to acute myocardial infarction in Poland between October 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. We excluded from the analysis all patients aged <18 years as well as those who died during hospitalization or within 10 days following discharge from hospital. All patients were prospectively followed. The primary end point was defined as death from any cause.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 324.8±140.5 days (78 034.1 patient-years; 340.0±131.7 days in those who did not die during the observation). Participation in the managed care program was related to higher odds ratio of participating in cardiac rehabilitation (4.67 [95% CI, 4.44-4.88]), consultation with a cardiologist (7.32 [6.83-7.84]), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (1.40 [1.22-1.61]), and cardiac resynchronization therapy with cardioverter-defibrillator implantation (1.57 [1.22-2.03]) but lower odds of emergency (0.88 [0.79-0.98]) and nonemergency percutaneous coronary intervention (0.88 [0.83-0.93]) and coronary artery bypass grafting (0.82 [0.71-0.94]) during the follow-up. One-year all-cause mortality was 4.4% among the program participants and 6.0% in matched nonparticipants. The end point consisting of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 10.6% and 12.0% (P<0.01) of participants and nonparticipants respectively, whereas all-cause death or hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons in 42.2% and 47.9% (P<0.001) among participants and nonparticipants, respectively. The difference in outcomes between patients participating and not participating in the managed care program could be explained by improved access to cardiac rehabilitation, cardiac care, and cardiac procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Managed care following myocardial infarction may be related to improved prognosis as it may facilitate access to cardiac rehabilitation and may provide a higher standard of outpatient cardiac care.

Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Ribociclib to Endocrine Therapy for Patients With HR-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer Among Premenopausal or Perimenopausal Women

Purpose

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding ribociclib to endocrine therapy for pre/perimenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer from the US payer perspective.

Methods

A partitioned survival analysis model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of ribociclib in combination with endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone based on clinical data from the MONALEESA-7 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total costs were estimated and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the uncertainties of model inputs. Additional scenario analyses were performed.

Results

In the base-case, ribociclib plus endocrine therapy was more effective than endocrine therapy with an additional 1.39 QALYs but also more costly with an ICER of $282,996/QALY. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that overall survival associated with the treatments and the cost of ribociclib had the greatest impact on the ICER. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that only beyond a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $272,867, ribociclib plus endocrine therapy would surpass endocrine therapy alone as a cost-effective option.

Conclusions

From the US payer perspective, ribociclib plus endocrine therapy for pre/perimenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer is not cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $100,000 or $150,000 per QALY in comparison of endocrine therapy alone.