Ways to reduce the cost of oncology care without compromising the quality

Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology

PURPOSE

Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) present the value of an intervention as the ratio of its incremental cost divided by its incremental survival benefit, with survival weighted by utilities to produce quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We critically reviewed the CUA literature and its role in informing clinical oncology practice, research priorities, and policy.

METHODS

The English-language literature was searched between 1975 and1997 for CUAs. Two readers abstracted from each article descriptions of the clinical situation and patients, the methods used, study perspective, the measures of effectiveness, costs included, discounting, and whether sensitivity analyses were performed. The readers then made subjective quality assessments. We also extracted utility values from the reviewed papers, along with information on how and from whom utilities were measured.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 40 studies, which described 263 health states and presented 89 cost-utility ratios. Both the number and quality of studies increased over time. However, many studies are at variance with current standards. Only 20% of studies took a societal perspective, more than a third failed to discount both the costs and QALYs, and utilities were often simply estimates from the investigators or other physicians.

CONCLUSION

The cost-utility literature in oncology is not large but is rapidly expanding. There remains much room for improvement in the methodological rigor with which utilities are measured. Considering quality-of-life effects by incorporating utilities into economic studies is particularly important in oncology, where many therapies obtain modest improvements in response or survival at the expense of nontrivial toxicity.

Health service studies in the terminally ill cancer patient

The number of high quality health service research studies in care of the terminally ill patient is very limited. For some areas of care, such as coordination of care for the dying, the clinical benefit is not clear, but the cost-effectiveness evidence seems compelling enough to provide services. For others, such as the use of advanced directives or hospice care, the ethical and medical rationale is compelling, but the evidence of clinical benefit or better cost-effectiveness is limited.

Differences in initial treatment patterns and outcomes of lung cancer in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for substantial deaths and costs in the elderly greater than 65 years old. The current practice of NSCLC treatment in a Medicare population was examined to ascertain important areas of practice variation, and differences in clinical outcome and costs.

METHODS

Data from incident cases of NSCLC from the Virginia Cancer Registry (VCR), 1985-89, were matched with claims from Medicare Part A and B, census tract data and the Area Resource File. Multivariate models were created to include clinical data, demographics, and access information.

RESULTS

For patients with locoregional disease, increasing age was associated with lower likelihood of therapy (odds ratio (OR) 0.35; confidence intervals (CI) 0.29, 0.43), thoracotomy (OR 0.27; CI 0.21, 0.34), and more use of radiation therapy compared to surgery (OR 1.69; CI 1.39, 2.03). Low education levels were associated with less likelihood of treatment (OR 0.78; CI 0.66, 0.94), or radiation instead of surgery (OR 1.22; CI 1.05, 1.47). Patients in urban areas were less likely to receive therapy (OR 0.67; CI 0.49, 0.92). For distant disease, increasing age was also associated with lower likelihood of treatment (OR 0.48; CI 0.41, 0.56), as was increasing co-morbidity (OR 0.84; CI 0.75, 0.93). Distance to radiation oncologists made no difference in radiotherapy utilization. Two year survival according to therapy was surgery 66%, radiation 15%, no therapy 17%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patterns of care, and survival according to therapy, vary widely for elderly NSCLC patients. Age, low education, higher co-morbidity and urban residence all decrease the likelihood of surgical therapy for locoregional NSCLC. Despite the availability of coverage through the Medicare program, use of therapies and survival is not uniform for all beneficiaries. Possible discrimination by age, co-morbid illnesses not recorded in the Medicare files, or patient and provider choice could all be involved; administrative billing files cannot resolve these important differences.