Search

Objectives: To extend a previously published manuscript on a model for estimating potential avoided medical events and cost savings in the US associated with the introduction of extended-release ab...

To develop an economic model to estimate the change in the number of events and costs of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and non-fatal ischemic stroke (IS) as a result of implementing routine risk-stratification with a multiple inflammatory biomarker approach.Reductions in the numbers of non-fatal MI and non-fatal IS events and in related per-member-per-month (PMPM) and 5-year costs (excluding test costs) due to biomarker testing were modeled for a US health plan with one million beneficiaries. Inputs for the model included literature-based MI and IS incidence rates, healthcare costs associated with MI and IS, laboratory results of biomarker testing, MI and IS hazard ratios related to biomarker levels, patient monitoring and intervention costs and use/costs of preventative pharmacotherapy. Preventative pharmacotherapy inputs were based on an analysis of pharmacy claims data. Costs savings (2013 USD) were assessed for patients undergoing biomarker testing compared to the standard of care. Data from MDVIP and Cleveland Heart Lab supported two critical inputs: (1) treatment success rates and (2) the population distribution of biomarker testing. Incidence rates, hazard ratios, and other healthcare costs were obtained from the literature.For a health plan with one million members, an estimated 21,104 MI and 22,589 IS events occurred in a 5-year period. Routine biomarker testing among a sub-group of beneficiaries ≥35 years old reduced non-fatal MI and IS events by 2039 and 1869, respectively, yielding cost savings of over $187 million over 5 years ($3.13 PMPM), excluding test costs. Results were sensitive to changes in treatment response rates. Nonetheless, cost savings were observed for all input values.This study suggests that health plans can realize substantial cost savings by preventing non-fatal MI and IS events after implementation of routine biomarker testing. Five-year cost savings before test costs could exceed $3.13 PMPM.

The study aimed to (1) develop a cost model for colonoscopy preparation among patients referred for colonoscopy using split-dose reduced-volume oral sulfate solution (OSS) and generic polyethylene glycol with electrolytes solution (PEG-ELS), (2) examine cost savings associated with OSS vs PEG-ELS, and (3) assess the robustness of the cost model.Efficacy of each agent was based on the results of a 541-patient clinical trial comparing OSS to PEG-ELS. Cleansing agent and colonoscopy procedure costs were calculated from OptumHealth ReportingInsights claims data for 2010-Q12013. In the model, patients' colonoscopies were tracked over a 25 or 35 year time period until the patients reached age 75. The difference per patient per year (PPPY) in total cleansing agent and colonoscopy procedure costs over the time horizon between the OSS and PEG-ELS cohort was calculated. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the cost model.The model showed lower cost for OSS patients over the time horizon. Total PPPY costs were $280.34 for the OSS cohort and $296.36 for the PEG-ELS cohort, resulting in a cost saving of $16.01 PPPY for the OSS cohort. This was due primarily to OSS patients having fewer colonoscopies (OSS: 0.158 vs PEG-ELS: 0.170 PPPY). Over the time horizon, cost savings of $4 763 335 were observed among 10, 000 OSS patients. Cost savings switched from OSS to PEG-ELS cohort in four cases: (1) base-case cost of a completed colonoscopy decreased by 75%, (2) base-case cost of OSS increased to over $143 per usage, (3) all non-completers were lost to follow-up, and (4) OSS bowel preparation quality dropped below PEG-ELS to 70%.From a payer's perspective, the model showed that the use of OSS as the cleansing agent resulted in potential cost savings compared with PEG-ELS. Cost savings under OSS remained under various sensitivity analyses.