Search

To assess the cost-effectiveness of a digital Diabetes Prevention Program (dDPP) in preventing type 2 diabetes mellitus among prediabetic patients from a health system perspective over a 10-year time horizon.A Markov cohort model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of dDPP compared to a small group education (SGE) intervention. Transition probabilities for the first year of the model were derived from two clinical trials on dDPP. Transition probabilities for longer-term effects were derived from meta-analyses on lifestyle and Diabetes Prevention Program interventions. Cost and health utilities were derived from published literature. Partial completion of interventions was incorporated to provide a robust prediction of a real-world deployment. Parameter uncertainties were assessed using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Cost-effectiveness was measured by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between dDPP and SGE from a health system perspective over a 10-year time horizon.The dDPP dominated the SGE at the $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 willingness-to-pay thresholds per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The base case analysis at the $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) revealed a dominated ICER, with the SGE costing $1332 more and accruing an average of 0.04 fewer QALYs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the dDPP was preferred in 64.4% of simulations across the $100,000 WTP thresholds.The findings comparing a dDPP to an SGE suggest that a dDPP can be cost-effective for patients with a high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act authorizes Medicare to negotiate the prices of 10 drugs in 2026 and additional drugs thereafter. Understanding the sociodemographic and spending characteristics of beneficiaries taking these specific drugs could be important describing the impact of the legislation., Objective: To describe sociodemographic and spending characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries who use the 10 prescription drugs ("negotiated drugs") that will face Medicare drug price negotiations in 2026., Methods: A 20% sample of Medicare Part D beneficiaries from 2020 (n = 10,224,642) was used. Sociodemographic and spending characteristics were descriptively reported for beneficiaries taking the negotiated drugs, including subgroups by low-income subsidy (LIS) status and by drug, and for Part D beneficiaries not taking negotiated drugs., Results: Part D beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug compared with Part D beneficiaries not taking a negotiated drug overall had similar sociodemographic characteristics, more comorbidities (3.9 vs 2.2) and higher mean [median] Medicare ($33,882 [$18,251] vs $12,366 [$3,429]) and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending ($813 [$307] vs $441 [$160]). There was variation in characteristics by LIS status. The mean age was highest among non-LIS beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug compared with LIS beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug and beneficiaries not taking a negotiated drug (76.2 vs 69.9 vs 71.4). Among beneficiaries using negotiated drugs, a higher percentage of LIS beneficiaries compared with non-LIS was female (59.7% vs 48.0%), was Black (20.9% vs 6.6%), and resided in lower-income areas (39.1% vs 20.3%). Mean [median] annual Part D OOP spending for negotiated drugs was $115 [$59] for beneficiaries with LIS and $1,475 [$1,204] for beneficiaries without LIS. There were also differences depending on which negotiated drug was used. Drugs for cancer and blood clots had the highest proportions of White users, whereas type 2 diabetes and heart failure drugs had the highest proportions of Black users and beneficiaries residing in lower-income areas. Annual Part D OOP costs were lowest for sitagliptin (LIS: $104 [$60], non-LIS: $1,391 [$1,153]) and highest for ibrutinib (LIS: $649 [$649], non-LIS: $6,449 [$6,867]). Among non-LIS beneficiaries, 24% (22% to 76%) had more than $2,000 in OOP costs., Conclusions: Inflation Reduction Act OOP spending caps and LIS expansion will lower prescription drug costs for beneficiaries with OOP costs exceeding $2,000 who are mostly White and live in higher-income areas, insulin users who are disproportionately Black with multiple chronic conditions, and beneficiaries with low incomes. However, these provisions will not impact the 76% of non-LIS beneficiaries using negotiated drugs who have OOP costs that are still substantial but below $2,000. Negotiations could reduce OOP costs through reduced coinsurance payments for this group, which is older and has more chronic conditions compared with beneficiaries not taking negotiated drugs. Part D plan design, spending, and utilization changes should be monitored after negotiation to determine if further solutions are needed to lower OOP costs for this group.

Using literature review and interviews, we have identified 8 attributes of programs, such as accountable care organizations, readmission initiatives, special needs plans, care transition programs, and patient-centered medical homes, that successfully treat high-need, high-cost patients. These 8 attributes--illustrated here with specific examples--are specific ways to target these types of individuals, promote leadership at various levels, emphasize interaction with the care coordinator, use data strategically to refine the program, update the program periodically, allow physicians to spend more time with patients, and promote interaction among clinicians and high-need, high cost patients and their families.