Search

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of using standard care (no advanced treatment, NAT) compared with an advanced treatment (AT), dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane (DHACM), when following parameters for use (FPFU) in treating lower extremity diabetic ulcers (LEDUs). Method: We analysed a retrospective cohort of Medicare patients (2015–2019) to generate four propensity-matched cohorts of LEDU episodes. Outcomes for DHACM and NAT, such as amputations, and healthcare utilisation were tracked from claims codes, analysed and used to build a hybrid economic model, combining a one-year decision tree and a four-year Markov model. The budget impact was evaluated in the difference in per member per month spending following completion of the decision tree. Likewise, the cost-effectiveness was analysed before and after the Markov model at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY). The analysis was conducted from the healthcare sector perspective. Results: There were 10,900,127 patients with a diagnosis of diabetes, of whom 1,213,614 had an LEDU. Propensity-matched Group 1 was generated from the 19,910 episodes that received AT. Only 9.2% of episodes were FPFU and DHACM was identified as the most widely used AT product among Medicare episodes. Propensity-matched Group 4 was limited by the 590 episodes that used DHACM FPFU. Episodes treated with DHACM FPFU had statistically fewer amputations and healthcare utilisation. In year one, DHACM FPFU provided an additional 0.013 QALYs, while saving $3,670 per patient. At a WTP of $100,000 per QALY, the five-year net monetary benefit was $5003. Conclusion: The findings of this study showed that DHACM FPFU reduced costs and improved clinical benefits compared with NAT for LEDU Medicare patients. DHACM FPFU provided better clinical outcomes than NAT by reducing major amputations, ED visits, inpatient admissions and readmissions. These clinical gains were achieved at a lower cost, in years 1–5, and were likely to be cost-effective at any WTP threshold. Adoption of best practices identified in this retrospective analysis is expected to generate clinically significant decreases in amputations and hospital utilisation while saving money.

AIMS: The Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) has infected over two hundred million worldwide and caused 4.4 million of deaths as of August 2021. Vaccines were quickly developed to address the pandemic. We sought to analyze the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of a non-specified vaccine for COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We constructed a Markov model of COVID-19 infections using a susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered structure over a 1-year time horizon from a U.S. healthcare sector perspective. The model consisted of two arms: do nothing and COVID-19 vaccine. Hospitalization and mortality rates were calibrated to U.S. COVID-19 reports as of November 2020. We performed economic calculations of costs in 2020 U.S. dollars and effectiveness in units of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to measure the budget impact and incremental cost-effectiveness at a $100,000/QALY threshold. RESULTS: Vaccines have a high probability of reducing healthcare costs and increasing QALYs compared to doing nothing. Simulations showed reductions in hospital days and mortality by more than 50%. Even though this represents a major U.S. investment, the budget impacts of these technologies could save program costs by up to 60% or more if uptake is high. LIMITATIONS: The economic evaluation draws on the reported values of the clinical benefits of COVID-19 vaccines, although we do not currently have long-term conclusive data about COVID-19 vaccine efficacies. CONCLUSIONS: Spending on vaccines to mitigate COVID-19 infections offer high-value potential that society should consider. Unusually high uptake in vaccines in a short amount of time could result in unprecedented budget impacts to government and commercial payers. Governments should focus on expanding health system infrastructure and subsidizing payer coverage to deliver these vaccines efficiently.

It is well established that the United States lags behind peer nations in life expectancy, but it is less established that there is heterogeneity in life expectancy trends. We compared mortality trends from 2004 to 2014 for the United States with 17 high-income countries for persons under and over 65. The United States ranked last in survival gains for the young but ranked near the middle for persons over 65, the group with universal access to public insurance. To explore the over-65 mortality trend, we estimated Cox proportional hazards models for individuals soon after entering Medicare. These were estimated separately by race and sex, controlling for 26 chronic conditions and condition-specific time trends. The separate regressions enabled survival comparisons for the 2004 and 2014 cohorts by race and sex, conditional on baseline health. We predicted 5-year survival for all combinations of diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and ischemic heart disease (IHD). All 16 combinations of these conditions showed survival gains, with diabetes as a key driver. Notably, survival improved and racial disparities narrowed for individuals with diabetes, hypertension, and IHD. White females, black females, white males, and black males gained 3.61, 3.90, 3.57, and 5.89 percentage points in 5-year survival, respectively.