Non-lung cancer outcomes drive screening efficiency in diverse, tobacco-exposed populations. Use of risk selection can reduce the budget impact, and screening may even offer cost savings if noncurative treatment costs continue to rise.
SummaryAcute Myeloid Leukaemia (AML) is a rare but serious group of diseases that require critical decision‐making for curative treatment. Over the past decade, scientific discovery has revealed dozens of prognostic gene mutations for AML while sequencing costs have plummeted. In this study, we compared the cost‐effectiveness of multigene integrative analysis (genomic analysis) with the standard molecular testing currently used for diagnosis of intermediate‐risk AML. We used a decision analytic model with data for costs and outcomes from British Columbia, Canada, to assess the long‐term (10‐year) economic impacts. Our results suggest that genomic analysis would result in a 26% increase in the use of first‐remission allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The resulting treatment decisions and downstream effects would come at an additional cost of $12 556 [2013 Canadian dollars (CAD)] per person and the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio would be $49 493 per quality‐adjusted life‐year gained. Cost‐effectiveness was dependent on quality of life during the long‐term (5–10) years of survival, relapse rates following first‐remission chemotherapy and the upfront cost of transplantation. Non‐relapse mortality rates, short‐term quality of life and the cost of genomic sequencing had only minor impacts. Further research on post‐remission outcomes can lead to improvements in the cost‐effectiveness of curative treatments for AML.
Melanoma presents an important burden worldwide. Until recently, the prognosis for unresectable and metastatic melanoma was poor, with 10% of metastatic melanoma patients surviving for 2 years. The introduction of newer therapies including ipilimumab, vemurafenib, dabrafenib and trametinib improved progression-free survival, with additional benefits anticipated from the forthcoming class of programmed cell death 1 inhibitors. Cost of therapy and resulting cost-effectiveness is an important factor in determining patient access to specific treatments. The objective of this study was to review the published evidence regarding cost-effectiveness of melanoma therapies and provide an overview of the relative cost-effectiveness of available therapies by disease stage. For earlier-stage disease, IFN-α has been found to be cost-effective, although its clinical benefits have not been well established. For unresectable and metastatic melanoma, newer therapies provide benefits over standard-of-care chemotherapy, but comprehensive analyses will need to be conducted to determine the most cost-effective therapy.
BackgroundThe incidence of cancer and the cost of its treatment continue to rise. The effect of these dual forces is a major burden on the system of health care financing. One cost containment approach involves changing the way physicians are paid. Payers are testing reimbursement methods such as capitation and prospective payment while also evaluating how the changes impact health outcomes, resource utilization, and quality of care. The purpose of this study is to identify evidence related to physician payment methods’ impacts, with a focus on cancer control.MethodsWe conducted a rapid review. This involved defining eligibility criteria, identifying a search strategy, performing study selection according to the eligibility criteria, and abstracting data from included studies. This process was accompanied by a gray literature search for special topics.ResultsThe incentives in fee-for-service payment systems generally lead to health care services being applied inconsistently because providers practice independently with few systems in place for developing treatment protocols and practice reviews. This inconsistency is pronounced in cancer care because much of the total per patient spending occurs in the last month of life. Some insurers are predicting that this variation can be reduced through the use of prospective or bundled payments combined with decision support systems. Workload, recruitment, and retention are all affected by changes to physician payment models; effects seem to be magnified in the specialist context as their several extra years of training lower their overall supply.ConclusionsExperimentation with physician payment methods has tended to neglect cancer care providers. Policymakers designing cancer-focused physician reimbursement pilot programs should incorporate quality measurement since very ill patients may receive too little treatment when payment models do not cover oncologists’ total costs, e.g., fee-for-service systems whose prices do not account for the possible presence of other diseases.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0341-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.