Parkinson's disease (PD), following Alzheimer's disease, is the second-most common neurodegenerative disorder in the United States. A lack of treatment options for changing the trajectory of disease progression, in combination with an increasing elderly population, portends a rising economic burden on patients and payers. This study combined information from nationally representative surveys to create a burden of PD model. The model estimates disease prevalence, excess healthcare use and medical costs, and nonmedical costs for each demographic group defined by age and sex. Estimated prevalence rates and costs were applied to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2010 to 2050 population data to estimate current and projected burden based on changing demographics. We estimate that approximately 630,000 people in the United States had diagnosed PD in 2010, with diagnosed prevalence likely to double by 2040. The national economic burden of PD exceeds $14.4 billion in 2010 (approximately $22,800 per patient). The population with PD incurred medical expenses of approximately $14 billion in 2010, $8.1 billion higher ($12,800 per capita) than expected for a similar population without PD. Indirect costs (e.g., reduced employment) are conservatively estimated at $6.3 billion (or close to $10,000 per person with PD). The burden of chronic conditions such as PD is projected to grow substantially over the next few decades as the size of the elderly population grows. Such projections give impetus to the need for innovative new treatments to prevent, delay onset, or alleviate symptoms of PD and other similar diseases.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis impacting population health and the economy. We describe a cost-effectiveness framework for evaluating acute treatments for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, considering a broad spectrum of potential treatment profiles and perspectives within the US healthcare system to ensure incorporation of the most relevant clinical parameters, given evidence currently available. Methods A lifetime model, with a short-term acute care decision tree followed by a post-discharge three-state Markov cohort model, was developed to estimate the impact of a potential treatment relative to best supportive care (BSC) for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The model included information on costs and resources across inpatient levels of care, use of mechanical ventilation, post-discharge morbidity from ventilation, and lifetime healthcare and societal costs. Published literature informed clinical and treatment inputs, healthcare resource use, unit costs, and utilities. The potential health impacts and cost-effectiveness outcomes were assessed from US health payer, societal, and fee-for-service (FFS) payment model perspectives. Results Viewing results in aggregate, treatments that conferred at least a mortality benefit were likely to be cost-effective, as all deterministic and sensitivity analyses results fell far below willingness-to-pay thresholds using both a US health payer and FFS payment perspective, with and without societal costs included. In the base case, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) ranged from $22,933 from a health payer perspective using bundled payments to $8028 from a societal perspective using a FFS payment model. Even with conservative assumptions on societal impact, inclusion of societal costs consistently produced ICERs 40–60% lower than ICERs for the payer perspective. Conclusion Effective COVID-19 treatments for hospitalized patients may not only reduce disease burden but also represent good value for the health system and society. Though data limitations remain, this cost-effectiveness framework expands beyond current models to include societal costs and post-discharge ventilation morbidity effects of potential COVID-19 treatments. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01654-5.

Generally, we found a positive association between intervention costs and effectiveness. Therefore, consideration of intervention costs, along with the benefits afforded to adherence, may help guide the design and implementation of adherence-improving programs.

Introduction When introducing a new intervention into burn care, it is important to consider both clinical and economic impacts, as the financial burden of burns in the USA is significant. This study utilizes a health economic modeling approach to estimate cost-effectiveness and burn center budget-impact for the use of the RECELL ® Autologous Cell Harvesting Device to prepare autologous skin cell suspension (ASCS) compared to standard of care (SOC) split-thickness skin graft (STSG) for the treatment of severe burn injuries requiring surgical intervention for definitive closure. Methods A hospital-perspective model using sequential decision trees depicts the acute burn care pathway (wound assessment, debridement/excision, temporary coverage, definitive closure) and predicts the relative differences between use of ASCS compared to SOC. Clinical inputs and ASCS impact on length of stay (LOS) were derived from clinical trials and real-world use data, American Burn Association National Burn Repository database analyses, and burn surgeon interviews. Hospital resource use and unit costs were derived from three US burn centers. A budget impact calculation leverages Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the overall impact to a burn center. Results ASCS treatment is cost-saving or cost-neutral (< 2% difference) and results in lower LOS compared to SOC across expected patient profiles and scenarios. In aggregate, ASCS treatment saves a burn center 14–17.3% annually. Results are sensitive to, but remain robust across, changing assumptions for relative impact of ASCS use on LOS, procedure time, and number of procedures. Conclusions Use of ASCS compared to SOC reduces hospital costs and LOS of severe burns in the USA. Funding AVITA Medical. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-00961-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Oral semaglutide was approved in 2019 for blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and was the first oral glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA). T2DM is associated with substantial healthcare expenditures in the US, so the cost of a new intervention should be weighed against clinical benefits. Objective This study evaluated the budget impact of a treatment pathway with oral semaglutide 14 mg daily versus oral sitagliptin 100 mg daily among patients not achieving target glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level despite treatment with metformin. Methods This study used the validated IQVIA™ CORE Diabetes Model to simulate the treatment impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg over a 5-year time horizon from a US healthcare sector (payer) perspective. Trial data (PIONEER 3) informed cohort characteristics and treatment effects, and literature sources informed event costs. Population and market share data were from the literature and data on file. The analysis evaluated the estimated budget impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg use for patients currently using sitagliptin 100 mg considering both direct medical and treatment costs to understand the impact on total cost of care, given underlying treatment performance and impact on avoidable events. Results In a hypothetical plan of 1 million lives, an estimated 1993 patients were treated with sitagliptin 100 mg in the target population. Following these patients over 5 years, the incremental direct medical and treatment costs of a patient using oral semaglutide 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg was $US16,562, a 70.7% increase (year 2019 values). A hypothetical payer would spend an additional $US3,300,143 (7.1%) over 5 years for every 10% of market share that oral semaglutide 14 mg takes away from sitagliptin 100 mg. Univariate and scenario analyses with alternate inputs and assumptions demonstrated consistent results. Conclusions Use of oral semaglutide 14 mg in patients currently receiving sitagliptin 100 mg substantially increases the budget impact for patients with T2DM whose blood glucose level is not controlled with metformin over a 5-year time horizon for US healthcare payers. Plain Language Summary Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have many treatment options. Choices depend on factors such as cost, preference, and patient characteristics. Oral semaglutide was recently approved for the treatment of T2DM as the first oral therapy Digital Features To view digital features for this article go to