Dataset Information

Adherence to guidelines in requesting Oncotype DX in a publicly funded health care system.

ABSTRACT: Background:Oncotype dx [odx (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA, U.S.A.)] is an approved prognostic tool for women with node-negative, hormone receptor-positive, her2-negative breast cancer. Because of cost, optimal use of this test is crucial, especially in a publicly funded health care system. We evaluated adherence with our provincial guidelines for odx requests, the management of patients with an intermediate recurrence score (rs), and the cost impact of odx. Methods:This retrospective study included 201 consecutive patients with an odx request from two university institutions in Quebec between May 2012 and December 2014. Concordance with provincial guidelines was estimated, with its 95% confidence interval (ci). For patients with an intermediate rs, factors influencing the final treatment decision were assessed. The cost impact of odx was derived from the proportion of patients for whom chemotherapy was not recommended. Results:In 93.0% of patients (95% ci: 89.5% to 96.6%), odx was ordered according to guidelines. The concordance was similar in both institutions (92.7%; 95% ci: 88.1% to 97.3%; and 93.6%; 95% ci: 88.2% to 99.0%). In 112 (55.7%), 78 (38.8%), and 9 (4.5%) patients, the rs suggested low, intermediate, and high risk respectively. In the intermediate-risk group, most patients (n = 58, 74.4%) did not receive chemotherapy, mainly because of patient preference and the absence of a clear proven benefit. Savings of CA$100,000 for the study period (2.5 years) were estimated to be associated with odx use. Conclusions:In our experience, the use of odx was concordant with published recommendations and had a positive cost impact.

SUBMITTER: Martel S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6092063 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adherence to guidelines in requesting Oncotype DX in a publicly funded health care system.

Martel S S Lambertini M M Simon R R Matte C C Prady C C

Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) 20180814 4

<h4>Background</h4>Oncotype dx [odx (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA, U.S.A.)] is an approved prognostic tool for women with node-negative, hormone receptor-positive, her2-negative breast cancer. Because of cost, optimal use of this test is crucial, especially in a publicly funded health care system. We evaluated adherence with our provincial guidelines for odx requests, the management of patients with an intermediate recurrence score (rs), and the cost impact of odx.<h4>Methods</h4>This retros ...[more]

PMID: 30111977

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecent investigations of breast cancer survival in the United States suggest that patients who receive mastectomy have poorer survival than those who receive breast-conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiotherapy, despite clinically established equivalence. This study investigates breast cancer survival in the publicly funded health care system present in Alberta, Canada.Patients and methodsSurgically treated stage I-III breast cancer cases diagnosed in Alberta from 2002 to 2010 were included. Demographic, treatment and mortality information were collected from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Unadjusted overall and breast cancer-specific mortality was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and cumulative incidence curves, respectively. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate stage-specific mortality hazard estimates associated with surgical treatment received.ResultsA total of 14 939 cases of breast cancer (14 633 patients) were included in this study. The unadjusted 5-year all-cause survival probabilities for patients treated with BCS plus radiotherapy, mastectomy, and BCS alone were 94% (95% CI 93% to 95%), 83% (95% CI 82% to 84%) and 74% (95% CI 70% to 78%), respectively. Stage II and III patients who received mastectomy had a higher all-cause (stage II HR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.13-1.48; stage III HR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.24-2.45) and breast cancer-specific (stage II HR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.09-1.76; stage III HR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.21-2.65) mortality hazard compared with those who received BCS plus radiotherapy, adjusting for patient and clinical characteristics. BCS alone was consistently associated with poor survival.ConclusionsStage II and III breast cancer patients diagnosed in Alberta, Canada, who received mastectomy had a significantly higher all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality hazard compared with those who received BCS plus radiotherapy. We suggest greater efforts toward educating and encouraging patients to receive BCS plus radiotherapy rather than mastectomy when it is medically feasible and appropriate.

Project description:BackgroundThere is little systematic assessment of how total health expenditure is distributed across diseases and comorbidities. The objective of this study was to use statistical methods to disaggregate all publicly funded health expenditure by disease and comorbidities in order to answer three research questions: (1) What is health expenditure by disease phase for noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) in New Zealand? (2) Is the cost of having two NCDs more or less than that expected given the independent costs of each NCD? (3) How is total health spending disaggregated by NCDs across age and by sex?Methods and findingsWe used linked data for all adult New Zealanders for publicly funded events, including hospitalisation, outpatient, pharmaceutical, laboratory testing, and primary care from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2014. These data include 18.9 million person-years and $26.4 billion in spending (US$ 2016). We used case definition algorithms to identify if a person had any of six NCDs (cancer, cardiovascular disease [CVD], diabetes, musculoskeletal, neurological, and a chronic lung/liver/kidney [LLK] disease). Indicator variables were used to identify the presence of any of the 15 possible comorbidity pairings of these six NCDs. Regression was used to estimate excess annual health expenditure per person. Cause deletion methods were used to estimate total population expenditure by disease. A majority (59%) of health expenditure was attributable to NCDs. Expenditure due to diseases was generally highest in the year of diagnosis and year of death. A person having two diseases simultaneously generally had greater health expenditure than the expected sum of having the diseases separately, for all 15 comorbidity pairs except the CVD-cancer pair. For example, a 60-64-year-old female with none of the six NCDs had $633 per annum expenditure. If she had both CVD and chronic LLK, additional expenditure for CVD separately was $6,443/$839/$9,225 for the first year of diagnosis/prevalent years/last year of life if dying of CVD; additional expenditure for chronic LLK separately was $6,443/$1,291/$9,051; and the additional comorbidity expenditure of having both CVD and LLK was $2,456 (95% confidence interval [CI] $2,238-$2,674). The pattern was similar for males (e.g., additional comorbidity expenditure for a 60-64-year-old male with CVD and chronic LLK was $2,498 [95% CI $2,264-$2,632]). In addition to this, the excess comorbidity costs for a person with two diseases was greater at younger ages, e.g., excess expenditure for 45-49-year-old males with CVD and chronic LLK was 10 times higher than for 75-79-year-old males and six times higher for females. At the population level, 23.8% of total health expenditure was attributable to higher costs of having one of the 15 comorbidity pairs over and above the six NCDs separately; of the remaining expenditure, CVD accounted for 18.7%, followed by musculoskeletal (16.2%), neurological (14.4%), cancer (14.1%), chronic LLK disease (7.4%), and diabetes (5.5%). Major limitations included incomplete linkage to all costed events (although these were largely non-NCD events) and missing private expenditure.ConclusionsThe costs of having two NCDs simultaneously is typically superadditive, and more so for younger adults. Neurological and musculoskeletal diseases contributed the largest health system costs, in accord with burden of disease studies finding that they contribute large morbidity. Just as burden of disease methodology has advanced the understanding of disease burden, there is a need to create disease-based costing studies that facilitate the disaggregation of health budgets at a national level.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many LMICs have implemented Publicly Funded Health Insurance (PFHI) programmes to improve access and financial protection. The national PFHI scheme implemented in India for a decade has been recently modified and expanded to cover free hospital care for 500 million persons. Since increase in annual cover amount is one of the main design modifications in the new programme, the relevant policy question is whether such design change can improve financial protection for hospital care. An evaluation of state-specific PFHI programmes with vertical cover larger than RSBY can help answer this question. Three states in Southern India - Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have been pioneers in implementing PFHI with a large insurance cover. METHODS:The current study was meant to evaluate the PFHI in above three states in improving utilisation of hospital services and financial protection against expenses of hospitalization. Two cross-sections from National Sample Survey's health rounds, the 60th round done in 2004 and the 71st round done in 2014 were analysed. Instrumental Variable method was applied to address endogeneity or the selection problem in insurance. RESULTS:Enrollment under PFHI was not associated with increase in utilisation of hospital care in the three states. Private hospitals dominated the empanelment of facilities under PFHI as well as utilisation. Out of Pocket Expenditure and incidence of Catastrophic Health Expenditure did not decrease with enrollment under PFHI in the three states. The size of Out of Pocket Expenditure was significantly greater for utilisation in private sector, irrespective of insurance enrollment. CONCLUSION:PFHI in the three states used substantially larger vertical cover than national scheme in 2014. The three states are known for their good governance. Yet, the PFHI programmes in all three states failed in fulfilling their fundamental purpose. Increasing vertical cover of PFHI and using either 'Trusts' or Insurance-companies as purchasers may not give desired results in absence of adequate regulation. The study raises doubts regarding effectiveness of contracting under PFHIs to influence provider-behavior in the Indian context. Further research is required to find solutions for addressing gaps that contribute to poor financial outcomes for patients under PFHI.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare spending has grown over the last decades in all developed countries. Making hard choices for investments in a rational, evidence-informed, systematic, transparent and legitimate manner constitutes an important objective. Yet, most scientific work in this area has focused on developing/improving prescriptive approaches for decision making and presenting case studies. The present work aimed to describe existing practices of priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) within the context of publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries and inform areas for further improvement and research.MethodsAn online qualitative survey, developed from a theoretical framework, was administered with decision-makers and academics from 18 countries. 450 individuals were invited and 58 participated (13% of response rate).ResultsWe found evidence that resource allocation is still largely carried out based on historical patterns and through ad hoc decisions, despite the widely held understanding that decisions should be based on multiple explicit criteria. Health technology assessment (HTA) was the tool most commonly indicated by respondents as a formal priority setting strategy. Several approaches were reported to have been used, with special emphasis on Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), but limited evidence exists on their evaluation and routine use. Disinvestment frameworks are still very rare. There is increasing convergence on the use of multiple types of evidence to judge the value of investment options.ConclusionsEfforts to establish formal and explicit processes and rationales for decision-making in priority setting and resource allocation have been still rare outside the HTA realm. Our work indicates the need of development/improvement of decision-making frameworks in PSRA that: 1) have well-defined steps; 2) are based on multiple criteria; 3) are capable of assessing the opportunity costs involved; 4) focus on achieving higher value and not just on adoption; 5) engage involved stakeholders and the general public; 6) make good use and appraisal of all evidence available; and 6) emphasize transparency, legitimacy, and fairness.

Dataset Information

Adherence to guidelines in requesting Oncotype DX in a publicly funded health care system.

Publications

Adherence to guidelines in requesting Oncotype DX in a publicly funded health care system.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets