Dataset Information

Total and out-of-pocket costs of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Communicating healthcare costs to patients is an important component of delivering high-quality value-based care, yet cost data are lacking. This is especially relevant for ovarian cancer, where no clinical consensus on optimal first-line treatment exists. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to generate cost estimates of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer. STUDY DESIGN:All women who underwent treatment for ovarian cancer from 2006-2015 were identified from the MarketScan database (n=12,761) in this observational cohort study. Total and out-of-pocket costs were calculated with the use of all claims within 8 months from initial treatment and normalized to 2017 US dollars. The generalized linear model method was used to assess cost by strategy. RESULTS:Among patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those who underwent primary debulking, mean adjusted total costs were $113,660 and $107,153 (P<.001) and mean out-of-pocket costs were $2519 and $2977 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for patients who had intravenous standard, intravenous dose-dense, and intraperitoneal/intravenous chemotherapy were $105,047, $115,099, and $121,761 (P<.001); and out-of-pocket costs were $2838, $3405, and $2888 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for regimens that included bevacizumab were higher than those without it ($171,468 vs $104,482; P<.001); out-of-pocket costs were $3127 vs $2898 (P<.001). Among patients who did not receive bevacizumab, 25% paid ?$3875, and 10% paid ?$6265. For patients who received bevacizumab, 25% paid ?$4480, and 10% paid ?$6635. Among patients enrolled in high-deductible health plans, median out-of-pocket costs were $4196, with 25% paying ?$6680 and 10% paying ?$9751. CONCLUSION:Costs vary across different treatment strategies, and patients bear a significant out-of-pocket burden, especially those enrolled in high-deductible health plans.

SUBMITTER: Suidan RS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7392324 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Total and out-of-pocket costs of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer.

Suidan Rudy S RS He Weiguo W Sun Charlotte C CC Zhao Hui H Rauh-Hain Jose Alejandro JA Fleming Nicole D ND Lu Karen H KH Giordano Sharon H SH Meyer Larissa A LA

American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 20190406 2

<h4>Background</h4>Communicating healthcare costs to patients is an important component of delivering high-quality value-based care, yet cost data are lacking. This is especially relevant for ovarian cancer, where no clinical consensus on optimal first-line treatment exists.<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this study was to generate cost estimates of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer.<h4>Study design</h4>All women who underwent treatment for ovarian cancer from 2006-201 ...[more]

PMID: 30965052

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Expensive technologies-including robotic surgery-experience rapid adoption without evidence of superior outcomes. Although previous studies have examined perioperative outcomes and costs, differences in out-of-pocket costs for patients undergoing robotic surgery are not well understood. Objective:To assess out-of-pocket costs and total payments for 5 types of common oncologic procedures that can be performed using an open or robotic approach. Design, Setting, and Participants:A retrospective, cross-sectional, propensity score-weighted analysis was performed using deidentified insurance claims for 1.9 million enrollees from the MarketScan database from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017. The final study sample comprised 15?893 US adults aged 18 to 64 years who were enrolled in an employer-sponsored health plan. Patients underwent either an open or robotic radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, partial colectomy, radical nephrectomy, or partial nephrectomy for a solid-organ malignant neoplasm. Statistical analysis was performed from December 18, 2018, to June 5, 2019. Exposures:Type of surgical procedure-robotic vs open. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome of interest was out-of-pocket costs associated with robotic and open surgery. The secondary outcome of interest was associated total payments. Results:Among 15?893 patients (11?102 men; mean [SD] age, 55.4 [6.6] years), 8260 underwent robotic and 7633 underwent open procedures; patients undergoing robotic hysterectomy were older than those undergoing open hysterectomy (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [6.7] vs 54.6 [7.2] years), and patients undergoing open radical nephrectomy had more comorbidities than those undergoing robotic radical nephrectomy (?2 comorbidities, 658 of 861 [76.4%] vs 244 of 347 [70.3%]). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the robotic approach was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs for all procedures: -$137.75 (95% CI, -$240.24 to -$38.63) for radical prostatectomy (P?=?.006); -$640.63 (95% CI, -$933.62 to -$368.79) for hysterectomy (P?<?.001); -$1140.54 (95% CI, -$1397.79 to -$896.54) for partial colectomy (P?<?.001); -$728.32 (95% CI, -$1126.90 to -$366.08) for radical nephrectomy (P?<?.001); and -$302.74 (95% CI, -$523.14 to -$97.10) for partial nephrectomy (P?=?.003). The robotic approach was similarly associated with lower adjusted total payments: -$3872.62 (95% CI, -$5385.49 to -$2399.04) for radical prostatectomy (P?<?.001); -$29?640.69 (95% CI, -$36?243.82 to -$23?465.94) for hysterectomy (P?<?.001); -$38?151.74 (95% CI, -$46?386.16 to -$30?346.22) for partial colectomy; (P?<?.001); -$33?394.15 (95% CI, -$42?603.03 to -$24?955.20) for radical nephrectomy (P?<?.001); and -$9162.52 (95% CI, -$12?728.33 to -$5781.99) for partial nephrectomy (P?<?.001). Conclusions and Relevance:This study found significant variation in perioperative costs according to surgical technique for both patients (out-of-pocket costs) and payers (total payments); the robotic approach was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs for all studied oncologic procedures.

Project description:ImportanceOne-third of US residents have trouble paying their medical bills. They often turn to their physicians for help navigating health costs and insurance coverage.ObjectiveTo determine whether physicians can accurately estimate out-of-pocket expenses when they are given all of the necessary information about a drug's price and a patient's insurance plan.Design, setting, and participantsThis national mail-in survey used a random sample of US physicians. The survey was sent to 900 outpatient physicians (300 each of primary care, gastroenterology, and rheumatology). Physicians were excluded if they were in training, worked primarily for the Veterans Administration or Indian Health Service, were retired, or reported 0% outpatient clinical effort. Analyses were performed from July to December 2020.Main outcomes and measuresIn a hypothetical vignette, a patient was prescribed a new drug costing $1000/month without insurance. A summary of her private insurance information was provided, including the plan's deductible, coinsurance rates, copays, and out-of-pocket maximum. Physicians were asked to estimate the drug's out-of-pocket cost at 4 time points between January and December, using the plan's 4 types of cost-sharing: (1) deductibles, (2) coinsurance, (3) copays, and (4) out-of-pocket maximums. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess differences in performance by specialty, adjusting for attitudes toward cost conversations, demographics, and clinical characteristics.ResultsThe response rate was 45% (405 of 900) and 371 respondents met inclusion criteria. Among the respondents included in this study, 59% (n = 220) identified as male, 23% (n = 84) as Asian, 3% (n = 12) as Black, 6% (n = 24) as Hispanic, and 58% (n = 216) as White; 30% (n = 112) were primary care physicians, 35% (n = 128) were gastroenterologists, and 35% (n = 131) were rheumatologists; and the mean (SD) age was 49 (10) years. Overall, 52% of physicians (n = 192) accurately estimated costs before the deductible was met, 62% (n = 228) accurately used coinsurance information, 61% (n = 224) accurately used copay information, and 57% (n = 210) accurately estimated costs once the out-of-pocket maximum was met. Only 21% (n = 78) of physicians answered all 4 questions correctly. Ability to estimate out-of-pocket costs was not associated with specialty, attitudes toward cost conversations, or clinic characteristics.Conclusions and relevanceThis survey study found that many US physicians have difficulty estimating out-of-pocket costs, even when they have access to their patients' insurance plans. The mechanics involved in calculating real-time out-of-pocket costs are complex. These findings suggest that increased price transparency and simpler insurance cost-sharing mechanisms are needed to enable informed cost conversations at the point of prescribing.

Dataset Information

Total and out-of-pocket costs of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer.

Publications

Total and out-of-pocket costs of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets