Dataset Information

Health Resource and Cost Savings Achieved in a Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Clinic.

ABSTRACT: Background: Lung cancer (LC) care is resource and cost intensive. We launched a Multidisciplinary LC Clinic (MDC), where patients with a new LC diagnosis received concurrent oncology consultation, resulting in improved time to LC assessment and treatment. Here, we evaluate the impact of MDC on health resource utilization, patient and caregiver costs, and secondary patient benefits. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients in a rapid assessment clinic with a new LC diagnosis pre-MDC (September 2016-February 2017) and post-MDC implementation (February 2017-December 2018). Data are reported as means; unpaired t-tests and ANOVA were used to assess for significance. We also conducted a cost analysis. Resource utilization, out-of-pocket costs, procedure-related costs, and indirect costs were evaluated from the societal perspective and presented in 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD); multi-way worst/best case and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: We reviewed 428 patients (78 traditional model, 350 MDC). Patients in the MDC model required significantly fewer oncology visits from LC diagnosis to first LC treatment (1.62 vs. 2.68, p < 0.001), which was significant for patients with stage 1, 3, and 4 disease. Compared with the traditional model, there was no change in mean biopsies/patient (1.32 traditional vs. 1.17 MDC, p = 0.18) or staging investigations/patient (2.24 traditional vs. 2.02 MDC, p = 0.20). Post-MDC, there was an increase in invasive mediastinal staging for patients with stage 2/3 LC (15.0% vs. 60.0%, p < 0.001). Over 22 months, MDC resulted in savings of CAD 48,389 including CAD 24,167 CAD in direct patient out-of-pocket expenses. For the threshold analyses, MDC was estimated to cost CAD 25,708 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), considered to be below current willingness to pay thresholds (at CAD 80,000 per QALY). MDC also facilitated oncology assessment for 29 non-LC patients. Conclusions: An MDC led to a reduction in patient visits and direct patient and caregiver costs.

SUBMITTER: Stone CJL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8161784 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe number of pulmonary nodules discovered incidentally or through screening programs has increased markedly. Multidisciplinary review and management are recommended, but the involvement of radiation oncologists in this context has not been defined.ObjectiveTo assess the role of stereotactic body radiation therapy among patients enrolled in a lung cancer screening program.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective cohort study was performed at a pulmonary nodule and lung cancer screening clinic from October 1, 2012, to September 31, 2019. Referrals were based on chest computed tomography with Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 finding or an incidental nodule 6 mm or larger. A multidisciplinary team of practitioners from radiology, thoracic surgery, pulmonology, medical oncology, and radiation oncology reviewed all nodules and coordinated workup and treatment as indicated.ExposuresPatients referred to the pulmonary nodule and lung cancer screening clinic with an incidental or screen-detected pulmonary nodule.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients undergoing therapeutic intervention with radiation therapy, stratified by the route of detection of their pulmonary nodules (incidental vs screen detected). Secondary outcomes were 2-year local control and metastasis-free survival.ResultsAmong 1150 total patients (median [IQR] age, 66.5 [59.3-73.7] years; 665 [57.8%] female; 1024 [89.0%] non-Hispanic White; 841 [73.1%] current or former smokers), 234 (20.3%) presented with screen-detected nodules and 916 (79.7%) with incidental nodules. For patients with screen-detected nodules requiring treatment, 41 (17.5%) received treatment, with 31 (75.6%) undergoing surgery and 10 (24.4%) receiving radiation therapy. Patients treated with radiation therapy were older (median [IQR] age, 73.8 [67.1 to 82.1] vs 67.6 [61.0 to 72.9] years; P < .001) and more likely to have history of tobacco use (67 [95.7%] vs 128 [76.6%]; P = .001) than those treated with surgery. Fifty-eight patients treated with radiation therapy (82.9%) were considered high risk for biopsy, and treatment recommendations were based on a clinical diagnosis of lung cancer after multidisciplinary review. All screened patients who received radiation therapy had stage I disease and were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy. For all patients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy, 2-year local control was 96.3% (95% CI, 91.1%-100%) and metastasis-free survival was 94.2% (95% CI, 87.7%-100%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this unique prospective cohort, 1 in 4 patients with screen-detected pulmonary nodules requiring intervention were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy. This finding highlights the role of radiation therapy in a lung cancer screening population and the importance of including radiation oncologists in the multidisciplinary management of pulmonary nodules.

Project description:BackgroundForty-five percent of births in the United States are unintended, and the costs of unintended pregnancy and birth are substantial. Clinical and policy interventions that increase access to the most effective reversible contraceptive methods (intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants) have potential to generate significant cost savings. Evidence of cost savings for these interventions is needed.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-savings analysis of the Contraceptive CHOICE Project, which provided counseling and no-cost contraception, to demonstrate the value of investment in enhanced contraceptive care to the Missouri Medicaid program.Study designThe Contraceptive CHOICE Project was a prospective cohort study of 9256 reproductive-age women who were enrolled between 2007 and 2011. Study follow-up was completed October 2013. This analysis includes 5061 Contraceptive CHOICE Project participants who were current Missouri Medicaid beneficiaries or were uninsured and reported household incomes <201% of the federal poverty line. We created a simulated comparison group of women who were receiving care through the Missouri Title X program and modeled the contraception and pregnancy outcomes that would have occurred in the absence of the Contraceptive CHOICE Project. Data about contraceptive use for the comparison group (N=5061) were obtained from the Missouri Title X program and adjusted based on age, race, ethnicity, and income. To make an accurate comparison that would account for the difference in the 2 populations, we used our simulation model to estimate total Contraceptive CHOICE Project costs and total comparison group costs. We reported all costs in 2013 dollars to account for inflation.ResultsAmong the Contraceptive CHOICE Project participants who were included, the uptake of intrauterine devices and implants was 76.1% compared with 4.8% among the comparison group. The estimated contraceptive cost for the simulated Contraceptive CHOICE Project group was $4.0 million vs $2.3 million for the comparison group. The estimated numbers of unintended pregnancies and births averted among the simulated Contraceptive CHOICE Project group compared with the comparison group were 927 and 483, respectively, which represented a savings in pregnancy and maternity care of $6.7 million. We estimated that the total cost savings for the state of Missouri attributable to the Contraceptive CHOICE Project was $5.0 million (40.7%) over the project duration.ConclusionA program providing counseling and no-cost contraception yields substantial cost savings because of the increased uptake of highly effective contraception and consequent averted unintended pregnancy and birth.

Dataset Information

Health Resource and Cost Savings Achieved in a Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Clinic.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets