Dataset Information

Real-World Cost of Care for Commercially Insured versus Medicare Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Who Received Guideline-Recommended Therapies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Much of the literature about the costs of metastatic pancreatic cancer is focused on the Medicare population, but the cost in the commercially insured population is not well-documented. Differences in treatment patterns between commercially insured and Medicare patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer can provide insights into healthcare utilization and the total cost of care.

Objective

To compare the total cost of care for commercially insured versus Medicare patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who are receiving National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-recommended treatment regimens.

Methods

We identified 3904 patients (mean age at diagnosis, 56 years) with metastatic pancreatic cancer using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth/Tenth Revision diagnosis codes in claims data in the 2014-2018 MarketScan commercial database and 28,063 patients (mean age at diagnosis, 73 years) with metastatic pancreatic cancer in the 2014-2017 Medicare Parts A, B, and D 100% research identifiable data files. We calculated the total cost of care and resource utilization by NCCN-recommended (category 1) treatment regimen, including 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX); gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel; gemcitabine monotherapy; and liposomal irinotecan. All patients had ≥2 claims with a pancreatic cancer diagnosis more than 30 days apart and ≥1 subsequent claims with a secondary malignancy diagnosis for metastatic disease.

Results

The mean total cost of care was 186% higher in the commercially insured cohort than in the Medicare cohort. Excluding gemcitabine monotherapy, the total cost of care for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer was similar between the regimens used in each cohort, ranging from $95,426 to $116,325 in the commercial insurance group and from $39,777 to $40,390 in the Medicare group. The components of hospital-based inpatient and outpatient costs varied between similar regimens in both cohorts. The inpatient admission patterns of patients' regimens were consistent across the 2 cohorts, with patients receiving gemcitabine monotherapy or liposomal irinotecan having the lowest overall number of admissions in each cohort.

Conclusions

The treatment patterns varied across the regimens but were largely consistent between the commercially insured and the Medicare patients who received the same regimen for metastatic pancreatic cancer; the ratio of total cost of care was 3:1 (commercially insured to Medicare). The total costs of care were similar across the regimens in each cohort, but the components of the total cost varied. These results can inform clinical guidelines and pathways for pancreatic cancer therapy as new evidence and treatment options emerge, and in the context of increasing value-based care models.

SUBMITTER: Tomicki S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8244739 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/objectivesBenzodiazepines (BZDs) are widely prescribed to older adults. Although prescribing has declined in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Medicare introduced BZD coverage in 2013. It is unknown whether declines in the VA have been widespread among older adults in the United States.DesignObservational study in traditional fee-for-service Medicare, commercial insurance, and the VA.SettingUnited States, 2013-2017.ParticipantsAdults aged 55 and older in traditional Medicare (234,290,693 person-months), commercial insurance (337,827,125 person-months), and the VA (256,590,369 person-months).Measurements(1) Change in BZD and BZD-opioid co-prescribing modeled by Poisson regression over time; and (2) standardized ratios of BZD and BZD-opioid co-prescribing, using Medicare as the reference.ResultsFrom April 2013 to December 2017, the monthly percentage of adults aged 55 and older who received BZDs fell from 10.4% to 9.3% in Medicare, 6.6% to 6.5% in commercial insurance, and 5.7% to 3.0% in the VA. Monthly BZD-opioid co-prescribing over the same time fell from 4.0% to 3.0% in Medicare, 2.3% to 2.0% in commercial, and 2.2% to .6% for the VA. Age- and sex-adjusted rates of decline for BZD and BZD-opioid co-prescribing were statistically significant for all systems. Annual BZD rate reductions were .98 (Medicare), .99 (commercial), and .87 (VA; P < .001 for all); co-prescribing rate reductions were .95, .99, and .75 (P < .001 for all). Using standardized ratios accounting for demographic and clinical characteristics, both prescribing and co-prescribing were lowest for the VA relative to Medicare (standardized BZD ratio = .40; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .39-.40; standardized BZD-opioid co-prescribing ratio = .35; 95% CI = .35-.35). Prescribing in commercial insurance was also lower (BZD = .65; 95% CI = .65-.65; BZD-opioid co-prescribing = .65; 95% CI = .65-.65).ConclusionBZD prescribing has declined much more to older adults receiving care through the VA than Medicare or commercial insurance. Other systems may learn from strategies implemented in the VA.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe trends in the rate and daily dose of opioids used among commercial and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries from 2007 to 2016.DesignRetrospective cohort study of administrative claims data.SettingNational database of medical and pharmacy claims for commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in the United States.Participants48 million individuals with any period of insurance coverage between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2016, including commercial beneficiaries, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries aged 65 years and over, and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries under age 65 years (eligible owing to permanent disability).Main endpointsProportion of beneficiaries with any opioid prescription per quarter, average daily dose in milligram morphine equivalents (MME), and proportion of opioid use episodes that represented long term use.ResultsAcross all years of the study, annual opioid use prevalence was 14% for commercial beneficiaries, 26% for aged Medicare beneficiaries, and 52% for disabled Medicare beneficiaries. In the commercial beneficiary group, quarterly prevalence of opioid use changed little, starting and ending the study period at 6%; the average daily dose of 17 MME remained unchanged since 2011. For aged Medicare beneficiaries, quarterly use prevalence was also relatively stable, ranging from 11% at the beginning of the study period to 14% at the end. Disabled Medicare beneficiaries had the highest rates of opioid use, the highest rate of long term use, and the largest average daily doses. In this group, both quarterly use rates (39%) and average daily dose (56 MME) were higher at the end of 2016 than the low points observed in 2007 for each endpoint (26% prevalence and 53 MME).ConclusionsOpioid use rates were high during the study period of 2007-16, with the highest rates in disabled Medicare beneficiaries versus aged Medicare beneficiaries and commercial beneficiaries. Opioid use and average daily dose have not substantially declined from their peaks, despite increased attention to opioid abuse and awareness of their risks.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the clinical benefit and actionability of molecular targets for genome targeted cancer drugs recommended for clinical practice by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).DesignCross sectional study.Participants/settingGenome targeted cancer drugs recommended by NCCN guidelines in the advanced setting.Main outcome measuresMolecular target actionability was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit of genome targeted oncology therapies was evaluated using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Molecular targets at ESCAT category level I associated with studies showing substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS (grades 4-5) were designated as high benefit, and those linked to studies achieving an ESMO-MCBS grade of 3 were categorized as being of promising but unproven benefit.Results411 recommendations related to 74 genome targeted drugs targeting 50 driver alterations were examined. Most recommendations (346/411; 84%) were associated with clinical trials of various phases, but 16% (65/411) relied on only case reports or pre-clinical studies. However, clinical trials mostly comprised phase I or phase II (271/346; 78%), single arm (262/346; 76%) studies. The primary endpoint assessed in most trials was overall response rate (271/346; 78%) rather than survival. ESCAT tier I targetability encompassed 60% (246/411) of target recommendations, 35% (142/411) were classified as tier II or III, and 6% (23/411) had their relevance yet to be determined (tiers IV to X). When ESMO-MCBS was applied to 267 scorable trials, only 12% (32/267) showed substantial clinical benefit (grades 4-5) and 45% (121/267) were grade 3. When both frameworks were combined, 12% (32/267) of trials supported a determination of high benefit and 33% (88/267) indicated promising but unproven benefit. Of the 118 interventions endorsed by NCCN authors as preferred, 62 (53%) applied to treatments with high or promising but unproven benefit.ConclusionAccording to the ESCAT and ESMO-MCBS frameworks, about one eighth of genome based treatments for solid cancer were rated as likely to offer a high benefit to patients, whereas around a third were identified as offering a promising but unproven substantial benefit. Ensuring that NCCN recommendations are aligned with expected clinical benefits is crucial for promoting informed, evidence based, genomic guided treatment decisions.

Project description:BackgroundHospital readmission is common among patients with diabetes. Some readmissions, particularly for hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, may be avoidable with better care transitions and post-discharge management.ObjectiveTo ascertain the most common reasons and risk factors for readmission among adults with diabetes, with specific consideration of severe dysglycemia.DesignRetrospective analysis of data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, an administrative data set of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries across the U.S.ParticipantsAdults ≥18 years of age with diabetes, discharged from a hospital between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014 (N = 342,186).Main measuresPrincipal diagnoses and risk factors for 30-day unplanned readmissions, subset as being for severe dysglycemia vs. all other causes.Key resultsWe analyzed 594,146 index hospitalizations among adults with diabetes: mean age 68.2 years (SD, 13.0), 52.9% female, and 67.8% white. The all-cause 30-day readmission rate was 10.8%. Heart failure was the most common cause for index hospitalization (5.5%) and readmission (8.9%). Severe dysglycemia accounted for 2.6% of index hospitalizations (48.1% hyperglycemia, 50.4% hypoglycemia, 1.5% unspecified) and 2.5% of readmissions (38.3% hyperglycemia, 61.0% hypoglycemia, 0.7% unspecified). Younger patient age, severe dysglycemia at index or prior hospitalization, and the Diabetes Complications Severity Index (DCSI) were the strongest risk factors predisposing patients to severe dysglycemia vs. other readmissions. Prior episodes of severe dysglycemia and the DCSI were also independent risk factors for other-cause readmissions, irrespective of the cause of the index hospitalization.ConclusionsAdults with diabetes are hospitalized and readmitted for a wide range of health conditions, and hospitalizations for severe hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia remain common, with high rates of recurrence. Severe dysglycemia is most likely to occur among younger patients with multiple diabetes complications and prior history of such events.