Dataset Information

Comparative cost savings of biosimilar and dose rounding utilization in oncology care.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The exponential rise in cancer costs has led many centers to utilize dose rounding to the nearest vial size when the difference in dose is ≤10% to decrease costs. The recent approval of several biosimilar products has presented another opportunity to mitigate the rising costs of oncology care. Scarce information exists about the expected cost savings of combining dose rounding strategies (DRS) with biosimilar use (BU). We therefore assessed the cost savings of combining DRS and BU.

Methods

Electronic health record data for two health systems in Rhode Island were used to identify patients who received ≥1 of trastuzumab, trastuzumab-anns, bevacizumab, or bevacizumab-awwb from October 1, 2015 to September 1, 2020. Costs were estimated using Medicare drug pricing. Multivariable generalized estimating equations adjusting for age, gender, presence of metastases, dosing weight, and dose administered were used to compare costs per dose between the four exposure groups: DRS + BU, DRS only, BU only, and neither DRS or BU.

Results

A total of 1156 patients were administered 15,145 doses of drug. After covariate adjustment, average savings per dose was greatest in the DRS + BU group (vs. the neither DRS nor BU group); $331 for trastuzumab and $497 for bevacizumab.

Conclusions

Combining dose rounding with biosimilar substitution for trastuzumab and bevacizumab resulted in significant cost savings per dose and should be implemented by healthcare systems.

SUBMITTER: Abdelmeseh V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10113396 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative cost savings of biosimilar and dose rounding utilization in oncology care.

Abdelmeseh Verona V Brown Britny R BR Huynh Justin P JP Zullo Andrew R AR

Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners 20221019 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>The exponential rise in cancer costs has led many centers to utilize dose rounding to the nearest vial size when the difference in dose is ≤10% to decrease costs. The recent approval of several biosimilar products has presented another opportunity to mitigate the rising costs of oncology care. Scarce information exists about the expected cost savings of combining dose rounding strategies (DRS) with biosimilar use (BU). We therefore assessed the cost savings of combining DRS ...[more]

PMID: 36259235

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOutreach facilitation has been proven successful in improving the adoption of clinical preventive care guidelines in primary care practice. The net costs and savings of delivering such an intensive intervention need to be understood. We wanted to estimate the proportion of a facilitation intervention cost that is offset and the potential for savings by reducing inappropriate screening tests and increasing appropriate screening tests in 22 intervention primary care practices affecting a population of 90,283 patients.MethodsA cost-consequences analysis of one successful outreach facilitation intervention was done, taking into account the estimated cost savings to the health system of reducing five inappropriate tests and increasing seven appropriate tests. Multiple data sources were used to calculate costs and cost savings to the government. The cost of the intervention and costs of performing appropriate testing were calculated. Costs averted were calculated by multiplying the number of tests not performed as a result of the intervention. Further downstream cost savings were determined by calculating the direct costs associated with the number of false positive test follow-ups avoided. Treatment costs averted as a result of increasing appropriate testing were similarly calculated.ResultsThe total cost of the intervention over 12 months was $238,388 and the cost of increasing the delivery of appropriate care was $192,912 for a total cost of $431,300. The savings from reduction in inappropriate testing were $148,568 and from avoiding treatment costs as a result of appropriate testing were $455,464 for a total savings of $604,032. On a yearly basis the net cost saving to the government is $191,733 per year (2003 Can dollars) equating to $3,687 per physician or $63,911 per facilitator, an estimated return on intervention investment and delivery of appropriate preventive care of 40%.ConclusionOutreach facilitation is more expensive but more effective than other attempts to modify primary care practice and all of its costs can be offset through the reduction of inappropriate testing and increasing appropriate testing. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions. The potential for savings is likely considerably higher.

Project description:In the United States (US), the lifetime incidence of incarceration is 6.6%, exceeding that of any other nation. Compared to the general US population, incarcerated individuals are disproportionally affected by chronic health conditions, mental illness, and substance use disorders. Barriers to accessing medical care are common in correctional facilities. We sought to characterize the local incarcerated patient population and explore barriers to medical care in these patients. We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study by reviewing the medical records of incarcerated patients presenting to the adult emergency department (ED) of a single academic, tertiary care facility with medical or psychiatric (med/psych) and trauma-related emergencies between January 2012 and December 2014. Data on demographics, medical complexity, trauma intentionality, and barriers to medical care were analyzed using descriptive statistics, unpaired student's t-test or one-way analysis of variance for continuous variables, and chi-square analysis or Fisher's exact test as appropriate. Trauma patients were younger with fewer medical comorbidities and were less likely to be admitted to the hospital than med/psych patients. 47.8% of injuries resulted from violence or were self-inflicted. Most trauma-related complaints were managed by the emergency medicine physician in the ED. While barriers to medical care were not correlated with hospital admission, 5.4% of med/psych and 2.9% of trauma patients reported barriers as a contributing factor to the ED encounter. Med/psych patients commonly reported a lack of access to medications, while trauma patients reported a delay in medical care. Trauma-related presentations were less medically complex than med/psych-related complaints. Medical management of most injuries required no hospital resources outside of the ED, indicating a potential role for outpatient management of trauma-related complaints. Additional opportunities for health care improvement and cost savings include the implementation of programs that target violence, prevent injuries, and promote the continuity of medical care while incarcerated.

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

Comparative cost savings of biosimilar and dose rounding utilization in oncology care.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparative cost savings of biosimilar and dose rounding utilization in oncology care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets