This paper examines the tradeoffs of monitoring for wasteful public spending. By penalizing unnecessary spending, monitoring improves the quality of public expenditure and incentivizes firms to invest in compliance technology. I study a large Medicare program that monitored for unnecessary healthcare spending and consider its effect on government savings, provider behavior, and patient health. Every dollar Medicare spent on monitoring generated $24-29 in government savings. The majority of savings stem from the deterrence of future care, rather than reclaimed payments from prior care. I do not find evidence that the health of the marginal patient is harmed, indicating that monitoring primarily deters low-value care. Monitoring does increase provider administrative costs, but these costs are mostly incurred upfront and include investments in technology to assess the medical necessity of care.

UNASSIGNED: There is currently a need for additional diagnostic information to help guide treatment decisions and to properly determine the best treatment pathway for patients identified with indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPNs). The aim of this study was to demonstrate the incremental cost-effectiveness of LungLB compared to the current clinical diagnostic pathway (CDP) in the management of patients with IPNs, from a US payer\'s perspective.
UNASSIGNED: A decision tree and Markov model hybrid was chosen from a payer perspective in the US setting, based on published literature, to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of LungLB compared to the current CDP in the management of patients with IPNs. Primary endpoints of the analysis include expected costs, life years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each arm of the model, as well as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is calculated as the incremental costs per QALY, and net monetary benefit (NMB).
UNASSIGNED: We find that, with the inclusion of LungLB to the current CDP diagnostic pathway, expected LYs over the typical patient\'s lifespan increase by 0.07 years and QALYs increase by 0.06. The average patient in the CDP arm will pay approximately $44,310 over their lifespan, while a patient in the LungLB arm will pay $48,492, resulting in a difference of $4,182. The differentials between the CDP and LungLB arms of the model in costs and QALYs yield an ICER of $75,740 per QALY and an incremental NMB of $1,339.
UNASSIGNED: This analysis provides evidence that LungLB, in conjunction with CDP, is a cost-effective alternative compared to the current CDP alone in a US setting for individuals with IPNs.

UNASSIGNED: To study the association between initiation of first adjunctive therapy with eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) vs. brivaracetam (BRV) on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and charges among patients with treated focal seizures (FS).
UNASSIGNED: Symphony Health\'s Integrated Dataverse (IDV) claims data (1 April 2015 to 30 June 2018) were used to identify two cohorts as first adjunctive therapy with ESL or BRV following a generic anti-seizure drug (ASD). The index date was the earliest claim for a new ESL or BRV prescription. Key inclusion criteria were only 1 generic ASD in the 12 months before the index date; ≥1 medical claim with an FS diagnosis. Unit of analysis was the 90-day person-time-block. Changes in HCRU and charges were assessed using a difference-in-differences framework. Both unadjusted and adjusted analyses were performed. The adjusted model utilized person-specific fixed effects and propensity score-based weighting to control for differences in baseline covariates. Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for charge outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: 208 and 137 patients initiated first adjunctive therapy with ESL (43.7 years, 51.9% female) or BRV (39.3 years, 51.8% female). Patients in the ESL cohort had numerically larger reductions in all-cause and FS-related inpatient hospitalizations and outpatient visits and FS-related emergency department visits. Compared to patients initiating BRV, patients treated with ESL had significantly larger reductions in total charges (-$3,446, CI: -$13,716, -$425), all-cause (-$3,166, CI: -$13,991, -$323) and FS-related (-$2,969, CI: -$21,547, -$842) medical charges, all-cause (-$3,397, CI: -$15,676, -$818) and FS-related (-$2,863, CI: -$19,707, -$787) outpatient charges, and non-ASD-related prescription charges (-$420, CI: -$1,058, -$78).
UNASSIGNED: Claims may be missing, or miscoded; outcomes may be influenced by variables not accounted for in the analysis; only information on submitted charges was included.
UNASSIGNED: Among patients with FS, initiation of first adjunctive therapy with ESL was associated with significantly larger reductions in medical and non-ASD-related prescriptions charges compared to BRV.

UNASSIGNED: To estimate the migraine-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among patients with improved vs. worsened/stable migraine.
UNASSIGNED: This was a follow-up to a retrospective, panel-based chart review conducted in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain among a panel of physicians (neurologists, headache specialists, and pain specialists) who agreed to participate in patient studies and had treated ≥10 migraine patients in 2017. Eligible physicians extracted data for up to five adults with ≥4 monthly migraine days (MMDs) who initiated a preventive treatment on or after 1 January 2013 and received physician care for ≥6 months after the date of the most recent preventive treatment initiation (index date). Based on the trajectory of migraine severity from the 1-month pre-index period to the 6-month post-index period, cohorts were classified as improved (converting from chronic to episodic or from chronic/episodic to <4 MMDs) or stable/worsened (remaining chronic/episodic or transforming from episodic to chronic) migraine. Migraine-related HRU and costs (2017 €) during the 6-month post-index period were compared between patients with improved vs. stable/worsened migraine.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, 470 patient charts were analyzed, with 339 classified as improved migraine and 131 classified as stable/worsened migraine. After adjusting for within-physician correlation, country, sex, and presence of comorbidities before the index date, the improved migraine cohort had significantly fewer migraine-related physician office visits (-0.81; p < .001), emergency room/accident & emergency (ER/A&E) visits (-0.67; p < .001), and hospitalizations (-0.12; p < .001) in the 6-month post-index period vs. the stable/worsened migraine cohort. Consistent with HRU patterns, the adjusted migraine-related costs for physician office visits (-€42.23; p < .05), hospitalizations (-€215.56; p < .05), and total costs (-€396.81; p < .01) in the 6-month post-index period were significantly reduced for the improved migraine cohort vs. the stable/worsened migraine cohort.
UNASSIGNED: Over a 6-month period following initiation of preventive migraine treatment, patients with improved migraine had significantly lower migraine-related HRU and costs than those with stable/worsened migraine.

UNASSIGNED: To estimate the budget impact of adding tepotinib to United States (US) health plans for treating adult patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) harboring mesenchymal-epithelial transition exon 14 (METex14) skipping alterations.
UNASSIGNED: The base-case analysis was conducted from the perspective of a hypothetical Medicare plan of 1 million members. Scenarios were analysed for other US health plans. Treatments included tepotinib, capmatinib, crizotinib, and standard of care (SoC). Patients eligible for tepotinib were estimated from published epidemiological data and literature, and real-world evidence. Clinical inputs were derived from the phase II VISION trial, US prescribing information, and published literature. Tepotinib uptake and projected testing rates for METex14 skipping alterations were based on market research. Unit costs (2020 US dollars (USD)) and resource utilization associated with drug acquisition and administration, treatment monitoring, disease and adverse event (AE) management, and subsequent treatment were derived primarily from public sources.
UNASSIGNED: In the base-case, 38-65 patients were eligible for tepotinib each year over the three-year time horizon. The cumulative net budgetary impact of tepotinib was -$692,541 (-2.6%); $26,531,670 in the scenario without tepotinib and $25,839,129 in the scenario with tepotinib. A negligible net budget impact was observed per member per month (PMPM) at $0.2457 and $0.2393, respectively, before and after tepotinib\'s introduction. Results were most sensitive to variability in unit costs of capmatinib and tepotinib and their corresponding median treatment durations. Sensitivity and scenario analyses support the conclusion that introducing tepotinib will have minimal budgetary impact for Medicare health plans. Similar results were obtained for other US health plans.
UNASSIGNED: Assumptions and expert opinion were applied to address data gaps in key model inputs.
UNASSIGNED: The estimated budgetary impact of tepotinib for the treatment of adult patients with mNSCLC harboring METex14 skipping alterations is minimal from the perspective of US health plans.

UNASSIGNED: To assess the real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and obesity newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin in the US.
UNASSIGNED: This retrospective study used IQVIA PharMetrics Plus data (01/2010-09/2019) to evaluate patients (≥18 years) with NVAF and obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin (on or after 01/2013). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for confounding between cohorts. HRU and costs were assessed post-treatment initiation. Weighted cohorts were compared using Poisson regression models and cost differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p values generated using non-parametric bootstrap procedures.
UNASSIGNED: After IPTW, 10,555 and 5,080 patients were initiated on rivaroxaban and warfarin, respectively (mean age: 59 years). At 12 months follow-up, the rivaroxaban cohort had lower all-cause HRU, including fewer hospitalizations (rate ratio [RR]: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.74, 0.87), emergency room visits (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.97), and outpatient visits (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.77; all p < .05). Medical costs were also reduced in the rivaroxaban cohort (mean difference: -$6,759, 95% CI: -$9,814, -$3,311) due to reduced hospitalization costs (mean difference: -$5,967, 95% CI: -$8,721, -$3,327), resulting in lower total all-cause healthcare costs compared to the warfarin cohort (mean difference: -$4,579, 95% CI: -$7,609, -$1,052; all p < .05). The rivaroxaban cohort also had lower NVAF-related HRU and medical costs driven by lower hospitalization at 12 months post-treatment initiation. HRU and cost reductions associated with rivaroxaban persisted up to 36 months of follow-up.
UNASSIGNED: Claims data may have contained inaccuracies and obesity was classified based on ICD diagnosis codes given that patient BMI values were not available.
UNASSIGNED: Rivaroxaban was associated with reduced HRU and costs compared to warfarin among NVAF patients with obesity in a real-world US setting.

UNASSIGNED: We aimed to determine the incidence of and identify the factors associated with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), psychiatric conditions, hospitalization, and cost in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who were treated using second-line strategies after an inadequate response to initial antidepressants (AD).
UNASSIGNED: Using South Korean National Health Insurance claims data (1 January 2013 to 30 June 2018), we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis in newly treated patients with MDD who subsequently switched or added AD, or added atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) as a second-line treatment. We assessed the incidence of treatment-resistant depression (TRD), psychiatric conditions, and hospitalization for the first 2 years and costs in the third year. Odds ratios (ORs) or relative ratios were estimated using logistic and linear regression models to identify the risk factors for clinical and economic outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: In 15,887 patients, the TRD was 16.81% during the 24-month follow-up period (14.14% in switching AD, 19.65% in adding AD, and 19.91% in adding AAP; p < 0.0001). When adding AD or AAP, the OR of TRD was 1.43 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.30-1.56) and 1.42 (95% CI: 1.23-1.65), respectively, compared to switching AD. However, these factors were not associated with the incidence of psychiatric conditions. Adding AAP increased hospitalization (OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.11-1.41), the number of inpatient days by 2.57-fold (95% CI: 1.75-3.76), and cost by 1.20-fold (95% CI: 1.02-1.40), compared to switching AD; adding AD did not show a significant association with these outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: In patients with MDD with inadequate responses to initial AD, TRD still occurred after subsequent treatments according to clinical guidelines. Since the effectiveness of second treatment strategies can differ in reality, further analysis of the clinical and economic evidence regarding second treatment strategies, such as adding AD or AAP, is needed using real-world data.

UNASSIGNED: Nivolumab has been approved for advanced squamous and non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following platinum-based chemotherapy in both Canada and Sweden. We aimed to determine the value-for-money of nivolumab versus docetaxel in a Canadian and Swedish setting based on 5-year data.
UNASSIGNED: These cost effectiveness analyses used partitioned survival models with three mutually exclusive health states: progression-free, progressed disease, and death. All clinical parameters were derived from two registration phase 3 randomized trials, CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057, with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Treatment duration was based on time-on-treatment data from the clinical trials. Costs were derived from published sources. The primary outcomes of the analyses were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The model input parameters for each analysis were chosen in line with guidance from the respective HTA authorities.
UNASSIGNED: From a Canadian payer perspective, the ICERs were CAN$140,753 per QALY in the squamous population, and CAN$173,804 per QALY in the non-squamous population, assuming a 10-year time horizon and a 5% discount rate for both costs and outcomes. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that changes to the discount rates for outcomes had the highest impact on the ICERs. In the Swedish analysis, the ICERs were SEK568,895 per QALY in the squamous population and SEK662,991 per QALY in the non-squamous population, assuming a 15-year time horizon, a 3% discount rate, and a 2-year maximum treatment duration for nivolumab. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICERs were most sensitive to changes in the discount rate for outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: These updated analyses, based on more mature trial data with a minimum follow-up of 5 years, generate more favorable ICERs versus the previously submitted HTA assessments that resulted in approval of nivolumab for patients with previously treated NSCLC in Canada and Sweden.

UNASSIGNED: This study evaluated cost-effectiveness of defibrotide vs best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of hepatic veno-occlusive disease/sinusoidal obstructive syndrome (VOD/SOS) with multiorgan dysfunction (MOD) post-hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in Spain.
UNASSIGNED: A two-phase Markov model, comprising a 1-year acute phase with daily cycles and a lifetime long-term phase with annual cycles, was adapted to the Spanish setting. The model included a cohort of patients with severe VOD/SOS (defined as VOD/SOS with MOD) post-HCT. For the acute phase, efficacy and VOD/SOS-related length of stay were obtained from a phase 3 defibrotide study (NCT00358501). VOD/SOS-related hospital stays were 7.5 and 23.2 days in defibrotide-treated and BSC patients, respectively. Defibrotide-treated patients spent 30% of their stay in the intensive care unit vs 60% in BSC patients. Assumptions for the long-term phase and utility values were obtained from the literature. Costs were from the Spanish Health System perspective (€2019). Defibrotide cost was based on 25 mg/kg/day over 17.5 days, using local expert opinion. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and costs were estimated over a lifetime horizon, applying a 3% discount rate for costs and outcomes. Sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the results.
UNASSIGNED: Defibrotide produced an additional 1.214 QALYs and 1.348 LYs vs BSC, with a total cost of €33,708 more than BSC alone. However, defibrotide resulted in savings up to €16,644/patient for cost of hospital stay. Difference between costs and effective measures led to ratios of €27,757/QALY and €25,007/LY gained. Additional hospital stays had the greatest influence on base-case results. Probabilistic analysis confirmed the robustness of the deterministic results.
UNASSIGNED: Limitations include use of historical controls and assumptions extrapolated from the literature.
UNASSIGNED: This cost-effectiveness model, adapted to the Spanish setting, showed that defibrotide is a cost-effective alternative to BSC alone in patients with severe VOD/SOS post-HCT.

UNASSIGNED: The electrosurgical technology category is used widely, with a diverse spectrum of devices designed for different surgical needs. Historically, hospitals are supplied with electrosurgical devices from several manufacturers, and those devices are often evaluated separately; it may be more efficient to evaluate the category holistically. This study assessed the health economic impact of adopting an electrosurgical device-category from a single manufacturer.
UNASSIGNED: A budget impact model was developed from a U.S. hospital perspective. The uptake of electrosurgical devices from EES (Ethicon Electrosurgery), including ultrasonic, advanced bipolar, smoke evacuators, and reusable dispersive electrodes were compared with similar MED (Medical Energy Devices) from multiple manufacturers. It was assumed that an average hospital performed 10,000 annual procedures 80% of which involved electrosurgery. Current utilization assumed 100% MED use, including advanced energy, conventional smoke mitigation options (e.g. ventilation, masks), and single-use disposable dispersive electrode devices. Future utilization assumed 100% EES use, including advanced energy devices, smoke evacuators (i.e. 80% uptake), and reusable dispersive electrodes. Surgical specialties included colorectal, bariatric, gynecology, thoracic and general surgery. Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses, and meta-regressions informed operating room (OR) time, hospital stay, and transfusion model inputs. Costs were assigned to model parameters, and price parity was assumed for advanced energy devices. The costs of disposables for dispersive electrodes and smoke-evacuators were included.
UNASSIGNED: The base-case analysis, which assessed the adoption of EES instead of MED for an average U.S. hospital predicted an annual savings of $824,760 ($101 per procedure). Savings were attributable to associated reductions with EES in OR time, days of hospital stay, and volume of disposable electrodes. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with these base-case findings.
UNASSIGNED: Category-wide adoption of electrosurgical devices from a single manufacturer demonstrated economic advantages compared with disaggregated product uptake. Future research should focus on informing comparisons of innovative electrosurgical devices.