COST-DRIVERS OF HEALTHCARE EXPENDITURES IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE

Jeffrey Berinstein,Gil Melmed,John Allen,Sameer Berry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ibd/izae020.093
2024-01-25
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
Abstract:Abstract INTRODUCTION Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are gastrointestinal (GI) conditions associated with significant costs. Effective management of IBD should focus on improving patient symptoms and outcomes while containing healthcare costs. To develop high-value treatment strategies and influence policy on high-value care, we must first have a better understanding of the primary drivers of cost in this population. METHODS We conducted a real-world descriptive cohort study using data from IBM Watson, which is a nationwide insurance claims database covering millions of commercially insured individuals across the US. We identified adult patients aged 18 to 65 years with encounters associated with a diagnosis of IBD in the primary or secondary position from January 2019 to January 2020 based on ICD-10-CM codes for Crohn's disease (555.x) and ulcerative colitis (556.x). Analysis of IBD prevalence, costs, and service utilization was based on ICD, CPT, and NDC codes related to IBD conditions and services. All other codes without an associated GI diagnosis in the primary or secondary position were attributed to all-cause costs. Measures of cost and utilization were calculated as a per member per year (PMPY). RESULTS 105,496 patients with IBD were identified (Table 1). The mean PMPY total costs were $40,842 of which $31,051 (76%) were directly related to GI-related costs. Mean PMPY total costs in this population ranged from $1,178 to $144,945, with 15% of members experiencing costs > $76,346 PMPY. The main drives of GI-related costs can be divided into the following three categories: Inpatient costs ($8,206 [26%]), outpatient medical service costs ($11,306 [36%]), and drug costs ($11,539 [37%]) (Table 2). Per member utilization includes: 0.22 inpatient admissions, 0.10 surgeries, 1.02 GI visits, 2.87 non-gastroenterologist GI visit (which could include a visit to a primary medical doctor, rheumatologist, dietician, etc), 4.57 GI-testing, 0.48 GI imaging, 0.61 GI endoscopy, and 1.07 biologic medication prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS IBD care carries a significant financial burden on the US healthcare system. Unplanned emergency service and medication utilization continue to make up the majority of costs of IBD care and need to be the focus of value-based interventions. While appropriate high-cost pharmaceutical utilization should not be reduced, innovative strategies leveraging more cost-effective medication delivery may provide an important opportunity to curb costs. Furthermore, the high rate of non-gastroenterologist GI visits suggests that there is a potential for optimizing care pathways, by incorporating multidisciplinary care including, PCPs, mid-level providers, and other ancillary services into the IBD care model.
gastroenterology & hepatology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
### What problems does this paper attempt to solve? This paper mainly explores the cost - effectiveness of two drugs - mirikizumab (MIRI) and ustekinumab (USTE) in treating patients with moderate - to - severe active ulcerative colitis (UC). Specifically, the research aims to answer the following key questions: 1. **Cost - effectiveness comparison**: How cost - effective is mirikizumab compared to ustekinumab in achieving clinical remission during the maintenance treatment phase? Especially in the patient population with rich experience in biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi). 2. **Impact of drug selection**: What is the impact of introducing mirikizumab as a prescription drug on the medical budget? Will it increase medical costs, or can it be budget - neutral or even cost - saving in some cases? 3. **Economics of long - term management**: Given that UC is a chronic disease requiring long - term management, which drug is more cost - effective in long - term treatment? ### Research background - **Mirikizumab (MIRI)**: An IL - 23p19 antibody, which has shown efficacy in patients with moderate - to - severe active UC in phase III clinical trials. - **Ustekinumab (USTE)**: An IL - 12/23p40 antibody, currently the most commonly used second - line treatment drug in UC patients. - **Research objective**: To evaluate the cost - effectiveness of MIRI relative to USTE, especially the cost difference in achieving clinical remission in one additional patient. ### Method overview - **Network meta - analysis (NMA)**: Used to determine the number needed to treat (NNT) required to achieve clinical remission in patients who respond after induction treatment. - **Excel model**: Based on the perspective of US commercial payers, estimate the cost required for each additional patient to reach clinical remission. - **Cost calculation**: Includes the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of drugs and takes into account the situation of USTE generics. ### Main conclusions - **Cost comparison**: During the maintenance treatment phase, the cost of achieving clinical remission for one patient with MIRI is $501,472, while for USTE it is $1,027,799. The lower cost of MIRI is mainly due to its relatively low NNT and expected lower WAC. - **Budget impact**: The introduction of MIRI may provide additional treatment options for patients and doctors, and in some cases can be budget - neutral or cost - saving. - **Long - term treatment**: For patients with chronic diseases requiring long - term management, MIRI shows better cost - effectiveness. Through these studies, the paper hopes to provide scientific basis for decision - makers, helping them make more rational drug selections, thereby optimizing the treatment effects of UC patients and controlling medical costs.