Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Capitated Patient Navigation Program for Medicare Beneficiaries with Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVE To assess the cost-effectiveness of implementing a patient navigation (PN) program with capitated payment for Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with lung cancer. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING Cost-effectiveness analysis. STUDY DESIGN A Markov model to capture the disease progression of lung cancer and characterize clinical benefits of PN services as timeliness of treatment and care coordination. Taking a payer's perspective, we estimated the lifetime costs, life years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and addressed uncertainties in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS Model inputs were extracted from the literature, supplemented with data from a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services demonstration project. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Compared to usual care, PN services incurred higher costs but also yielded better outcomes. The incremental cost and effectiveness was $9,145 and 0.47 QALYs, respectively, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,312/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that findings were most sensitive to a parameter capturing PN survival benefit for local-stage patients. CE-acceptability curve showed the probability that the PN program was cost-effective was 0.80 and 0.91 at a societal willingness-to-pay of $50,000 and $100,000/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION Instituting a capitated PN program is cost-effective for lung cancer patients in Medicare. Future research should evaluate whether the same conclusion holds in other cancers.

[1]  Joseph A. C. Delaney Sensitivity analysis , 2018, The African Continental Free Trade Area: Economic and Distributional Effects.

[2]  Herta H Chao,et al.  The effect of a lung cancer care coordination program on timeliness of care. , 2013, Clinical lung cancer.

[3]  B. Stuart,et al.  Out‐of‐pocket health care expenditure burden for Medicare beneficiaries with cancer , 2013, Cancer.

[4]  R. Rodríguez,et al.  History and principles of patient navigation , 2011, Cancer.

[5]  E. Paskett,et al.  Patient navigation: An update on the state of the science , 2011, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[6]  J. McDonald,et al.  Establishing a community-based lung cancer multidisciplinary clinic as part of a large integrated health care system: aurora health care. , 2010, Journal of oncology practice.

[7]  S. Vinod,et al.  Why Do Some Lung Cancer Patients Receive No Anticancer Treatment? , 2010, Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

[8]  Julie Sturza,et al.  A Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility Values for Lung Cancer , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[9]  Kevin Fiscella,et al.  Evaluating the cost‐effectiveness of cancer patient navigation programs: Conceptual and practical issues , 2009, Cancer.

[10]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement , 2009, BMJ.

[11]  Robert Simons,et al.  American Cancer Society: Access to Care , 2008 .

[12]  J. Mandelblatt,et al.  Patient navigation: State of the art or is it science? , 2008, Cancer.

[13]  R. Dillman,et al.  Developing an effective lung cancer program in a community hospital setting. , 2008, Clinical lung cancer.

[14]  F. Detterbeck,et al.  Turning Gray: The Natural History of Lung Cancer Over Time , 2008, Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

[15]  Angela Mariotto,et al.  Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States. , 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[16]  W. Hogle,et al.  Modeling a better way: navigating the healthcare system for patients with lung cancer. , 2007, Clinical journal of oncology nursing.

[17]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation , 2006 .

[18]  K. Hede Agencies look to patient navigators to reduce cancer care disparities. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[19]  D. Schrag,et al.  Using navigators to improve care of underserved patients , 2005, Cancer.

[20]  Stephen Joel Coons,et al.  US Valuation of the EQ-5D Health States: Development and Testing of the D1 Valuation Model , 2005, Medical care.

[21]  A. Padhani,et al.  The pathway study: results of a pilot feasibility study in patients suspected of having lung carcinoma investigated in a conventional chest clinic setting compared to a centralised two-stop pathway. , 2003, Lung cancer.

[22]  E. Livingston,et al.  Evaluating health utility in patients with melanoma, breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer: a nationwide, population-based assessment. , 2003, The Journal of surgical research.

[23]  H. Freeman,et al.  Impact of a cancer screening program on breast cancer stage at diagnosis in a medically underserved urban community. , 2003, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[24]  Jennifer S. Haas,et al.  Differences in the quality of care for women with an abnormal mammogram or breast complaint , 2000, Journal of general internal medicine.

[25]  Diana B. Petitti,et al.  Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine , 1994 .

[26]  J R Beck,et al.  Markov Models in Medical Decision Making , 1993, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[27]  S. Wilson Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes , 1987 .

[28]  S. Hoover,et al.  Evaluation of the Cancer Prevention and Treatment Demonstration for Ethnic and Racial Minorities , 2012 .

[29]  H. Freeman Patient navigation: a community centered approach to reducing cancer mortality. , 2006, Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education.

[30]  R. Dillman,et al.  Cancer patient survival improvement is correlated with the opening of a community cancer center: comparisons with intramural and extramural benchmarks. , 2005, Journal of oncology practice.

[31]  J. Strzelczyk,et al.  Disparities in adherence to recommended followup on screening mammography: interaction of sociodemographic factors. , 2002, Ethnicity & disease.

[32]  B. Rimer,et al.  The psychosocial consequences of mammography. , 1997, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.