This study argues that value assessment conducted from a societal perspective should rely on the Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GCEA) framework proposed herein. Recently developed value assessment inventories – such as the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness’s “impact inventory” and International Society of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Research (ISPOR) “value flower” – aimed to more comprehensively capture the benefits and costs of new health technologies from a societal perspective. Nevertheless, application of broader value elements in practice has been limited in part because quantifying these elements can be complex, but also because there have been numerous methodological advances since these value inventories have been released (e.g. generalized and risk-adjusted cost effectiveness). To facilitate estimation of treatment value from a societal perspective, this paper provides an updated value inventory – called the GCEA value flower – and a user guide for implementing GCEA for health economics researchers and practitioners. GCEA considers 15 broader value elements across four categories: (i) uncertainty, (ii) dynamics, (iii) beneficiary, and (iv) additional value components. The uncertainty category incorporates patient risk preferences into value assessment. The dynamics category petals account for the evolution of real-world treatment value (e.g. option value) and includes drug pricing trends (e.g. future genericization). The beneficiary category accounts for the fact health technologies can benefit others (e.g. caregivers) and also that society may care to whom health benefits accrue (e.g. equity). Finally, GCEA incorporates additional broader sources of value (e.g. community spillovers, productivity losses). This GCEA user guide aims to facilitate both the estimation of each of these value elements and the incorporation of these values into health technology assessment when conducted from a societal perspective.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has shown curative potential for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and other malignancies, but its accessibility among Medicare patients, particularly in disadvantaged populations, remains uncertain. This study aims to assess CAR-T use among Medicare patients with DLBCL receiving third-line or later (3L+) treatment, focusing on access disparities and their impact on clinical outcomes. Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data from 2007 to 2020, multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate patient characteristics and the effects of distance to authorized treatment centers (ATCs) on CAR-T access. Between 2017 and 2020, 2241 patients were treated for 3L+ DLBCL in the SEER-Medicare data, of whom 122 (5.4%) received CAR-Ts. CAR-T recipients were less likely to have multiple comorbidities (odds ratio [OR], 0.904; P = .001) but more likely to live in higher income areas (OR, 1.176; P = .004). If distance to the nearest ATC for “poor-access” states (average distance to ATC, 104.4 miles) decreased to the average distance in “better-access” states (34.2 miles), there would be a 37.6% increase in number of patients receiving CAR-Ts (6.6%-9.1%; P < .001). These findings highlight substantial disparities in CAR-T use, driven by geographic and socioeconomic factors. Addressing these barriers could significantly enhance equitable access to CAR-T therapy and improve outcomes for underserved populations, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions to reduce geographic and systemic barriers to care.

Background: Although uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTIs; occurring in female patients without urological abnormalities or history of urological procedures or complicating comorbidities) are one of the most common community infections in the United States (US), limited data are available concerning associations between antibiotic resistance, suboptimal prescribing, and the economic burden of uUTI. We examined the prevalence of suboptimal antibiotic prescribing and antibiotic resistance and its effects on healthcare resource use and costs. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized electronic health record data from a large Mid-Atlantic US integrated delivery network database, collected July 2016–March 2020. Female patients aged ≥ 12 years with a uUTI, who received ≥ 1 oral antibiotic treatment within ± 5 days of index uUTI diagnosis, and had ≥ 1 urine culture with antimicrobial susceptibility test, were eligible for inclusion in the study. The study examined the proportion of antibiotics that were inappropriately or suboptimally prescribed among patients with confirmed uUTI, and total healthcare costs (all-cause and UTI-related) within 6 months after a uUTI, stratified by antibiotic susceptibility and/or inappropriate or suboptimal treatment. Patient outcomes were assessed after 1:1 propensity score matching of patients with antibiotic-susceptible versus not-susceptible isolates and then by other covariates (e.g., demographics and recent healthcare use). A similar propensity score calculation was used to analyze the effect of inappropriate/suboptimal treatment on health outcomes. Costs were adjusted to 2020 US dollars ($). Results: Among 2565 patients with a uUTI included in the analysis, the most commonly prescribed antibiotics were nitrofurantoin (61%), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (19%), and ciprofloxacin (15%). More than one-third of the sample (40.2%) had isolates that were not-susceptible to ≥ 1 antibiotic indicated for treating patients with uUTI. Two-thirds (66.6%) of study-eligible patients were prescribed appropriate treatment; 29.9% and 11.9% were prescribed suboptimal and/or inappropriate treatment, respectively. Inappropriate or suboptimally prescribed patients had greater all-cause and UTI-related costs compared with appropriately prescribed patients. Differences were most striking among patients with antibiotic not-susceptible isolates. Conclusions: These findings highlight how the increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance combined with suboptimal treatment of patients with uUTI increases the burden on healthcare systems. The finding underlines the need for improved prescribing accuracy by better understanding regional resistance rates and developing improved diagnostic tests.

Health technology assessments and value frameworks are becoming increasingly important for clinical decision-making. Most of these frameworks, however, focus on value to payers rather than patients and healthcare providers and may ignore other sources of economic value such as patient and physician time cost, impact on productivity, and direct health system costs. This article focusses on fixed-dose combination of pertuzumab and trastuzumab for subcutaneous injection (PH FDC SC) in the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. We review relevant clinical evidence, examine data on time and resource use of the subcutaneous administration of trastuzumab compared with intravenous treatment and how it can be extrapolated to PH FDC SC, and discuss the value PH FDC SC can bring to patients and healthcare providers. We will also provide our own experiences of PH FDC SC from the healthcare (oncologist, healthcare economist, pharmacist) and patient point of view. The data, combined with our personal experiences, suggest that switching from intravenous pertuzumab and trastuzumab to PH FDC SC could reduce non-drug costs for healthcare providers treating patients with HER2-positive breast cancer through time savings and other economic benefits. Furthermore, PH FDC SC could also save patient time given its shorter administration and post-injection observation time versus intravenous infusions, potentially resulting in reduced productivity loss. These benefits could be applied to other subcutaneous formulations, either currently available or in development.

Background: New digital technologies offer providers the promise of more accurately tracking patients’ medication adherence. It is unclear, however, whether access to such information will affect provider treatment decisions in the real world. Methods: Using prescriber-reported information on patient non-compliance from health insurance claims data between 2008 and 2014, we examined whether prescribers’ knowledge of non-compliance was associated with different prescribing patterns for patients with serious mental illness (SMI). We examined patients who initiated an oral atypical antipsychotic, but were later objectively non-adherent to this treatment, defined as proportion of days covered (PDC) <0.8. We examined how a physician’s awareness of patient non-compliance (ICD-9 diagnosis code: V15.81) was correlated with the physician’s real-world treatment decisions for that patient. Treatment decisions studied included the share of patients who increased antipsychotic dose, augmented treatment, switched their antipsychotic, or used a long-acting injectable (LAI). Results: Among the 286,249 patients with SMI who initiated an antipsychotic and had PDC <0.8, 4,033 (1.4%) had documented non-compliance. When prescribers documented non-compliance, patients were more likely to be switched to another antipsychotic (32.8% vs 24.7%, P<0.001), have their dose increased (24.4% vs 22.1%, P=0.004), or receive an LAI (0.09% vs 0.04%, P=0.008), but were less likely to have augmented therapy with another antipsychotic (1.1% vs 1.3%, P=0.035) than patients without documented non-compliance. Conclusion: Among SMI patients with documented non-compliance, the frequency of dose, medication switches, and LAI use were higher and augmentation was lower compared to patients without documented non-compliance. Access to adherence information may help prescribers more rapidly switch ineffective medications as well as avoid unnecessary medication augmentation.