OBJECTIVE: To provide U.S. case-based preeclampsia health care cost estimates for mothers and infants from a U.S. payer perspective, with comparisons with both uncomplicated and hypertensive pregnancies. METHODS: Electronic health record and billing data from a large regional integrated health care system in Pennsylvania were used to identify mother–singleton infant pairs with deliveries between 2010 and 2015. Data on clinical care and costs using actual payment amounts were compiled from 20 weeks of gestation to 6 weeks postdelivery for mothers and birth to 12 months for infants. Three defined pregnancy study cohorts, uncomplicated, hypertension and preeclampsia, were matched using a 1:1:1 ratio on the basis of maternal age, parity, body mass index, and comorbidities. Costs per pregnancy were calculated in 2015 dollars and preeclampsia incremental costs estimated by subtracting the average cost of the matched cohorts. RESULTS: The final study population included 712 matched mother–infant pairs in each cohort. The mean combined maternal and infant medical care costs in the preeclampsia cohort of $41,790 were significantly higher than those for the uncomplicated cohort of $13,187 (P<.001) and hypertension cohort of $24,182 (P<.001), and were largely driven by differences in the infant costs. The mean infant cost in the preeclampsia cohort were $28,898, in the uncomplicated cohort $3,669 and $12,648 in the hypertension cohort (P<.001). Mothers with preeclampsia delivered 3 weeks earlier (median 36.5 weeks of gestation) than women in the uncomplicated cohort and more than 2 weeks earlier than women in the hypertension cohort. A significantly larger percentage of women with preeclampsia and their infants experienced adverse events (13.9% for mothers and 14.6% for infants) compared with unaffected women (4.1% and 0.7%) and those with hypertension (9.4% and 4.8%), respectively (P<.001). CONCLUSION: The economic burden of preeclampsia health care is significant with the main cost drivers being infant health care costs associated with lower gestational age at birth and greater adverse outcomes. FUNDING SOURCE: This study is funded by Progenity, Inc.

The cost-effectiveness of screening the U.S. population for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tier 1 genomic conditions is unknown. To estimate the cost-effectiveness of simultaneous genomic screening for Lynch syndrome (LS), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). Decision analytic Markov model. Published literature. Separate age-based cohorts (ages 20 to 60 years at time of screening) of racially and ethnically representative U.S. adults. Lifetime. U.S. health care payer. Population genomic screening using clinical sequencing with a restricted panel of high-evidence genes, cascade testing of first-degree relatives, and recommended preventive interventions for identified probands. Incident breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer cases; incident cardiovascular events; quality-adjusted survival; and costs. Screening 100 000 unselected 30-year-olds resulted in 101 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 77 to 127) fewer overall cancer cases and 15 (95% UI, 4 to 28) fewer cardiovascular events and an increase of 495 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% UI, 401 to 757) at an incremental cost of $33.9 million (95% UI, $27.0 million to $41.1 million). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $68 600 per QALY gained (95% UI, $41 800 to $88 900). Screening 30-, 40-, and 50-year-old cohorts was cost-effective in 99%, 88%, and 19% of probabilistic simulations, respectively, at a $100 000-per-QALY threshold. The test costs at which screening 30-, 40-, and 50-year-olds reached the $100 000-per-QALY threshold were $413, $290, and $166, respectively. Variant prevalence and adherence to preventive interventions were also highly influential parameters. Population averages for model inputs, which were derived predominantly from European populations, vary across ancestries and health care environments. Population genomic screening with a restricted panel of high-evidence genes associated with 3 CDC Tier 1 conditions is likely to be cost-effective in U.S. adults younger than 40 years if the testing cost is relatively low and probands have access to preventive interventions. National Human Genome Research Institute.

Daniel D Maeng, PhD; Jing Hao, PhD; John B Bulger, DO, MBA Perm J 2017;21:16-055 [Full Citation] https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/16-063 E-pub: 03/1

Purpose: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a quantitative multi-biomarker assay (the Assay) that stratifies patients with Barrett’s Esophagus (BE) by risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and can be used to guide clinical decisions, versus the current guidelines (standard of care [SOC]) for surveillance and treatment of BE. Patients and methods: Markov decision modeling and simulation were used to compare cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from the perspective of a US health insurer with care delivered by an integrated health system. Model assumptions and disease progression probabilities were derived from the literature. Performance metrics for the Assay were from an independent clinical validation study. Cost of the Assay was based on reimbursement rates from multiple payers. Other costs were derived from Geisinger payment data. Results: Base-case model results for a 5-year period comparing the Assay-directed care to the SOC estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $52,483/QALY in 2012 US dollars. Assay-directed care increased the use of endoscopic treatments by 58.4%, which reduced the progression to HGD, EAC and reduced EAC-related deaths by 51.7%, 47.1%, and 37.6%, respectively, over the 5-year period. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the probability of the Assay being cost-effective compared to the SOC was 57.3% at the $100,000/QALY acceptability threshold. Conclusion: Given the model assumptions, the new Assay would be cost-effective after 5 years and improves patient outcomes due to improvement in the effectiveness of surveillance and treatment protocols resulting in fewer patients progressing to HGD and EAC and fewer EAC-related deaths.

Purpose: This study investigates the relationships among digital transformation, technological innovation, industry–university–research collaborations and labor income share in manufacturing firms.Design/methodology/approach: The relationships are tested using an empirical method, constructing regression models, by collecting 1,240 manufacturing firms and 9,029 items listed on the A-share market in China from 2013 to 2020.Findings: The results indicate that digital transformation has a positive effect on manufacturing companies’ labor income share. Technological innovation can mediate the effect of digital transformation on labor income share. Industry–university–research cooperation can positively moderate the promotion effect of digital transformation on labor income share but cannot moderate the mediating effect of technological innovation. Heterogeneity analysis also found that firms without service-based transformation and nonstate-owned firms are better able to increase their labor income share through digital transformation.Originality/value: This study provides a new path to increase the labor income share of enterprises to achieve common prosperity, which is important for manufacturing enterprises to better transform and upgrade to achieve high-quality development.

Population genomic screening has been demonstrated to detect at-risk individuals who would not be clinically identified otherwise. However, there are concerns about the increased utilization of unnecessary services and the associated increase in costs. The objectives of this study are twofold: (1) determine whether there is a difference in healthcare utilization and costs following disclosure of a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) BRCA1/2 variant via a genomic screening program, and (2) measure the post-disclosure uptake of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline-recommended risk management. We retrospectively reviewed electronic health record (EHR) and billing data from a female population of BRCA1/2 P/LP variant carriers without a personal history of breast or ovarian cancer enrolled in Geisinger’s MyCode genomic screening program with at least a one-year post-disclosure observation period. We identified 59 women for the study cohort out of 50,726 MyCode participants. We found no statistically significant differences in inpatient and outpatient utilization and average total costs between one-year pre- and one-year post-disclosure periods ($18,821 vs. $19,359, p = 0.76). During the first year post-disclosure, 49.2% of women had a genetic counseling visit, 45.8% had a mammography and 32.2% had an MRI. The uptake of mastectomy and oophorectomy was 3.5% and 11.8%, respectively, and 5% of patients received chemoprevention.