Wade Aubry1, Robert Lieberthal2, Arnold Willis3, Grant Bagley4, Simon M Willis5, Andrew Layton6. 1. Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, and Senior Medical Director, Quorum Consulting, San Francisco, CA. 2. Assistant Professor, Jefferson School of Population Health, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Associate Dean of Clinical Sciences and Professor of Urology, Aureus University School of Medicine, Oranjestad, Aruba. 4. Senior Advisor, HillCo HEALTH, Washington, DC. 5. Third-year medical student, Aureus University School of Medicine, Oranjestad, Aruba. 6. Director, Information Technology, Quorum Consulting, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of prostate cancer involves invasive, sometimes harmful, procedures that can entail negative quality-of-life implications to individuals and high additional costs to the US healthcare system when these procedures result in retesting and iatrogenic harms. It is estimated that $1.86 billion is spent annually on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing alone. An advanced epigenetic molecular diagnostic test that uses methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction to assess the DNA methylation status of GSTP1, APC, and RASSF1 genes associated with oncogenesis enables a higher degree of accuracy (previously unattainable through prostate biopsy procedures alone) and produces clinical, financial, and health benefits by reducing the number of medically unnecessary and costly repeated biopsies that are part of today's standard of care. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to quantify, using a budget impact model, the effect of a relatively new epigenetic assay on healthcare costs for commercial health plans that reimburse for the assay, by avoiding unnecessary repeated prostate biopsy procedures. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to test the hypothesis that the epigenetic assay can produce cost-saving benefits to health plans, as well as clinical benefits to urologists and patients with prostate cancer, by providing guidance on how to offer patients more appropriate, and less costly, care. The budget impact model is presented from the perspective of a hypothetical commercial health plan, and direct costs are calculated over a 1-year time horizon, using 2013 Medicare fee-for-service rates. Using a plan of 1 million members, the model compares 1-year costs in a "reference scenario," in which the epigenetic assay is not used for the screening and diagnosis of prostate cancer, to costs in a "new scenario," in which the epigenetic assay is used to distinguish true-negative prostate biopsy results from false-negative biopsy results. RESULTS: Based on this analysis, administering the epigenetic assay to patients with histopathologically negative biopsies would result in a reduction of 1106 unnecessary biopsies for a health plan with 1 million members. The total 1-year cost of repeated prostate cancer biopsies to the health plan was found to be $2,864,142 in the reference scenario and $2,333,341 in the new scenario. This translates to a total budget impact, or an annual savings, of $530,801 to the plan. The total diagnostic cost was calculated to be $2584 per patient in the new scenario (using the genetic assay) compared with $3172 per patient in the reference scenario (that did not use the assay), resulting in a savings of $588 per patient management. CONCLUSION: This analysis shows that the net cost to a commercial health plan with 1 million members would be reduced by approximately $500,000 if patients with histopathologically negative biopsies were managed with the use of the epigenetic assay to differentiate patients who should undergo repeated biopsy and those who should not. Using this genetic-based assay can save costs to health plans and to the US healthcare and improve the clinical management of patients with elevated PSA levels.
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of prostate cancer involves invasive, sometimes harmful, procedures that can entail negative quality-of-life implications to individuals and high additional costs to the US healthcare system when these procedures result in retesting and iatrogenic harms. It is estimated that $1.86 billion is spent annually on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing alone. An advanced epigenetic molecular diagnostic test that uses methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction to assess the DNA methylation status of GSTP1, APC, and RASSF1 genes associated with oncogenesis enables a higher degree of accuracy (previously unattainable through prostate biopsy procedures alone) and produces clinical, financial, and health benefits by reducing the number of medically unnecessary and costly repeated biopsies that are part of today's standard of care. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to quantify, using a budget impact model, the effect of a relatively new epigenetic assay on healthcare costs for commercial health plans that reimburse for the assay, by avoiding unnecessary repeated prostate biopsy procedures. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to test the hypothesis that the epigenetic assay can produce cost-saving benefits to health plans, as well as clinical benefits to urologists and patients with prostate cancer, by providing guidance on how to offer patients more appropriate, and less costly, care. The budget impact model is presented from the perspective of a hypothetical commercial health plan, and direct costs are calculated over a 1-year time horizon, using 2013 Medicare fee-for-service rates. Using a plan of 1 million members, the model compares 1-year costs in a "reference scenario," in which the epigenetic assay is not used for the screening and diagnosis of prostate cancer, to costs in a "new scenario," in which the epigenetic assay is used to distinguish true-negative prostate biopsy results from false-negative biopsy results. RESULTS: Based on this analysis, administering the epigenetic assay to patients with histopathologically negative biopsies would result in a reduction of 1106 unnecessary biopsies for a health plan with 1 million members. The total 1-year cost of repeated prostate cancer biopsies to the health plan was found to be $2,864,142 in the reference scenario and $2,333,341 in the new scenario. This translates to a total budget impact, or an annual savings, of $530,801 to the plan. The total diagnostic cost was calculated to be $2584 per patient in the new scenario (using the genetic assay) compared with $3172 per patient in the reference scenario (that did not use the assay), resulting in a savings of $588 per patient management. CONCLUSION: This analysis shows that the net cost to a commercial health plan with 1 million members would be reduced by approximately $500,000 if patients with histopathologically negative biopsies were managed with the use of the epigenetic assay to differentiate patients who should undergo repeated biopsy and those who should not. Using this genetic-based assay can save costs to health plans and to the US healthcare and improve the clinical management of patients with elevated PSA levels.
Authors: Leander Van Neste; James G Herman; Gaëtan Otto; Joseph W Bigley; Jonathan I Epstein; Wim Van Criekinge Journal: Prostate Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Bruce J Trock; Michelle J Brotzman; Leslie A Mangold; Joseph W Bigley; Jonathan I Epstein; David McLeod; Eric A Klein; J Stephen Jones; Songbai Wang; Theresa McAskill; Jyoti Mehrotra; Bhargavi Raghavan; Alan W Partin Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Paul F Pinsky; E David Crawford; Barnett S Kramer; Gerald L Andriole; Edward P Gelmann; Robert Grubb; Robert Greenlee; John K Gohagan Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-01-12 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: M B Nichol; J Wu; J J An; J Huang; D Denham; S Frencher; S J Jacobsen Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2011-05-03 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Muammer Altok; Cihan Demirel; Hyunseon C Kang; Haesun Choi; David John; Irene A Inguillo; John W Davis; John F Ward Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2021-05-04
Authors: Kirk J Wojno; Frank J Costa; Robert J Cornell; Jeffrey D Small; Erik Pasin; Wim Van Criekinge; Joseph W Bigley; Leander Van Neste Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2014-05
Authors: Igor Brikun; Deborah Nusskern; Daniel Gillen; Amy Lynn; Daniel Murtagh; John Feczko; William G Nelson; Diha Freije Journal: Biomark Res Date: 2014-12-12
Authors: Dariga S Smailova; Elisa Fabbro; Serik E Ibrayev; Luca Brusati; Yuliya M Semenova; Umutzhan S Samarova; Farida S Rakhimzhanova; Sabit M Zhussupov; Zaituna A Khismetova; Hengameh Hosseini Journal: Prostate Cancer Date: 2020-01-27
Authors: Koen Degeling; Amanda Pereira-Salgado; Niall M Corcoran; Paul C Boutros; Peter Kuhn; Maarten J IJzerman Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-03-26