Daniel Chao1, Hema Buddha1, Chitra Damodaran1, Linda Tran1, Richard Strong1, Christian S Jackson1. 1. , and are Physicians; and is a Pharmacist; all in the Gastroenterology Section at VA Loma Linda Healthcare System in California. is a Clinical Research Program Administrator at the University of California, Riverside. Daniel Chao, Chitra Damodaran, and Christian Jackson are Assistant Professors of Medicine and Richard Strong is an Associate Professor of Medicine, at Loma Linda University in California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been stressed by the large number of veterans requiring direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medications for hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment. The Veterans Choice Program provides VA patients more options to receive treatment. This study compared the experience of veterans who received HCV treatment through the Veterans Choice Program and those that received treatment at the VA Loma Linda Healthcare System (VALLHCS) in fiscal year (FY) 2016. METHODS: A chart review was performed on all veterans referred by VALLHCS to Choice for HCV treatment during FY 2016, and matched to veterans who received treatment at VALLHCS. Data collected included Fibrosis-4 score (Fib-4), platelet count, days elapsed between time of referral and time of appointment (wait time), rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12), reason for treatment failure, and cost effectiveness. RESULTS: One hundred veterans were referred to Choice; 71 were seen at least once by a Choice provider, and 61 completed a treatment course. Mean Fib-4 and platelet count was 1.9 and 228,000 for the Choice population and 3.4 and 158,000 for the VALLHCS population, respectively. There was no difference in SVR12 rate. Mean wait time was 42 days for Choice vs 29 days for VALLHCS (P < .001). Choice health care providers incurred a mean $8,561.40 in additional costs per veteran seen. CONCLUSIONS: While treatment success rates were similar between Choice and VALLHCS, the degree of liver fibrosis was more advanced in the VALLHCS population. The wait time for care was longer with Choice compared with a direct referral within the VA. While Choice offers a potential solution to providing care for veterans, the current program has unique problems that must be considered.
BACKGROUND: The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been stressed by the large number of veterans requiring direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medications for hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment. The Veterans Choice Program provides VA patients more options to receive treatment. This study compared the experience of veterans who received HCV treatment through the Veterans Choice Program and those that received treatment at the VA Loma Linda Healthcare System (VALLHCS) in fiscal year (FY) 2016. METHODS: A chart review was performed on all veterans referred by VALLHCS to Choice for HCV treatment during FY 2016, and matched to veterans who received treatment at VALLHCS. Data collected included Fibrosis-4 score (Fib-4), platelet count, days elapsed between time of referral and time of appointment (wait time), rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12), reason for treatment failure, and cost effectiveness. RESULTS: One hundred veterans were referred to Choice; 71 were seen at least once by a Choice provider, and 61 completed a treatment course. Mean Fib-4 and platelet count was 1.9 and 228,000 for the Choice population and 3.4 and 158,000 for the VALLHCS population, respectively. There was no difference in SVR12 rate. Mean wait time was 42 days for Choice vs 29 days for VALLHCS (P < .001). Choice health care providers incurred a mean $8,561.40 in additional costs per veteran seen. CONCLUSIONS: While treatment success rates were similar between Choice and VALLHCS, the degree of liver fibrosis was more advanced in the VALLHCS population. The wait time for care was longer with Choice compared with a direct referral within the VA. While Choice offers a potential solution to providing care for veterans, the current program has unique problems that must be considered.
Authors: Jason A Dominitz; Edward J Boyko; Thomas D Koepsell; Patrick J Heagerty; Charles Maynard; Jennifer L Sporleder; Andrew Stenhouse; Mitchel A Kling; William Hrushesky; Charles Zeilman; Stephen Sontag; Nikunj Shah; Fernando Ona; Bhupinder Anand; Marc Subik; Thomas F Imperiale; Samer Nakhle; Sam B Ho; Edmund J Bini; Bruce Lockhart; Jawad Ahmad; Anna Sasaki; Brian van der Linden; Doris Toro; Jaime Martinez-Souss; Vivek Huilgol; Seth Eisen; Keith A Young Journal: Hepatology Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Richard K Sterling; Eduardo Lissen; Nathan Clumeck; Ricard Sola; Mendes Cassia Correa; Julio Montaner; Mark S Sulkowski; Francesca J Torriani; Doug T Dieterich; David L Thomas; Diethelm Messinger; Mark Nelson Journal: Hepatology Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: M Michele Manos; Valentina A Shvachko; Rosemary C Murphy; Jean Marie Arduino; Norah J Shire Journal: J Med Virol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.327
Authors: Miguel Malespin; Ciel Harris; Ozdemir Kanar; Kelly Jackman; Carmen Smotherman; Abbey Johnston; Julie Ferm; Silvio W de Melo; James S Scolapio; David R Nelson; Scott J Cotler Journal: Ann Hepatol Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 2.400
Authors: George N Ioannou; Lauren A Beste; Michael F Chang; Pamela K Green; Elliott Lowy; Judith I Tsui; Feng Su; Kristin Berry Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2016-06-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: G Realdi; G Fattovich; S Hadziyannis; S W Schalm; P Almasio; J Sanchez-Tapias; E Christensen; G Giustina; F Noventa Journal: J Hepatol Date: 1994-10 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Maxine M Denniston; Ruth B Jiles; Jan Drobeniuc; R Monina Klevens; John W Ward; Geraldine M McQuillan; Scott D Holmberg Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 25.391