Hospitalisation costs of malignant mesothelioma: results from the Italian hospital discharge registry (2001–2018)

ObjectivesThis paper aims to establish hospitalisation costs of mesothelioma in Italy and to evaluate hospital-related trends associated with the 1992 asbestos ban.DesignThis is a retrospective population-based study of Italian hospitalisations treating pleura, peritoneum and pericardium mesothelioma in the period 2001–2018.SettingsPublic and private Italian hospitals reached by the Ministry of Health (coverage close to 100%).Participants157 221 admissions with primary or contributing diagnosis of pleural, peritoneal or hearth cancer discharged from 2001 to 2018.Primary and secondary outcome measures: number, length and cost of hospitalisations with related percentages.ResultsEach year, Italian hospitals treated a mesothelioma in 6025 admissions on average. Mean annual costs by site were €20 293 733, €3183 632 and €40 443 for pleura, peritoneum and pericardium, respectively. Pericardial mesothelioma showed the highest cost per admission (€6117), followed by peritoneal (€4549) and pleural cases (€3809). Percentage of hospitalisation costs attributable to mesothelioma was higher when it is located in pleura (53.4%) and pericardium (51.8%) with respect to peritoneum (41.2%). Overall annual hospitalisation cost, percentages of number and length of admissions showed an inverted U-shape, with maxima (of €25 850 276, 0.064% and 0.096%, respectively) reached in 2011–2013. Mean age at discharge and percentages of surgery and of urgent cases increased over time.ConclusionsThe highest impact of mesothelioma on the National Health System was recorded 20 years after the asbestos ban (2011–2013). Hospitals should expect soon fewer but more severe patients needing more cares. To study the disease prevalence could help assistance planning of next decade.

Cost‐effectiveness of intensive care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients: experience from South Africa

Background Given projected shortages of critical care capacity in public hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic, the South African government embarked on an initiative to purchase this capacity from private hospitals. In order to inform purchasing decisions, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of intensive care management for admitted COVID-19 patients across the public and private health systems in South Africa. Methods Using a modelling framework and health system perspective, costs and health outcomes of inpatient management of severe and critical COVID-19 patients in (1) general ward and intensive care (GW + ICU) versus (2) general ward only (GW) were assessed. Disability adjusted life years (DALYs) were evaluated and the cost per admission in public and private sectors was determined. The model made use of four variables: mortality rates, utilisation of inpatient days for each management approach, disability weights associated with severity of disease, and the unit cost per general ward day and per ICU day in public and private hospitals. Unit costs were multiplied by utilisation estimates to determine the cost per admission. DALYs were calculated as the sum of years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) - representing difference in costs and health outcomes of the two management strategies - was compared to a cost-effectiveness threshold to determine the value for money of expansion in ICU services during COVID-19 surges. Results A cost per admission of ZAR 75,127 was estimated for inpatient management of severe and critical COVID-19 patients in GW as opposed to ZAR 103,030 in GW + ICU. DALYs were 1.48 and 1.10 in GW versus GW + ICU, respectively. The ratio of difference in costs and health outcomes between the two management strategies produced an ICER of ZAR 73,091 per DALY averted, a value above the cost-effectiveness threshold of ZAR 38,465. Conclusions Results indicated that purchasing ICU capacity from the private sector during COVID-19 surges may not be a cost-effective investment. The ‘real time’, rapid, pragmatic, and transparent nature of this analysis demonstrates an approach for evidence generation for decision making relating to the COVID-19 pandemic response and South Africa’s wider priority setting agenda.

Cost-Effectiveness of Intensive Care for Hospitalized Covid-19 Patients: Experience From South Africa

BackgroundAmidst shortages of critical care capacity in the public sector during the COVID-19 pandemic, the South African government embarked on an initiative to purchase critical bed capacity from the private sector. To inform the decision, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of ICU management for admitted COVID-19 patients across the public and private health systems in South Africa.MethodsUsing a Markov modelling framework and health system perspective, costs and health outcomes of inpatient management of severe and critical COVID-19 patients in (1) general ward and intensive care (GW+ICU) and (2) general ward only were assessed. Disability adjusted life years (DALYs) were evaluated and the cost per admission in public and private sectors was determined. The models made use of four variables: mortality rates, utilisation of inpatient days for each management approach, disability weights associated to the severity of the disease, and the unit cost per general ward day and per ICU day in public and private hospitals. Unit costs were multiplied by utilisation estimates to determine the cost per admission. DALYs were calculated as the sum of years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) - representing the difference in costs and health outcomes of the two management strategies - was compared to a cost-effectiveness threshold to determine the value for money of ICU management.ResultsA cost per admission of ZAR 75,127 was estimated for inpatient management of severe and critical COVID-19 patients in general wards only as opposed to ZAR 103,030 in GW+ICU. DALYs were 1.48 and 1.10 in the general ward only and GW+ICU, respectively. The ratio of difference in costs and health outcomes between the two management strategies produced an ICER equal to ZAR 73,091 per DALY averted, a value above the cost-effectiveness threshold of ZAR 38,465.ConclusionsResults indicated that purchasing ICU capacity from the private sector may not be a cost-effective investment. The ‘real time’, rapid, pragmatic, and transparent nature of this analysis demonstrates an approach for evidence generation for decision making relating to the COVID-19 pandemic response and South Africa’s wider priority setting agenda.

Cost-effectiveness of intensive care for hospitalized Covid-19 patients: experience from South Africa

BackgroundAmidst the shortages of critical care resources in the public sector resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the South African Government embarked on an initiative to purchase critical bed capacity from the private sector. Within an already under-funded public health sector, it is imperative that the costs and effects of potential interventions to care are assessed and weighed against the opportunity costs of their required investment.ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of ICU management for admitted COVID-19 patients across the public and private health sector in South Africa.MethodsUsing a Markov modelling framework and a health system perspective, the costs and health outcomes of inpatient management of severe and critical COVID-19 patients in (1) general ward and intensive care (GW+ICU) and (2) general ward only were assessed. Disability adjusted life years (DALYs) were evaluated as health outcomes, and the cost per admission from public and private sectors was determined. The models made use of four variables: mortality rates, utilisation of inpatient days for each management approach, disability weights associated to the severity of the disease, and the unit cost per general ward day and per ICU day in public and private hospitals. The unit costs were multiplied by utilisation estimates to determine the cost per admission. DALYs were calculated as the sum of years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) representing the difference in costs and health outcomes of the two management strategies - was calculated and compared to a cost-effectiveness threshold to determine the value for money of ICU management.ResultsA cost per admission of ZAR 75,127 was estimated for inpatient management of severe and critical COVID-19 patients in general wards only as opposed to ZAR 103,030 in GW+ICU. DALYs were 1.48 and 1.10 in the general ward only and GW+ICU, respectively. The ratio of difference in costs and health outcomes between the two management strategies produced an ICER equal to ZAR 73 091 per DALY averted, a value above the cost-effectiveness threshold of ZAR 38 465.ConclusionsThis study indicated that purchasing additional ICU capacity from the private sector may not be a cost-effective use of limited health resources. The ‘real time’, rapid, pragmatic, and transparent nature of this analysis demonstrates a potential approach for further evidence generation for decision making relating to the COVID-19 pandemic response and South Africa’s wider priority setting agenda.

Incidence and Economic Burden of Infections in Cancer Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUNDAlong with antitumor effects, Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICPI) have shown great potential in treating chronic infections such as HIV, Hepatitis B and malaria, in ex-vivo studies. However, several case reports and case series have suggested an increased infection risk in cancer patients. The purpose of our study was to assess the risk of infections in cancer patients receiving ICPI. We also attempted to evaluate the role of a multidisciplinary approach (Oncology and Infectious disease specialists) and the cost associated with treatment. METHODS:Records on all cancer patients over age ≥18 years old who had received at least one dose of ICPI between 2015 to 2018 at a major community teaching hospital in the central Massachusetts region were reviewed. Several risk factors associated with infection were identified. A two-tailed, unpaired t-test was used to analyze the association between risk factors and infection. We calculated the cumulative length of stay (LOS) and cost per admission with a multidisciplinary vs. non-multidisciplinary approach. The calculated total average cost per admission was compared to a matched population (without an oncologic diagnosis) admitted with infections similar to that in our study, to compare the economic burden. RESULTSRetrospective chart review of 169 cancer patients receiving ICPI showed sixty-two episodes of infection in thirty-seven (21.8%) patients and a mortality rate of 3.5% due to associated complications. Risk factors like COPD, prior chemotherapy and steroid use were significantly associated (P<0.05) with infections. Further sub-group analysis showed increase in cumulative LOS from 5.9 to 8.1 days but approximately similar average cost per admission ($52,047 vs. $54,510) with non-multidisciplinary vs. multidisciplinary approach. The calculated total cost per admission during an episode of infection in this cohort of patients was $35,484; three-fold higher when matched to similar infections in a general non-oncologic population ($11,527). CONCLUSIONSA significant incidence of infections and associated health care resource utilization continues to prevail in cancer patients despite the utility of ICPI. A multidisciplinary approach to manage the infections and associated complications in cancer patients receiving ICPI increased the cumulative LOS but not the average cost per admission.

Incidence and economic burden of infections in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.

e19365 Background: Along with antitumor effects, Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICPI) have shown great potential in treating chronic infections such as HIV, Hepatitis B, and malaria, in ex-vivo studies. However, several case reports and case series suggested increased infection risk in cancer patients receiving ICPI. The purpose of our study is to assess the risk of infections in cancer patients receiving ICPI. We also attempted to evaluate the role of a multidisciplinary approach (Oncology and Infectious disease specialists) and the cost associated with treatment. Methods: Records on all cancer patients over age ≥18 years old who had received at least one dose of ICPI from 2015 to 2018 at two major community teaching hospitals in the Central Massachusetts region were reviewed. Several risk factors associated with infection were identified. Two-tailed unpaired t-test was used to analyze the association between risk factors and infection. We calculated the average length of stay (LOS) and cost per admission with a multidisciplinary vs. non-multidisciplinary approach. The calculated total average cost per admission was compared with a random set of non-oncologic population admitted with similar infections noted in our study to estimate the economic burden. Results: Thirty-seven (21.8%) patients developed sixty-two episodes of infection. Microbiological confirmation was available in 13 episodes. Risk factors like COPD (P = 0.01), prior chemotherapy (P = 0.03), and steroid use (P = 0.003) were significantly associated with infections. An infection-associated mortality rate was noted to be 2.3%. With the involvement of multidisciplinary team, the average LOS increased from 5.9 to 8.1 days. Yet, the average cost per admission approximately remained the same (52,047$ vs. 54,510$). Upon comparison with a non-oncologic patient, the average cost per admission for an infection in cancer patients receiving ICPI increased from 11,527$ to 35,484$. Conclusions: Surprisingly, a significant incidence of infections and associated health care resource utilization continue to prevail in cancer patients despite the utility of ICPI. Although the economic burden due to the infections in this set of patients is remarkably high when compared to the general population, the multidisciplinary approach did not increase the hospital costs.

157. Hospital-Onset Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia Is Associated with More Than Twice the Mortality Compared with Community-Onset: Evaluation of 58 Hospitals

Background Staphylococcus aureus is a common pathogen that is implicated with both community and healthcare-associated infections. S. aureus infections lead to sepsis and bacteremia, and are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality despite available antimicrobial therapy. Methods Utilizing a clinical decision support system, patients with the presence of at least 1 positive blood culture for S. aureus were identified from April 2018 to March 2019, in 58 hospitals from a single health system. Patients were then matched in the outcomes measures database to obtain the following outcome measures: mortality, complications rate, length-of-stay (LOS), and cost. The S. aureus bacteremia (SAB) outcome measures were compared between community-onset (CO), and hospital-onset (HO). Results There were 2,700 SAB cases within the system identified during that time period. Baseline characteristics were similar between patients with CO-SAB and HO-SAB. CO-SAB accounted for 89.4% (2,413/2,700) of the overall cases, while 10.6% (287/2,700) of the cases were HO-SAB. For overall SAB, the observed mortality rate was 11.9% (321/2,700), complications rate was 35%, observed LOS was 11.97 days, and mean observed cost per admission was $29,114. There is a statistically significant higher observed absolute mortality rate (14.8%, 95% CI 9.61, 19.93), complications rate (53.3%), LOS (11.06 days), and cost per admission ($33,285) for HO-SAB, compared with CO-SAB. Conclusion HO-SAB is associated with more than twice the mortality, complication rate, LOS, and cost compared with CO-SAB. Structured efforts to reduce the risk for HO SAB and optimizing management of SAB are essential to improve patient outcomes. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Practice Transformation: Early Impact of the Oncology Care Model on Hospital Admissions

Purpose: The purpose of the Oncology Care Model (OCM) is to improve quality and reduce cost through practice transformation. A foundational tenant is to reduce avoidable emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations. In anticipation of being an OCM participant, we instituted a multidimensional campaign designed to meet these objectives. Methods: Prior actions included establishment of phone triage unit, after-hours and weekend calls, and institution of weekend urgent care. Results: On the basis of data from the Chronic Condition Warehouse, as provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, we were successful at reducing the acute care admissions rate by 16%. During the baseline period extending from Jan 2016-Mar 2016, the hospital admission rate was 27 per patient, per quarter, at an average cost per admission event of $11,122, translating to an inpatient cost per patient, per quarter, of $3,003. In the year one reporting period of July 2016-July 2017, the hospital admission rate declined to 22.6 per patient, per quarter, at an average cost per admission event of $11,106, translating to an inpatient cost per patient, per quarter, of $2,505. OCM patient survey scores improved. In addition, at Oncology Hematology Care, we achieved improved results compared with the risk-adjusted national averages for the following measures: readmissions (4.9 v 5.6 per 100 patients, respectively), ER use (17 v 18.6 per 100 patients, respectively), and observation stays (2.7 v 3.6 per 100 patients, respectively). Conclusion: By implementing a cost-efficient, reproducible, and scalable campaign targeting ER avoidance and hospitalizations, we were able to decrease hospital admissions. Reported Medicare savings amounted to nearly $798,000 in inpatient cost per quarter over 1,600 patients.

Cost Analysis of Initial Treatment With Endovascular Revascularization, Open Surgery, or Primary Major Amputation in Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease

Purpose: To compare the total initial treatment costs for open surgery, endovascular revascularization, and primary major amputation within a single-payer healthcare system. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective analysis was undertaken to evaluate 1138 patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) who underwent 1017 endovascular procedures, 86 open surgeries, and 35 major amputations between 2013 and 2016. A cost-mix analysis was performed on individual patient data generated for selected diagnosis-related groups. Mean costs are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: There was no intergroup difference in demographics or private health insurance status. However, the amputation group had a higher proportion of emergency procedures (68.6% vs 13.3% vs 27.9%, p<0.001) and critical limb ischemia (88.6% vs 35.9% vs 37.2%, p<0.001) compared with the endovascular therapy and open surgery groups, respectively. The endovascular revascularization group spent less time in hospital and used fewer intensive care unit (ICU) resources compared with the open surgery and major amputation groups (hospital length of stay: 3.4 vs 10.0 vs 20.2 days, p<0.01; ICU: 2.4 vs 22.6 vs 54.6 hours, p<0.01), respectively. While mean prosthetic and device costs were higher in the endovascular group [AUD$2770 vs AUD$1658 (open) and AUD$1219 (amputation), p<0.01], substantial disparities were observed in costs associated with longer operating theater times, length of stay, and ICU utilization, which resulted in significantly higher costs in the open and amputation groups. After adjusting for confounders, the AUD$18,396 (95% CI AUD$16,436 to AUD$20,356) mean cost per admission for the endovascular revascularization group was significantly less (p<0.001) than the open surgery (AUD$31,908, 95% CI AUD$28,285 to AUD$35,530) and major amputation groups (AUD$43,033, 95% CI AUD$37,706 to AUD$48,361). Conclusion: Endovascular revascularization procedures for PAD cost the health payer less compared with open surgery and primary amputation. While devices used to deliver contemporary endovascular therapy are more expensive, the reduction in bed days, ICU utilization, and related hospital resources results in a significantly lower mean total cost per admission for the initial treatment.

Top 1% of Inpatients Administered Antimicrobial Agents Comprising 50% of Expenditures: A Descriptive Study and Opportunities for Stewardship Intervention

OBJECTIVETo characterize the top 1% of inpatients who contributed to the 6-month antimicrobial budget in a tertiary, academic medical center and identify cost-effective intervention opportunities targeting high-cost antimicrobial utilization.DESIGNRetrospective cohort study.PATIENTSTop 1% of the antimicrobial budget from July 1 through December 31, 2014.METHODSPatients were identified through a pharmacy billing database. Baseline characteristics were collected through a retrospective medical chart review. Patients were presented to the antimicrobial stewardship team to determine appropriate utilization of high-cost antimicrobials and potential intervention opportunities. Appropriate use was defined as antimicrobial therapy that was effective, safe, and most cost-effective compared with alternative agents.RESULTSA total of 10,460 patients received antimicrobials in 6 months; 106 patients accounted for $889,543 (47.2%) of the antimicrobial budget with an antimicrobial cost per day of $219±$192 and antimicrobial cost per admission of $4,733±$7,614. Most patients were immunocompromised (75%) and were followed by the infectious disease consult service (80%). The most commonly prescribed antimicrobials for treatment were daptomycin, micafungin, liposomal amphotericin B, and meropenem. Posaconazole and valganciclovir accounted for most of the prophylactic therapy. Cost-effective opportunities (n=71) were present in 57 (54%) of 106 patients, which included dose optimization, de-escalation, dosage form conversion, and improvement in transitions of care.CONCLUSIONAntimicrobial stewardship oversight is important in implementing cost-effective strategies, especially in complex and immunocompromised patients who require the use of high-cost antimicrobials.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:259–265