MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Joshua A. Roth, PhD, MHA
Assistant Member
AHRQ Patient-Centered Outcomes Research K12 Scholar
Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Roth: PSA prostate cancer screening is controversial because of uncertainty about the overall benefit-risk balance of screening and conflicting recommendations from a variety of prominent national panels. For example, there is debate about whether the cancer early-detection benefits of screening outweigh potential harms related to overdiagnosis of prostate cancer and associated overtreatment (for example, surgery and/or radiation therapy). However, this benefit-risk balance largely depends on how screening programs are structured (for example, the age range over which screening occurs, how often screened occurs, and the PSA level that triggers biopsies) and how screening detected prostate cancers are managed.
With these factors in mind, we developed a simulation model to estimate the morbidity, mortality, and cost outcomes of many PSA screening approaches that have been proposed by national panels or discussed in the peer-reviewed literature. The model calculates these outcomes using inputs from national databases and major PSA screening clinical trials. The primary outcome of our model was the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained—a measure that reflects the value of medical interventions through impacts on cost, survival, and health-related quality of life. We don’t have explicit rules for willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year in the United States, but interventions that cost $100,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year are generally considered to be of at least low to moderate value (whereas, for example, an intervention that costs $400,000 per quality-adjusted life year would be generally considered to be of very poor value).
Using the model, we found that more conservative PSA screening strategies (that is, those with less frequent screening and higher PSA level thresholds for biopsy referral) tended to be more cost-effective than less conservative strategies. Importantly, we found that no strategy was likely to be of high value under contemporary treatment patterns where many men with low-risk prostate cancer (that is, those with a Gleason score lower than 7 and clinical T2a stage cancer or lower) receive treatment with surgery or radiation therapy, but several strategies were likely to be of at least moderate value (cost per qualityadjusted life-year=$70 831-$136 332) with increased use of conservative management (that is, treating only after clinical progression) for low-risk, screen-detected cancers.
Dr. E. Scott Sills[/caption]
Dr. Scott Sills MD, PhD
Medical Director at the Center for Advanced Genetics
an IVF program based in Carlsbad, California
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Sills: Often regarded as a miracle procedure by many infertile couples, in vitro fertilization (IVF) can be financially difficult for those without insurance coverage for the treatment. This prohibitive cost leads many would-be parents who pursue IVF to transfer multiple embryos at once, to increase their chances of getting a baby and minimize the need for additional attempts.
This new study now reports that the economic impact of IVF deserves a closer look. As corresponding author E. Scott Sills, MD PhD noted, rates of cesarean-section deliveries, premature births, and low birth weight of babies are all greater with two or more embryos transferred to the mother at once, compared to a lower risk, single-embryo pregnancy.
The data derived from a comprehensive analysis of all IVF cases in Vermont (UVM) and was recently published in the journal Applied Health Economics & Health Policy. It is believed to be the first effort to calculate the difference in infant hospital costs based on the number of embryos transferred. Sills and his team had access to UVM Medical Center records of patients who conceived through IVF and delivered at least 20 weeks into their pregnancies between 2007 and 2011.
Dr. Stacie Dusetzina[/caption]
Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD
Assistant Professor
Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy
Eshelman School of Pharmacy
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Dusetzina: Drug prices are of significant policy interest, particularly the prices for so-called “specialty” medications which are used to treat rare and/or complex conditions like cancer. In this study I estimated monthly price for orally-administered cancer treatments that were approved between 2000 and 2014. First I looked at the price of the drug during the year of initial FDA approval and then I looked at annual changes in the price after the year of approval. The main findings are that, even after inflation adjustment, the monthly price paid for orally-administered cancer treatments is increasing rapidly both at the time of approval and in subsequent years.
As an example, if you compare average monthly prices during the first year post-approval for treatments approved between 2000-2010 to those approved after 2010 there was a major increase in launch prices from $5,529 per month to $9,013 per month. Year-to-year changes in price after launch varied a lot by drug ranging from decreases in price of -2.7% per year to increases of 11.4% per year. However, nearly all of the products studied increased in price over time.
Dr. Paul Barr[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Paul Barr MSc, PhD
Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Clinical Practice
The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Barr: I belong to the Preference Laboratory, a group of researchers in The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, who focus on research to improve patient engagement in their health care. One of our areas of interest is mental health, especially depression given the high and increasing prevalence of this condition in America and worldwide. Previous research has found that individuals with depression are not fully engaged in the treatment decision making process and may not be aware of their options. Decision aids are short tools that provide information on available treatment options and information about those options that is important to patients and clinicians, which can facilitate greater patient engagement through shared decision making. To develop these tools, it is important to identify the information important to patients and clinicians when making treatment decisions.
By conducting a national survey of individuals with depression and clinicians who treat depression across the US, we found that patients and clinicians felt that the effectiveness of treatment, potential side-effects and time to recovery were important to discuss. However, where patients wanted to know about about cost and insurance coverage of treatment, clinicians did not focus on these priorities. Yet when asked to take the patient’s perspective, clinicians had the same priorities as patients, including cost and insurance coverage. In addition, only 18% of patient respondents reported experiencing a high level of shared decision making on the CollaboRATE survey (
Dr. Sapna Kaul[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Sapna Kaul, Ph.D
Huntsman Cancer Institute
2000 Circle of Hope
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Kaul: The United States has the highest healthcare expenditures in the world, and close to one-third of these expenditures are believed to be unnecessary. One potential reason for these unnecessary expenditures is that patients may ask for medical services that are unnecessary. At the same time, primary care physicians (PCP) could find it difficult to refuse to prescribe unnecessary medical services as they may worry that it may compromise patient satisfaction. Also, there is a shortage of primary care workforce in the U.S. and PCPs may have insufficient time to effectively address patient requests.
We investigated 2 types of unnecessary medical practices initiated by patient requests:
(1) providing unnecessary specialty referrals, and
(2) prescribing brand-name drugs when generic alternatives were available.
To explore these practices, we used data on 840 U.S. PCPs from a national survey of physicians conducted in 2009. Over 50% of primary care physicians reported providing unnecessary specialty referrals and 39% prescribed brand-name drugs at patient requests. Several provider and organizational factors, such as physician specialty and solo/2-person practice, were related to reporting unnecessary practices.
Dr. Eric Christensen[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Dr. Eric W. Christensen, PhD
Health Economist
Children’s Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN
Medical Research: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Christensen: National healthcare expenditures are up from 5.0% of gross domestic product in 1960 to 17.4% in 2013. We must find ways to control cost while maintaining quality. Accountable care organizations (ACOs) were designed to control a population’s health care cost while maintaining or improving quality. This study was an examination of one ACO exclusively covering a pediatric Medicaid population.
Medical Research: What are the main findings?
Dr. Christensen: We found that health care utilization and cost patterns were associated with the length of time patients were attributed to this 
Dr. Dusetzina[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Dr. Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD
Assistant professor in the Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy
Eshelman School of Pharmacy
University of North Carolina
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Dusetzina: As part of the Affordable Care Act the Medicare Part D “doughnut hole” is closing – reducing Medicare beneficiaries out-of-pocket expenses during this phase of coverage from 100% of drug costs to 25% between 2010 and 2020. In this study we analyzed 3,344 Medicare formularies that spell out how insurers cover prescription drugs. We found that in 2010, a typical course of oral chemotherapy drugs costs patients on average up to $8,100 per year. When the doughnut hole closes in 2020, patients will still have to pay on average $5,600 out of pocket per year, more than what the average Medicare beneficiary’s household spends on food each year. Even after the doughnut hold is closed oral chemotherapy drugs will still be out of reach for millions of Americans.
Dr. Grovaert[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Johannes Govaert MD
Department of Surgery
Leiden University Medical Center
Leiden, The Netherlands
Medical Research: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Govaert: The Value Based Health Care agenda ofPprof. Porter (Harvard Business School) suggests that focus in healthcare should shift from reducing costs to improving quality: where quality of healthcare improves, cost reduction will follow. One of the cornerstones of potential cost reduction, as mentioned by Porter, could be availability of key clinical data on processes and outcomes of care. Despite the important societal and economical role the healthcare system fulfils, it still lags behind when it comes to standardised reporting processes. With the introduction of the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit (DSCA) in 2009, robust quality information became available enabling monitoring, evaluation and improvement of surgical colorectal cancer care in the Netherlands. Since the introduction of the DSCA postoperative morbidity and mortality declined.
Primary aim of this study was to investigate whether improving quality of surgical colorectal cancer care, by using a national quality improvement initiative, leads to a reduction of hospital costs. Detailed clinical data was obtained from the 2010-2012 population-based Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. Costs at patient-level were measured uniformly in all 29 participating hospitals and based on Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.
Medical Research: What are the main findings?
Dr. Govaert: Over three consecutive years (2010-2012) severe complications and mortality after colorectal cancer surgery respectively declined with 20% and 29%. Simultaneously, costs during primary admission decreased with 9% without increase in costs within the first 90 days after discharge. Moreover, an inverse relationship (at hospital level) between severe complication rate and hospital costs was identified among the 29 participating hospitals. Hospitals with increasing severe complication rates (between 2010 and 2012) were associated with increasing costs whereas hospitals with declining severe complication rates were associated with cost reduction.
Dr. Barnes[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Geoffrey Barnes, MD, MSc
Clinical Lecturer
Cardiovascular Medicine and Vascular Medicine
University of Michigan Health System
Medical Research: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Barnes: Although warfarin has been the primary anticoagulant used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation for over 60 years, four new direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been introduced into the market since 2010. Dabigatran, which directly inhibits thrombin, was found to have better prevention of ischemic stroke and a significant reduction in hemorrhagic stroke (bleeding strokes) for patients with 
Dr. Silverberg[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Dr. Jonathan L. Silverberg MD PhD MPH
Assistant Professor in Dermatology
Medical Social Sciences and Preventive Medicine
Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Silverberg: We previously showed that adults with eczema are more likely to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol and have sedentary lifestyle. We wondered whether chronic eczema might negatively impact upon other health behaviors, such as seeking preventive care and vaccinations. On the other hand, previous studies from our group and others found that both children and adults with eczema have a number of comorbid medical and mental health conditions. One potential reason for this is detection bias from since eczema patients are “plugged into” the healthcare system because of their skin disease, which allows them to be diagnosed more frequently with other health problems.
We sought to understand the routine and preventive healthcare behaviors of children and adults with eczema. We found that adults with eczema were more likely to be vaccinated for tetanus, influenza, hepatitis A and B viruses, human papilloma virus and pneumonia. Moreover, they were more likely to undergo age-appropriate health screenings, such as blood pressure and cholesterol checks, but not cancer screening. Adults with eczema were more likely to interact with a variety of general doctors and specialists.
Similarly, 
