Moriarty, James P.

Objective: The Complete Cochlear Implant Care (CCIC) model is a highly coordinated care delivery model reducing and condensing in-person visits for cochlear implant (CI) patients, leveraging telehealth and remote programming. Clinical, quality-of-life, implementation, patient experience, and financial outcomes of the clinical trial are reported. Study design: Prospective, nonrandomized, 2-arm clinical trial Setting: Tertiary referral CI center Patients: Adult CI candidates Interventions: Cochlear implantation Main outcome measures: Speech perception, quality of life, implementation, patient experience, and financial outcomes for both CCIC and traditional care delivery models. Results: Patients participating in the traditional and CCIC delivery models demonstrated 12-month postoperative speech perception scores comparable to nationally reported outcomes (CNC 61% and 72% and AzBio in quiet 75% and 87% for traditional and CCIC cohorts, respectively). Quality-of-life evaluation using the CIQOL-10 demonstrated similar 12-month postoperative scores between groups (52 and 54 for traditional and CCIC cohorts, respectively). The CI Patient Experience Survey demonstrated high satisfaction outcomes in ease of communication, preparedness for surgery, and overall care in both cohorts. Implementation analysis of the CCIC model revealed perceived benefits from staff and clinicians; however, support for expansion of the program was contingent upon the availability of app-based or web-based remote programming technology. Finally, financial analysis revealed decreased out-of-pocket costs for CCIC patients. Conclusion: The CCIC model has the potential to dramatically streamline hearing health care delivery and reduce out-of-pocket costs for CI recipients. Clinical outcomes between cohorts were comparable in this feasibility study; however, a sufficiently powered trial is required to definitively comment on clinical outcomes with the new care delivery model.

566 Background: Video telemedicine visits (VTVs) have the potential to overcome disparities in access to cancer care for many socially, geographically, and economically disadvantaged populations. Internet connectivity, digital literacy, and socioeconomic factors are traditionally cited as influencing VTV utilization. However, digital diffusion has occurred rapidly across several sectors, including healthcare, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and less is known about how these factors have evolved to influence VTV utilization behavior over this time. Through a qualitative approach, we aimed to: (1) explore the lived experiences of cancer patients who transitioned to VTV use as compared to those who persistently did not, and (2) identify similarities and differences between these two groups that could inform targeted interventions to support access and patient acceptance of VTVs in the setting of cancer care. Methods: During June 2024, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 patients (Mean age 71.3 years, range 42-88; female 50%) receiving ongoing, longitudinal cancer care at our academic medical center since July 2021 who had not used VTVs through at least October 2022. Using purposeful sampling, patients were equally divided according to VTV utilization behaviors defined as “transitioned users” (TU; i.e. those who transitioned to VTV utilization after October 2022) and “persistent non-users” (PNU). Transcripts were analyzed using a combined deductive–inductive thematic approach and categorized into themes of barriers and facilitators across three domains consistent with the COM-B model: capabilities (C), opportunities (O), and motivations (M). Results: TU patients frequently cited a reduction in travel and logistical considerations as a primary reason for uptake of VTVs. PNU patients frequently reported digital literacy barriers, particularly among older patients, as primary reasons for lack of VTV utilization. TU patients reported more experience and comfort in technical skills as compared to PNU participants. PNU patients also reported less frequent offering of VTV as an option by their care teams over time, implying they may have transitioned to VTV utilization if it had been offered with more regularity. Both study groups desired improved internet access and technical support to enhance (or, in the case of PNU patients, enable) VTV utilization. Conclusions: These findings suggest that multi-modal care delivery may best serve current patient populations, not requiring, yet offering VTV services as an adjunct to in-person care. Longer term, individual barriers to VTV use will also need to be addressed to further optimize access for patients who desire to incorporate this care modality.

Objective: This study aims to assess the costs of a same-day discharge (SDD) enhanced recovery pathway for diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) closure compared with a standard institutional enhanced recovery protocol. Background: Every year, 50,155 patients in the United States undergo temporary stoma reversal. While ambulatory stoma closure has shown promise, widespread adoption remains slow. This study builds on previous research, focusing on the costs of a novel SDD protocol introduced in 2020. Methods: A retrospective case-control study was conducted at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, comparing patients undergoing SDD DLI closure from August 2020 to February 2023 to those in a matched cohort receiving standard inpatient enhanced recovery protocol. Patients were matched based on age, sex, american society of anesthesiologists score, surgery period, and hospital. Primary outcomes included direct hospitalization and additional costs in the 30 days postdischarge. Results: The SDD group (n = 118) demonstrated a significant reduction in median index episode hospitalization and 30-day postoperative costs compared with the inpatient group (n = 236), with savings of $4827 per patient. Complication rates were similar, and so were readmission and reoperation rates. Conclusions: Implementation of the SDD for DLI closure is associated with substantial cost savings without compromising patient outcomes. The study advocates for a shift towards SDD protocols, offering economic benefits and potential improvements in health care resource utilization.

93 Background: The treatment paradigm for mCSPC patients has rapidly evolved over the last few years with the emergence of triplet therapy and prognostication by volume of disease. However, the health economic implications of triplet therapy by disease volume remain unclear. Methods: A Markov model where patients transitioned between the progression-free, progression and death states was developed. State utilities were derived from the LATITUDE trial. Point probabilities for overall survival, progression-free survival, grade ≥ 3 and 5 toxicities were obtained from the eligible mCSPC phase III clinical trials. Medicare Advantage and commercial total paid amounts (2022 US$) of treatments were obtained from OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Costs and disutilities of adverse events were derived from published literature. Half-cycle corrected costs and utilities were accrued monthly over a 20-year lifetime horizon and were discounted at 3%. Monte Carlo simulation was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$100,000 was used. Results: In terms of Medicare Advantage payer’s perspective (Table), docetaxel (D)+ADT was observed to provide additional 0.068 QALYs compared to ADT at an ICER of US$16,544 per QALY in high volume disease. Compared to D+ADT, abiraterone (AAP) triplet provided additional 1.03 QALYs at US$56,641 per QALY. Compared to AAP triplet, apalutamide (APA)+ADT provided additional 0.048 QALYs at US$5,846,248 per QALY in high volume disease. In low volume disease, D+ADT provided 0.45 more QALYs at US$20,690 per QALY compared to ADT alone. Compared to D+ADT, AAP triplet provided an additional 1.51 QALYS at US$44,267 per QALY. In terms of total paid commercial costs, AAP triplet provided an additional 1.19 QALYs compared to ADT at US$91,952 per QALY in high volume disease. In low volume, D+ADT provided additional 0.38 QALYs at US$22,058 per QALY compared to ADT. Compared to D+ADT, AAP triplet provided a 0.97 QALY gain at US$105,958 per QALY. Compared to AAP triplet, darolutamide (DARO) triplet provided a 0.47 QALY at US$689,196 per QALY. Compared to DARO triplet, APA+ADT provided an additional 0.49 QALYs at an ICER of US$971,389 per QALY. All other treatments (not reported here) were dominated. Conclusions: At the selected WTP of US$100,000 per QALY, AAP triplet therapy was most likely the cost-effective strategy in overall mCSPC population particularly in patients with high volume disease. However, these results should be interpreted with careful accounting for timing of metastases. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background The Surgery in Early Metastatic Seminoma (SEMS) trial examined retroperitoneal lymph node dissection as first-line treatment for patients with isolated 1-3 cm retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy. To date, the standard of care for these patients has been either chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Herein, we evaluated the relative cost-effectiveness of these management strategies. Methods A microsimulation model assessed the cost-effectiveness of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy for stage IIA seminoma. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate model robustness. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection recurrence probabilities were obtained from the SEMS trial. All other probability and utility values were obtained from published literature. Primary outcomes included costs from a commercial insurer’s perspective, effectiveness (quality adjusted life-years [QALYs]), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY. Results At a lifetime horizon, the mean costs per patient for retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy were $58 469, $98 783, and $104 096, and the mean QALYs were 40.61, 40.70, and 39.15, respectively. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection was found to be the most cost-effective approach because of high costs and accrued disutility of chronic toxicities associated with radiotherapy (cost-effectiveness ratios = $433 845/QALY) and chemotherapy (dominated). On 1-way sensitivity analyses, retroperitoneal lymph node dissection was no longer cost-effective if the probabilities of infertility and cardiovascular toxicity after radiotherapy were less than 13% and 16%, respectively, or if the 2-year probability of progression after retroperitoneal lymph node dissection was more than 26%. Conclusions Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection was the most cost-effective treatment approach for stage IIA seminoma. These findings support clinical guideline consideration of including retroperitoneal lymph node dissection as a treatment option for well-selected patients with stage IIA seminoma.

BACKGROUND: The financial burden linked to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with chest pain on the health care system is considerable. Angina and nonobstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA) is common, associated with adverse cardiovascular events, and may lead to repeat testing or hospitalizations. Diagnostic certainty can be achieved in patients with ANOCA using coronary reactivity testing (CRT); however, its financial effect on the patient has not been studied. Our goal was to assess the effect of CRT on health care–related cost in patients with ANOCA. METHODS: Patients with ANOCA who underwent diagnostic coronary angiography (CAG) and CRT (CRT group) were matched to controls who had similar presentation but only underwent a CAG without CRT (CAG group). Standardized inflation-adjusted costs were collected and compared between the 2 groups on an annual basis for 2 years post the index date (CRT or CAG). RESULTS: Two hundred seven CRT and 207 CAG patients were included in the study with an average age of 52.3±11.5 years and 76% females. The total cost was significantly higher in the CAG group as compared with the CRT group ($37 804 [$26 933–$48 674] versus $13 679 [$9447–$17 910]; P <0.001). When costs are itemized and divided based on the Berenson-Eggers Type of Service categorization, the largest cost difference occurred in imaging (any type, including CAG; P <0.001), procedures (eg, percutaneous coronary intervention/coronary artery bypass grafting/thrombectomy) ( P =0.001), and test (eg, blood tests, EKG; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective observational study, assessment of CRT in patients with ANOCA was associated with significantly reduced annual total costs and health care utilization. Therefore, the study may support the integration of CRT into clinical practice.

PURPOSE In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many cancer practices rapidly adopted telehealth services. However, there is a paucity of data regarding ongoing telehealth visit utilization beyond this initial response. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in variables associated with telehealth visit utilization over time. METHODS This is a cross-sectional, year-over-year, retrospective analysis of telehealth visits conducted across a multisite, multiregional cancer practice in the United States. Multivariable models examined the association of patient- and provider-level variables with telehealth utilization across outpatient visits conducted over three 8-week periods from July to August in 2019 (n = 32,537), 2020 (n = 33,399), and 2021 (n = 35,820). RESULTS The rate of telehealth utilization increased from <0.01% (2019) to 11% (2020) to 14% (2021). The most significant patient-level factors associated with increased telehealth utilization included nonrural residence and age ≤65 years. Among patients residing in rural settings, video visit utilization rates were significantly lower and phone visit utilization rates were significantly higher compared with patients from nonrural residences. Regarding provider-level factors, widening differences in telehealth utilization were observed at tertiary versus community-based practice settings. Increased telehealth utilization was not associated with duplicative care as per-patient and per-physician visit volumes in 2021 remained consistent with prepandemic levels. CONCLUSION We observed continuous expansion in telehealth visit utilization from 2020 to 2021. Our experiences suggest that telehealth can be integrated into cancer practices without evidence of duplicative care. Future work should examine sustainable reimbursement structures and policies to ensure accessibility of telehealth as a means to facilitate equitable, patient-centered cancer care.

Abstract Objective Hospital acquired infections (HAIs) are one of the top 10 leading causes of death within the United States. While current standard of HAI risk prediction utilizes only a narrow set of predefined clinical variables, we propose a graph convolutional neural network (GNN)-based model which incorporates a wide variety of clinical features. Materials and Methods Our GNN-based model defines patients’ similarity based on comprehensive clinical history and demographics and predicts all types of HAI rather than focusing on a single subtype. An HAI model was trained on 38 327 unique hospitalizations while a distinct model for surgical site infection (SSI) prediction was trained on 18 609 hospitalization. Both models were tested internally and externally on a geographically disparate site with varying infection rates. Results The proposed approach outperformed all baselines (single-modality models and length-of-stay [LoS]) with achieved area under the receiver operating characteristics of 0.86 [0.84–0.88] and 0.79 [0.75–0.83] (HAI), and 0.79 [0.75–0.83] and 0.76 [0.71–0.76] (SSI) for internal and external testing. Cost-effective analysis shows that the GNN modeling dominated the standard LoS model strategy on the basis of lower mean costs ($1651 vs $1915). Discussion The proposed HAI risk prediction model can estimate individualized risk of infection for patient by taking into account not only the patient’s clinical features, but also clinical features of similar patients as indicated by edges of the patients’ graph. Conclusions The proposed model could allow prevention or earlier detection of HAI, which in turn could decrease hospital LoS and associated mortality, and ultimately reduce the healthcare cost.

AbstractBackgroundThe Merlin assay for melanoma‐risk assessment has become commercially available to reduce the rate of unnecessary sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNB) in SLNB‐eligible patients with cutaneous melanoma. Merlin low‐risk patients are recommended to undergo wide local excision (WLE) of the primary tumor, whereas Merlin high‐risk patients are recommended to undergo both SLNB and WLE. Here, we compared the cost of a Merlin testing strategy to that of a no‐testing strategy (usual care) before prescribing SLNB.MethodsWe identified T1 and T2 patients who underwent WLE and SLNB but not completion lymph node dissection between 2007 and 2018. Controls were T1 patients who only underwent WLE. Costs for WLE and SLNB were calculated by converting institutional cost data to standardized Medicare reimbursement rates. We then developed a decision tree to compare the cost of Merlin testing to that of a no‐testing strategy (usual care).ResultsThe average standardized cost of WLE was $2066, whereas the cost of WLE and SLNB was $11,976 based on Medicare rates. At a cost below $7350 for T1b melanoma and $4600 for T1b to T2 melanoma, Merlin testing was cost‐saving compared to a no‐testing strategy (usual care), assuming Medicare reimbursement rates.ConclusionMerlin testing for T1b and T2 melanoma is potentially cost saving depending on the cost of the molecular assay and SLNB reimbursement rates. In addition to being cost saving, Merlin is expected to improve health‐related quality of life.

AbstractBackgroundThe VESPER trial demonstrated improved progression‐free (PFS) and (preliminarily) overall survival (OS) with six cycles of neoadjuvant dose‐dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (ddMVACx6) versus four cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GCx4) before radical cystectomy (RC) for muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but with increased toxicity. This study compares the cost‐effectiveness of these regimens.MethodsA cost‐effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant ddMVACx6 and GCx4 was performed using a decision‐analytic Markov model with 5‐year, 10‐year, and lifetime horizons. Probabilities were derived from reported VESPER data. Utility values were obtained from the literature. Primary outcomes were effectiveness measured in quality‐adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. One‐way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model.ResultsAt 5 years, ddMVACx6 improved QALYs by 0.30 at an additional cost of $16,100, rendering it cost‐effective relative to GCx4 (ICER: $53,284/QALY). Additionally, probabilistic sensitivity analysis found ddMVACx6 to be cost‐effective in 79% and 81% of microsimulations at10‐year and lifetime horizons, respectively. One‐way sensitivity analysis demonstrated a minimum difference in 5‐year progression of 0.9% and progression mortality of 0.7% between ddMVACx6 and GCx4 was necessary for ddMVACx6 to remain cost‐effective.ConclusionsNeoadjuvant ddMVACx6 was more cost‐effective than GCx4 for MIBC. These data, together with the improved PFS and (albeit preliminary) OS noted in VESPER, support use of this regimen in appropriate candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy before RC.Lay summary We performed a benefit‐to‐cost analysis using evidence from a randomized controlled trial that compared two different chemotherapy treatments before bladder removal for bladder cancer that had invaded into the bladder muscle. Despite being more expensive and having a greater likelihood of toxicity, six cycles of dose‐dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin was more cost‐effective (or had higher value) than four cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin.