Cost-outcomes data, the unit costs of treatment when measured in terms of outcomes, are important to health plans deciding what therapies to cover. In a study comparing cost-effectiveness of various interventions, researchers at the Mayo Clinic have discovered that smoking cessation therapy is one of the best bargains in health care.

For comparison's sake, Mayo researchers couched their findings in terms of the cost of treatment per full year of life gained as a result of that care. Based on a model that considered the mean per-patient cost of smoking cessation services delivered through Mayo's Nicotine Dependence Clinic, patients' smoking cessation rates and years of life expected to be gained by those who quit, the resulting figure of $6,828 per year of life gained — expressed in such a way as to provide apples-to-apples cost-outcomes comparisons to other treatments — was relatively low (see chart below).

Put in those terms, smoking cessation is a more cost-effective intervention than breast cancer screenings and Pap smears, which are routinely covered by HMOs, and estrogen replacement therapy, which sometimes is not.

"This is strictly [a measure of the cost of] cessation treatment," says Kenneth Offord, associate professor of biostatistics and a lead researcher in the Mayo study. "If expenses such as patches or psychological counseling or the savings from not buying tobacco products were factored in, cost-effectiveness would be even greater."

Likewise, the study did not consider the estimated savings from treating smoking-related illnesses.

A cost-effective way of adding years to life

The cost of smoking cessation services, when expressed in terms of a formula that considers years of life gained from treatment, is a good deal compared with other preventive and life-saving interventions.


Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.