MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980978866 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-110649

Cost of Care at NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers Vs. Other Treatment Sites for Young Adults with Newly-Diagnosed Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

2018· article· en· W2980978866 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Wolfson, Smita Bhatia, Jill P. Ginsberg, Laura Becker, David Bernstein, Henry J. Henk, Gary H. Lyman, Paul C. Nathan, Diane Puccetti, Jennifer J. Wilkes, Lena E. Winestone, Kelly Kenzik

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerConfidence intervalCensoring (clinical trials)CohortComorbidityInternal medicineDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Young adults (22-39y) with ALL treated at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) have a superior survival when compared with those treated at a non-CCC site. (Wolfson et al, CEBP, 2017) Despite superior outcomes, specialized cancer centers (such as CCC) have been generally criticized for a higher cost of cancer care (Nardi et al, JNCCN, 2016). However, the magnitude of difference in cost of care for ALL patients by treatment site has not been explored. Here we examine cost of cancer care at CCC and non-CCC sites in YA with ALL. Methods: Using commercial insurance data (OptumLabs® Data Warehouse), we established a cohort of 309 patients with ALL diagnosed between 2001 and 2014, at age 22y to 39y. Patients were included if they had ≥30 days of continuous insurance enrollment after ALL diagnosis, were treated with chemotherapy, and were followed from diagnosis until 3y, disenrollment, or 3/31/2017, whichever came first. Patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant were not included in the current analyses. Primary outcomes included total monthly medical costs paid by: (1) health plan; (2) patient (out-of-pocket [OOP] costs). The primary predictor of interest was the classification of the facility where the patient received cancer-related treatment, as NCI-designated CCC vs. non-CCC. Multivariable models were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, education, comorbidity, year of diagnosis and radiation therapy. Monthly costs were modeled using generalized linear models with log link (gamma distribution); bootstrapping obtained 95% confidence intervals (CI). To accommodate censoring, each one-month cost was weighted by the inverse probability of not being censored. Adjusting for covariates, average costs were estimated by CCC status at each monthly interval. Monthly costs were summed over the 36-month study period, and adjusted at the claim-line level to reflect 2016 pricing. Results: Patients were diagnosed at a median age of 32y (range 22-39); 53% of the cohort was male, 46% non-Hispanic white, 42% had some college education or higher, and 70% had an annual household income of ≥$50,000. Following diagnosis, patients were enrolled in the insurance plan for a median 753 days after ALL diagnosis (34 to 4,899 days). Half of the cohort (n=153, 49.5%) was not treated at a CCC. There was no difference between CCC and non-CCC patients with respect to age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, income, comorbidities, year of diagnosis, or length of follow-up. A greater proportion of patients received radiation at CCC vs. non-CCC (23% vs 13% p=0.02). Costs Paid byHealth Plan: The average unadjusted mean 3y costs paid by the health plan per person (HPP) were $540,822/patient for CCC patients vs. $210,075/patient for non-CCC patients (p<0.001). The average adjusted mean 3y HPP costs were almost 3 times higher for patients treated in CCC vs. non-CCC patients ($782,438/patient vs. $288,359/patient; p<0.001). HPP costs were highest for all patients within the first 12 months (CCC: $469,190/patient; non-CCC: $200,049/patient; p<0.001 [Fig 1]), consistent with the fact that ALL treatment regimens include a more intense first 12 months followed by a longer maintenance phase that relies mostly on oral chemotherapy. OOP CostsPaid by Patient: Unadjusted average 3y mean OOP costs per patient were $9,869 in CCC patients and $5,976 in non-CCC patients (p<0.001). The average adjusted mean OOP costs per patient were 1.7 times higher in CCC as compared to non-CCC patients ($14,190 vs. $8,457; p<0.001). OOP costs were also highest in the first 12 months (CCC: $5,483/patient; non-CCC: $3,575/patient [Fig 2]). Conclusions: Using a commercial insurance database, we find that for patients diagnosed with ALL between the ages of 22y and 39y, the costs paid by the health plan are 3 times higher for those receiving care at an NCI-designated CCC as compared to a non-CCC site. Along the same lines, out of pocket costs are 1.7 times higher for those receiving care at an NCI-designated CCC as compared to a non-CCC site. The difference in cost is highest during the first year of therapy. We are currently examining the details of what drives the higher cost of care at CCC. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Lyman: Generex Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Other: Research support; Halozyme; G1 Therapeutics; Coherus Biosciences: Consultancy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchFrench-language works237,207