Currently Viewing:
The American Journal of Managed Care August 2010
Clinical and Economic Outcomes After Introduction of Drug-Eluting Stents
Charanjit S. Rihal, MD, MBA; James L. Ryan, MHA; Mandeep Singh, MBBS; Ryan J. Lennon, MS; John F. Bresnahan, MD; Juliette T. Liesinger, BA; Bernard J. Gersh, MBChB, DPhil; Henry H. Ting, MD, MBA; David R. Holmes, Jr, MD; and Kirsten Hall Long, PhD
Antihypertensive Medication Adherence and Subsequent Healthcare Utilization and Costs
Donald G. Pittman, PharmD; Zhuliang Tao, MPH; William Chen, PhD; and Glen D. Stettin, MD
Statin Therapy for Elevated hsCRP: What Are the Public Health Implications?
Paul M. Ridker, MD
Statin Therapy for Elevated hsCRP: More Evidence Is Needed
Ogochukwu C. Molokwu, PharmD, MScMed
Currently Reading
Opening and Continuing the Discussion on Influenza Vaccination Timing
Kellie J. Ryan, MPH Matthew D. Rousculp, PhD, MPH. Reply by Bruce Y. Lee, MD, MBA Julie H. Y. Tai, MD Rachel R. Bailey, MPH
Relationship Between Quality Improvement Processes and Clinical Performance
Cheryl L. Damberg, PhD; Stephen M. Shortell, PhD, MPH, MBA; Kristiana Raube, PhD, MPH; Robin R. Gillies, PhD; Diane Rittenhouse, MD, MPH; Rodney K. McCurdy, MHA; Lawrence P. Casalino, MD, PhD; and John Adams, PhD
Value and the Medical Home: Effects of Transformed Primary Care
Richard J. Gilfillan, MD; Janet Tomcavage, RN, MSN; Meredith B. Rosenthal, PhD; Duane E. Davis, MD; Jove Graham, PhD; Jason A. Roy, PhD; Steven B. Pierdon, MD; Frederick J. Bloom Jr, MD, MMM; Thomas R. Graf, MD; Roy Goldman, PhD, FSA; Karena M. Weikel, BA; Bruce H. Hamory, MD; Ronald A. Paulus, MD, MBA; and Glenn D. Steele Jr, MD, PhD
Insomnia Risks and Costs: Health, Safety, and Quality of Life
Mark R. Rosekind, PhD; and Kevin B. Gregory, BS
Effect of Inadequate Response to Treatment in Patients With Depression
Russell L. Knoth, PhD; Susan C. Bolge, PhD; Edward Kim, MD, MBA; and Quynh-Van Tran, PharmD
Using Search Engine Query Data to Track Pharmaceutical Utilization: A Study of Statins
Nathaniel M. Schuster, BS; Mary A.M. Rogers, PhD, MS; and Laurence F. McMahon Jr, MD, MPH
Employees' Willingness to Pay to Prevent Influenza
Stephen S. Johnston, MA; Matthew D. Rousculp, PhD, MPH; Liisa A. Palmer, PhD; Bong-Chul Chu, PhD; Parthiv J. Mahadevia, MD, MPH; and Kristin L. Nichol, MD, MPH, MBA
Anticonvulsant Use After Formulary Status Change for Brand-Name Second-Generation Anticonvulsants
Hemal Patel, PharmD, MBA; Diana C. Toe, PharmD; Shawn Burke, RPh; and Rafia S. Rasu, PhD

Opening and Continuing the Discussion on Influenza Vaccination Timing

Kellie J. Ryan, MPH Matthew D. Rousculp, PhD, MPH. Reply by Bruce Y. Lee, MD, MBA Julie H. Y. Tai, MD Rachel R. Bailey, MPH

A patient-centered medical home with intensive case management and a payer partner can significantly improve hospital utilization and may decrease total medical costs for a Medicare population.

In the recent article “Economics of Influenza Vaccine Administration Timing for Children,” Lee et al1 use a Monte Carlo decision analytic model to highlight the importance of  vaccinating children against influenza earlier in the season. Models are extremely useful tools for shaping policy; however, models are mathematical representations requiring assumptions and are limited by the data available to populate them. We believe the authors underestimated the burden of influenza; therefore, model results should be interpreted with caution.

Lee et al use outpatient visit costs for influenza-related illness from a systematic review2 and state that they inflated the value by 3% to approximate 2009 values. It should be noted  that the outpatient visit cost ($51) cited is a 1997 value taken from another article,3 and that using a constant 3% rate to inflate historic prices to current dollars is inconsistent with good cost-effectiveness practice.4 This approach could lead to significant underestimation of the cost of influenza vaccination.

In contrast, an analysis by Molinari et al, cited by Lee et al for other model inputs, uses a mean of $95 and $167 (2003 dollars) as the outpatient visit cost for non–high-risk children age 5 to 17 years and 0 to 4 years, respectively.5 Furthermore, the published average reimbursement for a level 3 office visit for an established patient (Current Procedural Terminology code 99213) ranges between $84 and $113.6 In addition to lower outpatient visit costs in the model, Lee et al use lower cost estimates than those used by Molinari et al for hospitalization ($2421-$2988 vs $10,880-$15,014) and medical cost of death ($5000 vs $28,818).5

We also believe the analysis by Lee et al underestimates the indirect costs of influenza.Although they included costs for lost productivity due to influenza vaccination office visits, the authors did not incorporate lost productivity costs for a parent’s missed work days due to a child’s influenza illness. In the analysis by White et al, the estimated indirect cost of parent’s missed work due to child’s influenza was $61.33 (1997 dollars).3

Underestimation of the burden of influenza may impact the length of time influenza vaccination is considered cost-effective with the authors’ threshold of US $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Including a higher cost of the disease in the analysis may result in more favorable cost-effectiveness values for vaccination later in the season. Additionally, changes in the cost of disease may impact the difference in cost-effectiveness between live attenuated and inactivated influenza vaccines.

Finally, reducing secondary transmission of influenza to household members can have a significant impact in economic modeling.7 The authors do not explore this important indirect benefit, which also can result in significant underestimation of differences in cost-effectiveness. Inclusion of the indirect protection would increase the benefits of influenza immunization and may extend the cost-effectiveness period of vaccination. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses can provide readers with a complete view of the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination.

Kellie J. Ryan, MPH

Matthew D. Rousculp, PhD, MPH


MedImmune, LLC

Gaithersburg, MD

Author Disclosures: Ms Ryan and Dr Rousculp are employees of MedImmune, LLC, and report owning stock in the company.

Address correspondence to: Kellie J. Ryan, MPH, MedImmune, LLC, One MedImmune Way, Gaithersburg, MD 20878. E-mail: ryank@medimmune.com.

REFERENCES

1. Lee BY, Tai JHY, Bailey RR, Smith KJ, Nowalk AR. Economics of influenza vaccine administration timing for children. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(3):e75-e85.

2. Jordan R, Connock M, Albon E, et al. Universal vaccination of children against influenza: are there indirect benefits to the community? A systematic review of the evidence. Vaccine. 2006;24(8):1047-1062.

3. White T, Lavoie S, Nettleman MD. Potential cost savings attributable to influenza vaccination of school-aged children. Pediatrics. 1999;103(6):e73.

4. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253-1258.

5. Molinari NA, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Messonnier ML, et al. The annual impact of seasonal influenza in the US: measuring disease burden and costs. Vaccine. 2007;25(27):5086-5096.

6. MAG Mutual Healthcare Solutions’ Physicians Fee & Coding Guide, 2009. Atlanta, GA: MAG Mutual Healthcare Solutions Inc; 2009.

7. Luce BR, Nichol KL, Belshe RB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of live attenuated influenza vaccine versus inactivated vaccine among children aged 24-59 months in the United States. Vaccine. 2008;26(23):2841-2848.

IN REPLY:

One of the key purposes of computational models is to bring decision-making processes that normally reside within individuals’ heads out into the open to catalyze discussion and raise important questions. A model also can serve as a virtual meeting table to assemble key decision makers such as public health officials, healthcare administrators, insurers, scientists, clinicians, and manufacturers. Therefore, we appreciate the thoughtful letter by Dr Matthew D. Rousculp and Ms Kellie J. Ryan from MedImmune in response to our study.1

By design, our model’s baseline scenario was conservative about estimating the cost of influenza and hence the value of the  intervention. However, additional scenarios and sensitivity analyses using all of Rousculp and Ryan’s cost suggestions  resulted in minimal changes in model outcomes. Because most infected children have a low risk of hospitalization and  mortality, the overwhelming driving factors are influenza risk and vaccine cost. In fact, a large percentage of infected children are  asymptomatic. After December, influenza risk and consequently the vaccination’s economic value drop precipitously. Therefore,  only dramatic shifts in medical costs, much greater than those proposed by Rousculp and Ryan, would significantly change our  results. Incorporating all of their cost suggestions collectively (including use of the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price  index calculator to translate past costs to 2009 values, accounting for lost parent productivity, and using values from Rousculp  and Ryan’s suggested sources) had little impact.2-5 The only change was that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) remained below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), a frequently cited but debated threshold for cost-effectiveness, a little further into the influenza season: December rather than November.6,7 When all the suggested changes were introduced together, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of both trivalent inactivated vaccine  (TIV) and LAIV remained below $50,000 per QALY through December from both the societal ($12,049-$39,167 per QALY for TIV, $12,419-$44,377 per QALY for LAIV) and third-party payer ($18,883-$44,543 per QALY for TIV, $23,865-$49,860 per QALY for   LAIV) perspectives. These figures are close to our original reported values.

The only issue raised by Rousculp and Ryan that we could not incorporate into our model is vaccination’s effects on secondary  influenza transmission (ie, from the vaccinated individual to others), a limitation already stated in our article. Modeling secondary  transmission is very complicated because it depends heavily on the individual’s social network and the network’s  immunity status. For example, secondary transmission may be negligible for a 3-year-old who is in contact only with family  members who have been vaccinated, but secondary transmission may be a factor for a 10-year-old early in the influenza  season, when she will contact many susceptible (unvaccinated and unexposed to influenza) classmates. As the influenza  season progresses, population herd immunity increases, thereby decreasing the probability of secondary transmission. The  influenza risk data in our model suggest that by January a large percentage of the population has been either exposed to or  vaccinated against influenza so that secondary transmission may be less important. But a future, more complex model may  want to incorporate such possible transmission elements.

Ultimately, adding transmission will not change our study’s most important take-away points: (1) timing of vaccination matters  and future studies and planning should not treat vaccination as one en bloc intervention and (2) efforts to get the population  vaccinated earlier may provide substantial value. Additionally, when resources are limited, getting children vaccinated earlier  may be more important than of fering vaccination later in the influenza season. If anything, adding the effects on transmission  may further enhance our findings. Our model is certainly not perfect; no study, whether a model or a clinical or epidemiologic  study, is perfect. However, it may be among the first studies to address the issue of seasonal influenza vaccination timing in   children and should not be the last.8

Bruce Y. Lee, MD, MBA

Julie H. Y. Tai, MD

Rachel R. Bailey, MPH


Public Health Computational and Operations Research (PHICOR)

Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA

Author Disclosures: The authors (BYL, JHYT, RRB) report no relationship or financial interest with any entity that would pose a conflict of interest with the subject matter of this article.

Address correspondence to: Bruce Y. Lee, MD, MBA, Public Health Computational and Operations Research (PHICOR), University of Pittsburgh, 200 Meyran Ave, Ste 200, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. E-mail: byl1@pitt.edu.

REFERENCES

1. Lee BY, Tai JHY, Bailey RR, Smith KJ, Nowalk AR. Economics of influenza vaccine administration timing for children. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(3):e75-e85.

2. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Databases, tables & calculators by subjects. CPI inflation calculator. http://www.bls.gov /data/inflation_calculator.htm. Accessed July 9, 2010.

3. Molinari NA, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Messonnier ML, et al. The annual impact of seasonal influenza in the US: measuring disease burden and costs. Vaccine. 2007;25(27):5086-5096.

4. White T, Lavoie S, Nettleman MD. Potential cost savings attributable to influenza vaccination of school-aged children. Pediatrics. 1999;103(6):e73.

5. MAG Mutual Healthcare Solutions’ Physicians Fee & Coding Guide, 2009. Atlanta, GA: MAG Mutual Healthcare Solutions Inc; 2009.

6. Bell C, Urbach DR, Ray JG, et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ. 2006; 332 (7543):699-703.

7. Shiroiwa T, Sung YK, Fukuda T, Lang HC, Bae SC, Tsutani K. International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one  additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness? Health Econ. 2010;19(4):422-437.

 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2018 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up