Melissa M. Brown

The financial desirability of dollar/time investments in postbaccalaureate healthcare professional education is needed. We therefore compared postbaccalaureate educational costs and career earnings for nurse anesthetists, eight other advanced degree, nonphysician professions, and 14 physician specialties with internal rate of return (IRR) and net present value (NPV) analysis. The IRR and NPV integrated educational costs (tuition, finance charges, lost salary opportunity costs), and career earnings using U.S. Bureau of Labor and Medscape 2022 Physician Compensation Report data. Costs were discounted to 2022 U.S. real dollars using the 3.97% 50-year, U.S. average inflation rate. Annual IRRs for educational investment were 1) hospital CEOs = 48.8%; 2) managed care finance directors = 48.2%; 3) Doctors of Nurse Anesthesia Practice = 26.0%; 4) specialist physicians = 20.3%; 5) primary care physicians = 19.2%; 6) Doctors of Physical Therapy = 18.8%; 7) healthcare attorneys = 18.4%; 8) Doctors of Dental Surgery (dentists) = 18.1%; 9) Doctors of Pharmacy = 17.2%; and 10) Advanced Nurse Practitioners = 10.8%. Considering the educational money/time invested for career monetary returns, the financial desirability of nurse anesthetist and nonphysician, healthcare executive education exceeded that of physicians. Lifetime earnings for nurse anesthetists exceeded those of Doctors of Dental Surgery (Doctors of Dental Medicine), Doctors of Pharmacy, Doctors of Physical Therapy, managed care MBAs, biomedical engineers, healthcare attorneys, and Advanced Nurse Practitioners.

Introduction Oral administration of zeaxanthin (Zx) 20 mg daily in patients with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) treated with triple therapy (photodynamic therapy/intravitreal bevacizumab/intravitreal dexamethasone) reduced fellow-eye 2-year nAMD incidence from 23 to 6% (p = 0.02) in a prior clinical trial. We questioned the long-term benefit and thus analyzed case–control 5-year patient data of trial participants and additional participants with 5-year follow-up, also performing cost-utility and cost–benefit analyses. Methods Consecutive, unilateral nAMD patient outcomes for those taking 20 mg Zx supplementation orally for ≥ 5 years were compared with the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) 5-year historical controls for fellow-eye nAMD conversion. Eleven-year mean life expectancy, cost-utility and cost–benefit models were undertaken employing a 3% discount rate and 2020 US real dollars. Results Among 227 consecutive patients with nAMD/Zx-supplementation, 202 (90%) had 5-year follow-up. The fellow-eye nAMD 5-year conversion incidence using a Kaplan–Meier cumulative event estimate was 22% (49/227), versus 48% (167/348) with CATT control data (p < 0.0001). An 11-year cost-utility model with estimates for years 6–11 demonstrated a 0.42 (7.7%) QALY (quality-adjusted life-year) gain, including 3 months of life saved per patient due to decreased nAMD fellow-eye conversion. This yielded a direct ophthalmic medical cost perspective, incremental cost-utility ratio (CUR) of −$576/QALY and a societal cost perspective CUR of −$125,071/QALY. Zx supplementation for all 2020 US unilateral nAMD cases would have theoretically saved society, primarily patients, $6.0 billion over 11 years, a 1531% return on investment (ROI), or 31.3% annual ROI, on Zx costs. Conclusions Oral zeaxanthin supplementation for unilateral nAMD patients appears to decrease fellow-eye long-term incidence and is cost-effective and financially rewarding. It is dominant vs. no supplementation in patients presenting with unilateral nAMD. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01527435.

To compare a near decade of follow-up, newer control cohort data, use of both the societal and third party insurer cost perspectives, and integration of unilateral/bilateral therapy on the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab therapy for neovascular, age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Value-Based Medicine®, 12-year, combined-eye model, cost-utility analysis employing MARINA and HORIZON clinical trial data. Preference-based comparative effectiveness outcomes were quantified in (1) QALY (quality-adjusted life-year) gain, and (2) percent improvement in quality-of-life, while cost-effectiveness outcomes were quantified in (3) the cost-utility ratio (CUR) and financial return-on-investment (ROI) to society. Using MARINA and HORIZON trial data and a meta-analysis control cohort after 24 months, ranibizumab therapy conferred a combined-eye patient value (quality-of-life) gain of 16.3%, versus 10.4% found in 2006. The two-year direct ophthalmic medical cost for ranibizumab therapy was $46,450, a 33.8% real dollar decrease from 2006. The societal cost perspective CUR was −$242,920/QALY, indicating a $282,517 financial return-on-investment (ROI), or 12.3%/year to society for direct ophthalmic medical costs expended. The 3rd party insurer CUR ranged from $21,199/QALY utilizing all direct, medical costs, to $69,591/QALY using direct ophthalmic medical costs. Ranibizumab therapy for neovascular AMD in 2015, considering treatment of both eyes, conferred greater patient value gain (comparative effectiveness) and improved cost-effectiveness than in 2006, as well as a large monetary return-on-investment to the Gross Domestic Product and nation’s wealth. The model herein integrates important novel features for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, vitreoretinal cost effectiveness analyses, including: (1) treatment of both eyes, (2) a long-term, untreated control cohort, and (3) the use of societal costs.

Reports of triple combination therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) suggest a benefit, as do reports for zeaxanthin. An interventional comparative study was thus undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of triple combination therapy with and without zeaxanthin, as well as the economic viability of the therapies. The cases of 543 consecutive eyes of 424 patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to AMD were reviewed. All eyes were treated with triple combination therapy (triple therapy) consisting of: (1) reduced-fluence photodynamic therapy with verteporfin, (2) intravitreal bevacizumab and (3) intravitreal dexamethasone. Therapy was repeated as necessary. One cohort of patients was also given supplementation with 20 mg of oral zeaxanthin (Zx) daily. The triple therapy group without Zx received a mean of 2.8 treatment cycles and 87 % of patients had stable or improved vision at 24 months. In the triple therapy group with Zx, the mean number of treatment cycles was 2.1, with 83 % of patients having stable or improved vision at 24 months. At 24 months, CNV developed in 12.5 % of fellow eyes treated with triple therapy alone; CNV developed in 6.25 % of eyes treated with triple therapy with Zx (p = 0.03). An average cost-utility analysis revealed that triple therapy was cost-effective with a cost-utility ratio of $26,574/QALY, while triple therapy with Zx was more cost-effective with an average cost-utility ratio of $19,962/QALY. The incremental cost-utility analysis assessing the addition of Zx to triple therapy disclosed Zx supplementation was very cost-effective at $5302/QALY. When it was assumed that triple therapy with Zx reduced fellow eye CNV development by 30.3 %, the incremental cost-utility dropped to (−$6332/QALY), indicating that adding Zx to triple therapy yielded greater patient value, and was also less expensive than using triple therapy alone. Triple therapy is comparatively effective and cost-effective. Considerably less treatment is needed than reported in monotherapy studies. The addition of oral Zx appears to further reduce the treatment cycles required, and possibly reduce the risk of CNV development in the fellow eye.

There is a dearth of patient, preference-based cost-effectiveness analyses evaluating genetic testing for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD). A Value-Based Medicine, 12-year, combined-eye model, cost-utility analysis evaluated genetic testing of Category 3 AMD patients at age 65 for progression to NVAMD. The benefit of genetic testing was predicated upon the fact that early-treatment ranibizumab therapy (baseline vision 20/40–20/80) for NVAMD confers greater patient value than late-treatment (baseline vision ≤20/160). Published genetic data and MARINA Study ranibizumab therapy data were utilized in the analysis. Patient value (quality-of-life gain) and financial value (2012 US real dollar) outcomes were discounted at 3 % annually. Genetic testing-enabled, early-treatment ranibizumab therapy per patient conferred mean 20/40−1 vision, a 0.845 QALY gain and 14.1 % quality-of-life gain over sham therapy. Late-treatment ranibizumab therapy conferred mean 20/160+2 vision, a 0.250 QALY gain and 4.2 % quality-of-life gain over sham therapy. The gain from early-treatment over late-treatment was 0.595 QALY (10.0 % quality-of-life gain). The per-patient cost for genetic testing/closer monitoring was $2205 per screened person, $2.082 billion for the 944,000 estimated new Category 3 AMD patients annually. Genetic testing/monitoring costs per early-treatment patient totaled $66,180. Costs per early-treatment patient included: genetic testing costs: $66,180 + direct non-ophthalmic medical costs: −$40,914 + caregiver costs: −$172,443 + employment costs: −$14,098 = a net societal cost saving of $160,582 per early treatment patient. When genetic screening facilitated an incremental 12,965 (8.0 %) of the 161,754, new annual NVAMD patients aged ≥65 in the US to undergo early-treatment ranibizumab therapy, each additional patient treated accrued an overall, net financial gain for society of $160,582. Genetic screening was cost-effective, using World Health Organization criteria, when it enabled an incremental 4.1 % (6634) of 161,754 annual NVAMD patients ≥65 years to receive early-treatment ranibizumab therapy. Genetic screening-enabled, early-treatment ranibizumab therapy for NVAMD is cost-effective if it enables an incremental 4.1 % of the annual US cohort of new-onset NVAMD patients ≥65 to undergo early-treatment with ranibizumab.

Clinical Science Gary C. Brown, MD, MBA; Mahdi M. Basha, DO; Melissa M. Brown, MD, MN, MBA To study eyes with no light perception (NLP) occurring secondary to neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Records of consecutive patients with neovascular AMD seen during a 10-year period were reviewed to ascertain which patients had NLP due to neovascular AMD. Ten of 1,150 patients (0.9%) with neovascular AMD had NLP in one eye (study eye) from neovascular AMD. All 10 patients had bilateral neovascular AMD. Each study eye had a large macular disciform scar and 360° peripapillary subretinal fibrovascular tissue. Seven of nine (78%) study eyes had optic disc pallor, versus none of eight fellow eyes (P = .04). Mean fellow eye vision was 20/231, ranging from 20/50 to NLP (P = .006 vs study eyes). No seeing fellow eye had choroidal neovascularization encircling the optic disc (P = .0004). NLP from neovascular AMD is associated with 360° peripapillary subretinal fibrosis. This fibrosis may cause chronic ischemic optic neuropathy contributing to extinguished vision. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2015;46:229–234.] From the Center for Value-Based Medicine, Flourtown, Pennsylvania (GCB, MMBa, MMBr); the Retina Service the Wills Eye Hospital, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (GCB); the Eye Research Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (GCB, MMBr); the Fraser Eye Care Center, New Orleans, Louisiana (MMBa); and the Research Department Wills Eye Hospital, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (MMBr). The authors have no financial or propriety interest in the materials presented herein. Address correspondence to Gary C. Brown, MD, MBA, Center for Value-Based Medicine, Attending Surgeon, Wills Eye Hospital, Box 335, Flourtown, PA 19031; 215-353-6248; email: brown@valuebasedmedicine.com. 10.3928/23258160-20150213-03

To update concepts in Value-Based Medicine, especially in view of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act assures that some variant of Value-Based Medicine cost-utility analysis will play a key role in the healthcare system. It identifies the highest quality care, thereby maximizing the most efficacious use of healthcare resources and empowering patients and physicians.Standardization is critical for the creation and acceptance of a Value-Based Medicine, cost-utility analysis, information system, since 27 million different input variants can go into a cost-utility analysis. Key among such standards is the use of patient preferences (utilities), as patients best understand the quality of life associated with their health states. The inclusion of societal costs, versus direct medical costs alone, demonstrates that medical interventions are more cost effective and, in many instances, provide a net financial return-on-investment to society referent to the direct medical costs expended. Value-Based Medicine provides a standardized methodology, integrating critical, patient, quality-of-life preferences, and societal costs, to allow the highest quality, most cost-effective care. Central to Value-Based Medicine is the concept that all patients deserve the interventions that provide the greatest patient value (improvement in quality of life and/or length of life).