• Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM)
  • Vaccines: 2023 Year in Review
  • Eyecare
  • Urothelial Carcinoma
  • Women's Health
  • Hemophilia
  • Heart Failure
  • Vaccines
  • Neonatal Care
  • NSCLC
  • Type II Inflammation
  • Substance Use Disorder
  • Gene Therapy
  • Lung Cancer
  • Spinal Muscular Atrophy
  • HIV
  • Post-Acute Care
  • Liver Disease
  • Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
  • Biologics
  • Asthma
  • Atrial Fibrillation
  • Type I Diabetes
  • RSV
  • COVID-19
  • Cardiovascular Diseases
  • Breast Cancer
  • Prescription Digital Therapeutics
  • Reproductive Health
  • The Improving Patient Access Podcast
  • Blood Cancer
  • Ulcerative Colitis
  • Respiratory Conditions
  • Multiple Sclerosis
  • Digital Health
  • Population Health
  • Sleep Disorders
  • Biosimilars
  • Plaque Psoriasis
  • Leukemia and Lymphoma
  • Oncology
  • Pediatrics
  • Urology
  • Obstetrics-Gynecology & Women's Health
  • Opioids
  • Solid Tumors
  • Autoimmune Diseases
  • Dermatology
  • Diabetes
  • Mental Health

Objectives of Cost Effective Analysis

Opinion
Video

Explanation of the cost-effectiveness analysis and additional factors involved when treating C. Difficile with REBYOTA.

Dr. Paul Feuerstadt: Michael, can you walk us through what the objectives were for this analysis and provide a study overview?

Dr. Michael Kobernick: …[So] I think the first question … is why do health [insurance] plans care about cost-effectiveness? I think we want to touch on that first and we have a fiduciary responsibility to the commercial, the employers, to Medicare when we’re managing Medicare and Medicare Advantage. So part of our work is to make sure that everybody’s healthcare dollars are spent wisely and so to that extent, we look carefully at clinical efficacy in the evaluation of treatments and to a lesser extent, but important extent, we look at cost and cost being related to value as I mentioned before, value being the relationship between cost and outcome. So here the question in the study was raised, is: Is this treatment, RBL, is this cost effective? In other words, does it have the ability to improve an outcome at a cost that is better than the alternative treatment? So the way we think of that in this study was the question really was, compared [with] the standard of care, is this a cost effective treatment? Does it cost less to give the treatment in light of the complications than it does to continue with the current standard of care? It’s not the clinical trial. Clinical trial, we’ve already proven the effectiveness of a medication. Really, this is a question that talks about the cost effectiveness because the downstream cost, as you were mentioning things, the complications of the recurrences are a significant cost.

Transcript is AI-generated and edited for clarity and readability.

Related Videos
Video 8 - "Gaps in Evidence Generation for Digital Therapeutics"
Video 7 - "Adoption Lessons For Payers"
Video 10 - "Managing Self Care"
Video 3 - "Embracing and Improving Access to Technology Tools"
Video 4 - "Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Prescription Digital Therapeutics "
Video 3 - "Harnessing Prescription Drug Therapeutics as Monotherapy and Adjunct Therapy"
Video 8 - "Demographic Differences That Impact Care"
Video 7 - "Gaps in Diabetes Education and Self Efficacy"
Video 6 - "Developing Reimbursement Models for Digital Therapeutics"
Video 5 - "Cost-Effectiveness Metrics Payers Seek for Digital Therapeutics"
© 2024 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.