Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Review article: Biomedical intelligence

Vol. 147 No. 4748 (2017)

Costs and benefits of diagnostic testing: four ways to improve patient care by purposive use of in vitro diagnostics

DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2017.14546
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2017;147:w14546
Published
20.11.2017

Abstract

Scientific advances and innovative targeted drugs, especially biologics, have revolutionised the treatment of many diseases. In oncology in particular, previously acute or lethal conditions have come to be considered chronic as new treatments have led to longer life expectancies and a lower rate of years lived with disability. These advances, however, come with rising costs in a resource-constrained environment. To achieve cost containment, reimbursement for in-vitro diagnostics (IVDs) is increasingly coming under pressure because they are perceived as a cost factor rather than as a tool to reduce expenditure in the long term. In this conceptual paper, we propose four possible interventions from an industry perspective that may contribute to increase effectiveness of IVD use to counteract increasing healthcare expenditures. These are: (1) fostering prevention, screening, early diagnosis and therapy; promoting (2) comprehensive and (3) stratified disease management; and (4) using targeted treatment alongside companion diagnostics. We conclude that the implementation of policies that promote a fee-for-outcome model rather than fee-for-service reimbursement can support sustainable healthcare.

References

  1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National Health Expenditure Fact Sheet. 2016. [Cited August 15, 2016.] Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NHE-Fact-Sheet.html.
  2. de la Maisonneuve C, Martins J. Public spending on health and long-term care: a new set of projections. OECD Economic Policy Papers 6. 2013. [Cited July 12, 2016.] Available from: http://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/Health%20FINAL.pdf.
  3. Kaplan RS, Porter ME. How to solve the cost crisis in health care. Harv Bus Rev. 2011;89(9):46–52, 54, 56–61 passim.
  4. Petry U, Huang J, Hertz D, Taggart C, Armstrong S, McQuilling C, et al. Modelling the health economic impact of HPV primary screening with p16/Ki67 dual-stain cytology triage in Germany. Abstract HPV15-0258 presented at 30th International Papillomavirus Conference & Clinical Public Health Workshops. 2015. [Cited July 12, 2016.] Available from: http://www.hpv2015.org/Documents/HPV15%20Abstracts%20for%20after%20conference%20unlocked.pdf.
  5. Sharma P, Scotland G, Cruickshank M, Tassie E, Fraser C, Burton C, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care tests (CoaguChek system, INRatio2 PT/INR monitor and ProTime Microcoagulation system) for the self-monitoring of the coagulation status of people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy, compared with standard UK practice: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(48):1–172. doi:.https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19480
  6. Vyberg M, Nielsen S, Røge R, Sheppard B, Ranger-Moore J, Walk E, et al. Immunohistochemical expression of HER2 in breast cancer: socioeconomic impact of inaccurate tests. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):352. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1018-6
  7. Cheng C-M, Kuan C-M, Chen C-F. In-vitro diagnostic devices: Introduction to current point-of-care. 2016. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.
  8. Rohr UP, Binder C, Dieterle T, Giusti F, Messina CG, Toerien E, et al. The value of in vitro diagnostic testing in medical practice: a status report. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0149856. doi:. Correction in: PLoS ONE11(4): e0154008. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149856
  9. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635–45. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa022615
  10. Lewin Group for the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed). The value of diagnostics innovation, adoption and diffusion into health care. 2005. [Cited July 12, 2016.] Available from: http://www.lewin.com/content/dam/Lewin/Resources/Site_Sections/Publications/ValueofDiagnostics.pdf.
  11. Zhi M, Ding EL, Theisen-Toupal J, Whelan J, Arnaout R. The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15-year meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e78962. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078962
  12. Lippi G, Mattiuzzi C. Testing volume is not synonymous of cost, value and efficacy in laboratory diagnostics. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013;51(2):243–5. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2012-0502
  13. Reeves A, Basu S, McKee M, Sandgren A, Stuckler D, Semenza JC. Tuberculosis control and economic recession: longitudinal study of data from 21 European countries, 1991-2012. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93(6):369–79. doi:.https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.14.142356
  14. World Health Organization. Implementing the End TB strategy: the essentials. WHO/HTM/TB/2015.31. 2015. Geneva, Switzerland; World Health Organization. Available from: http://www.who.int/entity/tb/publications/2015/end_tb_essential.pdf.
  15. Raviglione M, Sulis G. Tuberculosis 2015: Burden, challenges and strategy for control and elimination. Infect Dis Rep. 2016;8(2):6570. doi:.https://doi.org/10.4081/idr.2016.6570
  16. Davis JC, Furstenthal L, Desai AA, Norris T, Sutaria S, Fleming E, et al. The microeconomics of personalized medicine: today’s challenge and tomorrow’s promise. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009;8(4):279–86. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2825
  17. Cancer Research UK. Saving lives, averting costs: An analysis of the financial implications of achieving earlier diagnosis of colorectal, lung and ovarian cancer. 2014. [Cited July 12, 2016.] Available from: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/saving_lives_averting_costs.pdf.
  18. Food and Drug Administration The public health evidence for FDA oversight of laboratory developed tests: 20 case studies. 2015. Rockville, MD: US Food and Drug Administration. [Cited July 12, 2016.] Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/UCM472777.pdf.
  19. GLOBOCAN. Cervical cancer: estimated incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr/old/FactSheets/cancers/cervix-new.asp.
  20. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah KV, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol. 1999;189(1):12–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199909)189:1<12::AID-PATH431>3.0.CO;2-F
  21. Chesson HW, Ekwueme DU, Saraiya M, Watson M, Lowy DR, Markowitz LE. Estimates of the annual direct medical costs of the prevention and treatment of disease associated with human papillomavirus in the United States. Vaccine. 2012;30(42):6016–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.07.056
  22. National Cancer Institute. National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER). Program Cancer of the Cervix Uteri – SEER Stat Fact Sheets. 2016. [Cited July 12, 2016.] Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html.
  23. Kim JJ, Goldie SJ. Health and economic implications of HPV vaccination in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(8):821–32. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0707052
  24. Bosch FX, Lorincz A, Muñoz N, Meijer CJ, Shah KV. The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2002;55(4):244–65. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.55.4.244
  25. Cuschieri K, Brewster DH, Graham C, Nicoll S, Williams AR, Murray GI, et al. Influence of HPV type on prognosis in patients diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer. Int J Cancer. 2014;135(11):2721–6. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.28902
  26. Leyden WA, Manos MM, Geiger AM, Weinmann S, Mouchawar J, Bischoff K, et al. Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(9):675–83. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji115
  27. Wright TC, Jr, Stoler MH, Sharma A, Zhang G, Behrens C, Wright TL ; ATHENA (Addressing THE Need for Advanced HPV Diagnostics) Study Group. Evaluation of HPV-16 and HPV-18 genotyping for the triage of women with high-risk HPV+ cytology-negative results. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;136(4):578–86. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPTUS5EXAS6DKZ
  28. Cox JT, Castle PE, Behrens CM, Sharma A, Wright TC, Jr, Cuzick J ; Athena HPV Study Group. Comparison of cervical cancer screening strategies incorporating different combinations of cytology, HPV testing, and genotyping for HPV 16/18: results from the ATHENA HPV study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(3):184.e1–11. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.11.020
  29. Levine RJ, Maynard SE, Qian C, Lim KH, England LJ, Yu KF, et al. Circulating angiogenic factors and the risk of preeclampsia. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(7):672–83. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa031884
  30. Levine RJ, Lam C, Qian C, Yu KF, Maynard SE, Sachs BP, et al.; CPEP Study Group. Soluble endoglin and other circulating antiangiogenic factors in preeclampsia. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(10):992–1005. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa055352
  31. Vatten LJ, Eskild A, Nilsen TI, Jeansson S, Jenum PA, Staff AC. Changes in circulating level of angiogenic factors from the first to second trimester as predictors of preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(3):239.e1–6. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.10.909
  32. Verlohren S, Galindo A, Schlembach D, Zeisler H, Herraiz I, Moertl MG, et al. An automated method for the determination of the sFlt-1/PIGF ratio in the assessment of preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(2):161.e1–11. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.09.016
  33. Verlohren S, Herraiz I, Lapaire O, Schlembach D, Moertl M, Zeisler H, et al. The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in different types of hypertensive pregnancy disorders and its prognostic potential in preeclamptic patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(1):58.e1–8. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.07.037
  34. Villa PM, Hämäläinen E, Mäki A, Räikkönen K, Pesonen AK, Taipale P, et al. Vasoactive agents for the prediction of early- and late-onset preeclampsia in a high-risk cohort. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13(1):110. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-110
  35. Rana S, Powe CE, Salahuddin S, Verlohren S, Perschel FH, Levine RJ, et al. Angiogenic factors and the risk of adverse outcomes in women with suspected preeclampsia. Circulation. 2012;125(7):911–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.054361
  36. Zeisler H, Llurba E, Chantraine F, Vatish M, Staff AC, Sennström M, et al. Predictive value of the sFlt-1:PlGF ratio in women with suspected preeclampsia. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(1):13–22. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1414838
  37. Seely EW, Solomon CG. Improving the prediction of preeclampsia. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(1):83–4. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe1515223
  38. Heidenreich PA, Trogdon JG, Khavjou OA, Butler J, Dracup K, Ezekowitz MD, et al.; American Heart Association Advocacy Coordinating Committee; Stroke Council; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; Council on Arteriosclerosis; Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiopulmonary; Critical Care; Perioperative and Resuscitation; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease; Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, and Interdisciplinary Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research. Forecasting the future of cardiovascular disease in the United States: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123(8):933–44. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e31820a55f5
  39. Adlbrecht C, Huelsmann M, Berger R, Moertl D, Strunk G, Oesterle A, et al. Cost analysis and cost-effectiveness of NT-proBNP-guided heart failure specialist care in addition to home-based nurse care. Eur J Clin Invest. 2011;41(3):315–22. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2362.2010.02412.x
  40. Siebert U, Januzzi JL, Jr, Beinfeld MT, Cameron R, Gazelle GS. Cost-effectiveness of using N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide to guide the diagnostic assessment and management of dyspneic patients in the emergency department. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98(6):800–5. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.06.005
  41. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Chronic heart failure in adults: management. NICE Guideline CG10]. 2010. [Cited July 12, 2016.] Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/Cg108.
  42. Vargas GA. Personalized healthcare: how to improve outcomes by increasing benefit and decreasing risk through the use of biomarkers. Biomarkers Med. 2009;3(6):701–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.2217/bmm.09.74
  43. Tezak Z, Kondratovich MV, Mansfield EUS. FDA and Personalized Medicine: In vitro Diagnostic Regulatory Perspective. Per Med. 2010;7(5):517–30. doi:.https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.10.53
  44. Schwaederle M, Zhao M, Lee JJ, Eggermont AM, Schilsky RL, Mendelsohn J, et al. Impact of precision medicine in diverse cancers: A meta-analysis of phase II clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(32):3817–25. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.61.5997
  45. Lopez-Chavez A, Thomas A, Rajan A, Raffeld M, Morrow B, Kelly R, et al. Molecular profiling and targeted therapy for advanced thoracic malignancies: a biomarker-derived, multiarm, multihistology phase II basket trial. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(9):1000–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.58.2007
  46. Slamon DJ, Godolphin W, Jones LA, Holt JA, Wong SG, Keith DE, et al. Studies of the HER-2/neu proto-oncogene in human breast and ovarian cancer. Science. 1989;244(4905):707–12. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2470152
  47. Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987;235(4785):177–82. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3798106
  48. World Health Organization. WHO Model List of Essential Medicines 19th List (April 2015). (Amended August 2015). 2015. [Cited July 12, 2016.] Available from: http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/EML2015_8-May-15.pdf.
  49. Miller I, Ashton-Chess J, Spolders H, Fert V, Ferrara J, Kroll W, et al. Market access challenges in the EU for high medical value diagnostic tests. Per Med. 2011;8(2):137–48. doi:.https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.11.2
  50. Genentech Inc. Herceptin package insert. May 11, 2017. Available from: http://medlibrary.org/lib/rx/meds/herceptin.
  51. de Ruyter KD, Wetzels M, Lemmink J, Mattson J. The dynamics of the service delivery process: a value-based approach. Int J Res Mark. 1997;14(3):231–43. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(97)00004-9
  52. Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477–81. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1011024
  53. Desiere F, Gutjahr TS, Rohr UP. Developing companion diagnostics for delivering personalised medicine: opportunities and challenges. Drug Discov Today Ther Strateg. 2013;10(4):e175–81. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ddstr.2013.05.002
  54. Fischer KE, Stargardt T. Early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals in Germany: manufacturers’ expectations versus the Federal Joint Committee’s decisions. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(8):1030–47. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14546377
  55. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Summary of VELCADE Response Scheme. 2007. [Cited July 12, 2016.] Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta129/documents/department-of-health-summary-of-responder-scheme2.
  56. Sotiropoulos A. Pricing pharmaceuticals by outcome. 2011. [Cited August 8, 2016.] Available from: http://www.2020publicservicestrust.org/downloads/7_Pricing_Pharmaceuticals_by_Outcome.pdf.
  57. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare “Accountable Care Organizations” Shared Savings Program – New Section 1899 of Title XVIII, Preliminary Questions & Answers. [Cited April 18, 2015.] Available from: https://www.aamc.org/download/131932/data/acoqa.pdf.
  58. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2015). Accountable Care Organizations (ACO). [Cited August 15, 2016.] Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/ACO/index.html?redirect=/aco.
  59. Hallworth MJ. Improving clinical outcomes - towards patient-centred laboratory medicine. Ann Clin Biochem. 2015;52(Pt 6):715–6. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1177/0004563215595431
  60. Lewin Group for the American Clinical Laboratory Association and the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed). The value of laboratory screening and diagnostic tests for prevention and health care improvement. 2009. [Cited August 16, 2016.] Available from: http://www.chi.org/uploadedFiles/Industry_at_a_glance/Lewin%20Report%20on%20Dx%20Tests%20(2009).pdf.
  61. Kane RL, Johnson PE, Town RJ, Butler M. Economic Incentives for Preventive Care. 2004. Rockville, MD, USA: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 1998–2005. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11845/.
  62. Mehrotra A, An R, Patel DN, Sturm R. Impact of a patient incentive program on receipt of preventive care. Am J Manag Care. 2014;20(6):494–501.
  63. Swiss Cancer Screening. Available from: https://www.swisscancerscreening.ch/.
  64. Krebsliga. Darmkrebs-Screening-Programm. June 25, 2013. Available from: https://www.krebsliga.ch/krebs-vorbeugen/krebs-frueh-erkennen-und-vorbeugen/darmkrebs/darmkrebs-screening-programm/
  65. Sperrin M, Thew S, Weatherall J, Dixon W, Buchan I. Quantifying the longitudinal value of healthcare record collections for pharmacoepidemiology. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2011;2011:1318–25.
  66. Deloite, AdvaMed, AdvaMedDx. Framework for Comprehensive Assessment of the Value of Diagnostic Tests. Available from: https://www.advamed.org/sites/default/files/resource/advameddiagnosticframeworkreport_09.pdf.
  67. Lippi G, Plebani M, Graber ML. Building a bridge to safe diagnosis in health care. The role of the clinical laboratory. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2016;54(1):1–3. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2015-1135
  68. Piva E, Pelloso M, Penello L, Plebani M. Laboratory critical values: automated notification supports effective clinical decision making. Clin Biochem. 2014;47(13-14):1163–8. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.05.056
  69. Schwartz A, Weiner SJ, Weaver F, Yudkowsky R, Sharma G, Binns-Calvey A, et al. Uncharted territory: measuring costs of diagnostic errors outside the medical record. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(11):918–24. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000832
  70. Newman-Toker DE, Pronovost PJ. Diagnostic errors--the next frontier for patient safety. JAMA. 2009;301(10):1060–2. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.249
  71. Organisation Mondiale de la Santé Animale. Chapter 1.1.2: Principles and methods of validation of diagnostic assays for infectious diseases. In: Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals. 2017. Available at: http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/aahm/current/chapitre_validation_diagnostics_assays.pdf
  72. Mattocks CJ, Morris MA, Matthijs G, Swinnen E, Corveleyn A, Dequeker E, et al.; EuroGentest Validation Group. A standardized framework for the validation and verification of clinical molecular genetic tests. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18(12):1276–88. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2010.101
  73. Ferrante di Ruffano L, Davenport C, Eisinga A, Hyde C, Deeks JJ. A capture-recapture analysis demonstrated that randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of diagnostic tests on patient outcomes are rare. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(3):282–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.07.003
  74. Hallworth MJ, Epner PL, Ebert C, Fantz CR, Faye SA, Higgins TN, et al.; IFCC Task Force on the Impact of Laboratory Medicine on Clinical Management and Outcomes. Current evidence and future perspectives on the effective practice of patient-centered laboratory medicine. Clin Chem. 2015;61(4):589–99. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2014.232629
  75. Schäfer H, Filser L, Rohr U, Laubender R, Dieterle T, Maitland R, et al. Medical value as a new strategy to increase corporate viability: Market chances and limitations in the diagnostic industry. Journal of Entrepreneurship & Organization Management. 2015;4:1000131.
  76. Schäfer H, Filser L, Rohr U, Messina C, Laubender R, Dieterle T, et al. The diagnostic industry in a changing health care environment: a focus on the value component. J Manag Res. 2015;15:91–100.
  77. American Board of Internal Medicine. Choosing wisely. [Cited July 12, 2016.] Available from: http://www.choosingwisely.org/.
  78. Swiss Society of General Internal Medicine. Smarter Medicine. 2014. [Cited July 12, 2016.] Available from: www.smartermedicine.ch.

Most read articles by the same author(s)