Cargando…
Travel-Related Economic Burden of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy Administration by Site of Care
INTRODUCTION: We previously examined how expanding access to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy administration sites impacted patient travel distances and time. In the current study, we estimated travel-related economic burden associated with site-of-care options among patients with rela...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Healthcare
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8342383/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34279805 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-021-01839-y |
Sumario: | INTRODUCTION: We previously examined how expanding access to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy administration sites impacted patient travel distances and time. In the current study, we estimated travel-related economic burden associated with site-of-care options among patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma. METHODS: We used geographic information system methods to quantify travel-related economic burden across three site-of-care scenarios: academic hospitals; academic and community multispecialty hospitals; and academic and community multispecialty hospitals plus nonacademic specialty oncology network centers. Socioeconomic status, administration sites, and county of residence were derived from the US Census Bureau and publicly available sources. Travel costs were based on governmental guidelines, US census wage data, and Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Travel distance and time to the nearest CAR T cell therapy administration sites were estimated from previous research. RESULTS: Total national estimated costs associated with traveling for CAR T cell therapy were $21.1 million if CAR T cell therapy was offered exclusively in academic hospitals, and $14.7 million if expanded to include community hospitals plus nonacademic specialty oncology network centers, representing a $6.5-million reduction associated with expanding access to eligible patients. The largest cost-saving component was lodging/meals. Regional and demographic cost differences were statistically significant between academic hospitals and nonacademic hospitals/specialty oncology centers. In all scenarios, patients living below the federal poverty level (FPL) had higher weighted mean total costs versus patients living above the FPL. White and Native American patients were estimated to have the highest weighted mean total costs across race/ethnicity groups. For all subgroups, costs were reduced by expanding access beyond academic hospitals. CONCLUSION: CAR T cell therapy is currently restricted to academic hospitals; total travel costs could be substantially decreased if access is expanded to nonacademic hospitals and specialty oncology centers. Patients in rural areas and those living below the FPL are particularly disadvantaged by restricted access. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01839-y. |
---|