Metastatic colorectal cancer chemo costs double in Washington vs. British Columbia

First-line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer costs twice as much in western Washington state as it does just across the border in British Columbia, Canada, but the more costly therapy does not net better survival, finds a cohort study reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Differences between the United States and Canada in health care systems are well established, with a multipayer mix of private and public insurers in the former, and a single-payer, universal, public system in the latter, lead study author Todd Yezefski, MD, a senior fellow at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and the University of Washington School of Medicine, noted in a press briefing.

“Several studies have shown that overall health care utilization and costs in the U.S. are higher than in Canada. However, outcomes are generally similar, if not worse, in the U.S.,” he commented. “There have really been few studies, though, that have looked at treatment patterns, costs, and outcomes associated with a specific disease such as colorectal cancer.”

Results of the study of 2,197 patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer showed that the monthly cost for first-line systemic therapy exceeded $12,000 in western Washington state (excluding Medicare beneficiaries), compared with about $6,000 in British Columbia, even though the leading regimen in the latter region contained a targeted therapy. At the same time, median overall survival for patients given systemic therapy was essentially the same, approaching 2 years.

“Despite significantly higher costs, patients in western Washington didn’t do any better than those in British Columbia. Another way of saying this is they got the same bang for more buck,” Dr. Yezefski summarized. “Drug prices in Canada are generally set by the government. In the United States, we believe that if Medicare is allowed to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, drug prices can be lower, and private insurers will oftentimes follow suit.”

In future work, the investigators plan to repeat analyses after including Medicare patients in the western Washington cohort (likely rendering the two groups more comparable) and to assess other aspects of health care utilization, such as total duration of chemotherapy, hospital use, radiation therapy, and surgery.

Dr. Robert Schilsky

“The United States is probably the only country in the world where we actually have no real way of constraining the cost of health care. Certainly, that pertains to the cost of drugs,” commented Richard L. Schilsky, MD, FACP, FASCO, chief medical officer of ASCO and moderator of the press briefing. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration considers only the safety and efficacy of drugs when deciding whether they should be allowed on the market, he noted. “Once they are on the market, Medicare is generally required by law to pay for the cost of drugs, and the private insurers typically follow suit. So there really is no way to put any brakes on the system, which is not the case in most other health care systems in the world.” Other countries generally have a second agency or appointed body that performs some type of value assessment to determine whether the health care system can actually afford to offer the drug to the population. “That, of course, is a hypothesized reason for why, in Canada, you can get what would generally be considered a very expensive treatment regimen in the U.S. at half the cost of what it takes to deliver a similar regimen in the U.S. and still get equivalent outcomes,” Dr. Schilsky said.