Skip to main content
Log in

Direct economic burden of high-risk and metastatic melanoma in the elderly

Evidence from the SEER-medicare linked database

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

While the clinical implications of advanced melanoma have been extensively documented, little is known about the direct medical costs associated with the disease, particularly for elderly patients who carry the highest disease incidence and morbidity.

Objective

To document resource utilization and costs to the Medicare system for elderly patients with high-risk (stages IIB/C, IIIA/B, IIIC) or metastatic (stage IV) melanoma.

Methods

Data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database combining clinical information on incident cancer cases in the US between 1991 and 2002 with longitudinal (1991–2005) administrative Medicare claims. Subjects aged ≥65 years with at least one stage IIB or higher melanoma diagnosis were selected. An index date was identified corresponding to the first observed stage IIB or higher diagnosis. Subjects were then categorized into mutually exclusive index disease stages, based on the SEER-reported melanoma stage observed at the index date. All subsequent analyses were stratified according to the index disease stage. Subjects without a record of death were required to have at least 6 months of continuous Medicare Part A and Part B benefits coverage before and after their index date. Subjects who died <6 months after their index date were retained for analysis. Resource utilization and costs were evaluated for each patient from index date until death, benefits cessation or end of the database (31 December 2005). Cost data were inflated to 2007 $US and stratified by the care setting in which they were incurred: inpatient hospital, skilled nursing facility, emergency room, physician office, home healthcare, hospice and other ancillary.

Results

6470 subjects met all inclusion criteria. Index stage distribution was: IIB/C (38%), IIIA/B (46%), IIIC (1%) and IV (15%). Median follow-up was 56, 39, 16 and 6 months, respectively. Patients with stage IV disease had 3.1 hospital days per month, compared with 0.5, 0.6 and 1.1 days for stage IIB/C, IIIA/B and IIIC patients, respectively. Adjusted inpatient costs for stage IV subjects were $US5565 per patient per month versus $US1031, $US1440 and $US2275 for stage IIB/C, IIIA/B and IIIC patients, respectively (p < 0.0001). Adjusted total costs were $US11 471 per month for stage IV subjects, compared with $US2338, $US3395 and $US6885 for stages IIB/C, IIIA/B and IIIC, respectively (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The per-patient cost of advanced melanoma is high. Hospital services are the largest component of these costs. Monthly costs for subjects with stage IV melanoma were 67% higher than costs for subjects with stage IIIC disease and >3-fold higher than costs for patients with stages IIIA/B and IIB/C. However, when combining estimated monthly costs with median follow-up duration (a proxy for survival time), total costs incurred by Medicare appear to be highest for patients diagnosed at stage IIIA/B.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Table I
Table II
Table III
Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society (ACS). Cancer facts and figures 2007. Atlanta (GA): American Cancer Society, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  2. Goldstein BG, Goldstein AO. Diagnosis and management of malignant melanoma. Am Fam Physician 2001; 63(7): 1359–68

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lachiewicz AM, Berwick M, Wiggins CL, et al. Epidemiologic support for melanoma heterogeneity using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. J Invest Dermatol 2008; 128(5): 1340–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dale PS, Foshag LJ, Wanek LA, et al. Metastasis ofprimary melanoma to two separate lymph node basins: prognostic significance. Ann Surg Oncol 1997; 4(1): 13–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Markovic SN, Erickson LA, Rao RD, et al. Malignant melanoma in the 21st century, part 2: staging, prognosis, and treatment. Mayo Clin Proc 2007; 82(4): 490–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hillner BE, Kirkwood JM, Agarwala SS. Burden of illness associated with metastatic melanoma: an audit of 100 consecutive referral center cases. Cancer 2001; 91(9): 1814–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tsao H, Rogers GS, Sober AJ. An estimate of the annual direct cost of treating cutaneous melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol 1998; 38(5 Pt 1): 669–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, et al. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care 2002a; 40(8 Suppl.): IV3–18

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nattinger AB, McAuliffe TL, Schapira MM. General-izability of the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results registry population: factors relevant to epidemiologic and health care research. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50(8): 939–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Warren JL, Harlan LC, Fahey A, et al. Utility of the SEER-Medicare data to identify chemotherapy use. Med Care 2002b; 40(8 Suppl.): IV55–61

    Google Scholar 

  11. Virnig BA, Warren JL, Cooper GS, et al. Studying radiation therapy using SEER-Medicare linked data. Med Care 2002; 40(8 Suppl.): IV49–54

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cooper GS, Virnig B, Klabunde CN, et al. Use of SEER-Medicare data for measuring cancer surgery. Med Care 2002; 40(8 Suppl.): IV43–8

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brown ML, Riley GF, Schussler N, et al. Estimating health care costs related to cancer treatment from SEER-Medicare data. Med Care 2002; 40(8 Suppl.): IV104–17

    Google Scholar 

  14. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 6th ed. Wickford: Lippincott Raven Publishers, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hershman D, Hall MJ, Wang X, et al. Timing of adjuvant chemotherapy initiation after surgery for stage III colon cancer. Cancer 2006; 107(11): 2581–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sundararajan V, Hershman D, Grann VR, et al. Variations in the use of chemotherapy for elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer: a population-based study. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20(1): 173–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis 1987; 40(5): 373–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45(6): 613–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wedderburn RWM. Quasi-likelihood functions, generalized linear models, and the Gauss-Newton method. Biometrika 1974; 61: 439–47

    Google Scholar 

  20. Manning WG, Mullahy J. Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform? J Health Econ 2001; 20: 461–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Manning WG. The logged dependent variable, heteroscedasticity, and the retransformation problem. J Health Econ 1998; 17: 283–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Losina E, Barrett J, Baron JA, et al. Accuracy of Medicare claims data for rheumatologic diagnoses in total hip replacement recipients. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56(6): 515–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Newcomer R, Clay T, Luxenberg JS, et al. Misclassification and selection bias when identifying Alzheimer’s disease solely from Medicare claims records. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999; 47(2): 215–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study and the preparation of this article were funded by Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) Co. Keith Davis and Debanjali Mitra were responsible for the acquisition, management and analysis of all study data. Mr Davis and Ms Mitra also assisted with development of the study design and interpretation of the analysis results, and were primary authors of the article text. Srividya Kotapati assisted in developing the study design, interpretation of analysis results and drafting of the article text. Ramy Ibrahim and Jedd Wolchok assisted with interpretation of the analysis results and drafting of the article text. Mr Davis and Ms Mitra are employees of RTI Health Solutions, the research organization contracted by BMS to conduct this study. Drs Kotapati and Ibrahim are employees of BMS, and Dr Ibrahim also owns stocks in BMS. Dr Wolchok is an employee of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and is a paid advisory board member for BMS and Medarex. Portions of the study data presented in this article were previously presented in poster format at the 2008 North American meeting of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). The authors would also like to thank Izzy Pike, MD, for his valuable clinical insights provided throughout this study on issues of melanoma staging, treatments and other parameters relevant to the variable definitions used in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith L. Davis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davis, K.L., Mitra, D., Kotapati, S. et al. Direct economic burden of high-risk and metastatic melanoma in the elderly. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 7, 31–41 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03256140

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03256140

Keywords

Navigation