Maternal mortality has been increasing in the United States over the past 3 decades, while decreasing in all other high‐income countries during the same period. Cardiovascular conditions account for over one fourth of maternal deaths, with two thirds of deaths occurring in the postpartum period. There are also significant healthcare disparities that have been identified in women experiencing maternal morbidity and mortality, with Black women at 3 to 4 times the risk of death as their White counterparts and women in rural areas at heightened risk for cardiovascular morbidity and maternal morbidity. However, many maternal deaths have been shown to be preventable, and improving access to care may be a key solution to addressing maternal cardiovascular mortality. Medicaid currently finances almost half of all births in the United States and is mandated to provide coverage for women with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level, for up to 60 days postpartum. In states that have not expanded coverage, new mothers become uninsured after 60 days. Medicaid expansion has been shown to reduce maternal mortality, particularly benefiting racial and ethnic minorities, likely through reduced insurance churn, improved postpartum access to care, and improved interpregnancy care. However, even among states with Medicaid expansion, significant care gaps exist. An additional proposed intervention to improve access to care in these high‐risk populations is extension of Medicaid coverage for 1 year after delivery, which would provide the most benefit to women in Medicaid nonexpanded states, but also improve care to women in Medicaid expanded states.

e18829 Background: The IMbrave150 trial found that atezolizumab and bevacizumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with locally advanced metastatic or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), compared to sorafenib. However, atezolizumab and bevacizumab are costly treatments and are administered indefinitely until disease progression. Therefore, it is unclear whether atezolizumab-bevacizumab is cost-effective in this clinical setting. Methods: We constructed a partitioned survival model to compare the costs and effectiveness of atezolizumab-bevacizumab to sorafenib in advanced HCC. PFS and OS curves for each treatment strategy were derived from the IMbrave150 trial using parametric survival modeling. The utility of each health state and the costs of treatment, adverse events, and terminal care were derived from literature and Medicare fee schedules. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of atezolizumab-bevacizumab from a US healthcare perspective, using a lifetime horizon, an annual discount rate of 3%, and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of model conclusions. Results: Atezolizumab-bevacizumab was associated with an incremental cost of $102,648 and an incremental effectiveness of 0.42 QALYs compared to sorafenib, leading to an ICER of $244,213/QALY (Table). The price of atezolizumab would need to be reduced by 40% (from ̃$9,400 to ̃$5,700 per dose) or the price of bevacizumab would need to be reduced by 47% (from ̃$8,400 to ̃$4,400 per dose) for atezolizumab-bevacizumab to be cost-effective compared to sorafenib. Alternatively, the price of both atezolizumab and bevacizumab would need to be simultaneously decreased by ̃21% for the combination therapy to be cost-effective. Our model was most sensitive to the hazard ratios (HR) of OS and PFS; varying the HRs across the 95% confidence interval reported in IMbrave150 (0.42-0.79) corresponded to ICERs of $137,435/QALY and $621,365/QALY, respectively. During probabilistic sensitivity analyses, >99%, 99%, and 90% of iterations produced ICERs greater than willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, and $150,000/QALY, respectively. Conclusions: Use of atezolizumab-bevacizumab for advanced HCC is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Significant price reduction of atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab would be required to reduce the ICER to a more widely acceptable value.[Table: see text]

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract