The budget impact of introducing the OMNI® surgical system to a United States health plan for managing mild-to-moderate primary open-angle glaucoma

ABSTRACT

Objectives

Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery devices fill an unmet need in the treatment paradigm between topical intraocular pressure medicines and more invasive filtration procedures. This study evaluated the adoption of The OMNI® Surgical System with or without cataract surgery in primary open-angle glaucoma patients.

Methods

A budget impact analysis estimated costs before and after adoption of OMNI® to a hypothetical US health plan with 1 million Medicare-covered lives over two years. Model input data were derived from published sources and development of the model included primary research with key opinion leaders and payers. The model compared total annual direct costs for OMNI® versus other treatment options (medications, other minimally invasive surgical procedures, selective laser trabeculoplasty) to calculate budget impact. A one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess parameter uncertainty.

Results

Increased adoption of OMNI® resulted in budget neutrality over the two years with a decrease in total costs of $35,362. Per member per month incremental costs were $0.00 when used without cataract surgery and yielded cost savings of -$0.01 when used with cataract surgery. Sensitivity analysis confirmed model robustness and identified surgical center fee variability as a key driver of costs.

Conclusion

OMNI® is budgetary efficient from a US payer perspective.

KEYWORDS:

• budget impact
• economic model
• glaucoma
• microinvasive glaucoma surgery
• minimally invasive glaucoma surgery
• OMNI
• primary open angle glaucoma
• United States

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2023.2217357.

Declaration of interest

G Mader, C Patel and C Masseria are affiliated with AESARA, which is a consulting firm commissioned by Sight Sciences that funded this work. F Ghinelli and F Torelli are affiliated with Valid Insight, which is a consulting firm commissioned by Sight Sciences that funded this work. J Dickerson is an active employee at Sight Sciences. D Nguyen received honoraria from Sight Sciences. L Cantor received honoraria from Sight Sciences; received consulting fees from Santen, Zeiss Meditec, Elios Vision, Avellino Labs (in the past two years). The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

Reviewer disclosures

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Author contributions

This contribution represents original work that has not been previously published or simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere. This manuscript has been read and approved by all the authors for publication. Author contributions are provided below.

Analysis, interpretation, and dissemination: G Mader, C Masseria, C Patel.

Model development: F Ghinelli, F Torelli.

Manuscript development: G Mader, C Masseria, C Patel.

Supervision and Clinical Insight: J Dickerson, D Nguyen, L Cantor.

Additional information

Funding

Sight Sciences (Menlo Park, CA) funded all costs associated with the development of this publication.