Role Of Cost-effectiveness Analysis Research Articles

Expectations for the Development of Health Technology Assessment in Brazil.

The implementation of health technology assessment (HTA) in emerging countries depends on the characteristics of the health care system and the needs of public health care. The objective of this survey was to investigate experts’ expectations for the development of HTA in Brazil and to derive measures to strengthen the impact of HTA in Brazil on health care decisions. Based on a scoping literature review, a questionnaire was developed proposing eight theses for seven domains of HTA: (i) capacity building, (ii) public involvement, (iii) role of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), (iv) institutional framework, (v) scope of HTA studies, (vi) methodology of HTA, and (vii) HTA as the basis for jurisdiction. Thirty experts responded in full to the survey and agreed to five of the eight theses proposed. Experts suggested several measures to promote HTA within the scope of each domain, thus addressing capacity building related to HTA, availability, and reliability of population data, and legal endowment of the HTA system. Finally, HTA processes in Brazil should also address public health issues (e.g., appraisal of interventions directed at chronic diseases).

OP414 The Influence Of Cost-Effectiveness Evidence And Other Factors On China's National Reimbursement Drug Listing Decisions

IntroductionChina's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) covers medicines that are included in national health insurance schemes. NRDL updates take into account evidence and recommendations of experts from the fields of medicine, health economics, pharmacy and health policy. A negotiation mechanism between the government and manufacturers was introduced in 2017 to include a more detailed evaluation and negotiation for high cost drugs. However, the values that are considered in NRDL decision making are not well-understood. This study aims to investigate the influence of available evidence and other factors on coverage decisions.MethodsOutcomes of the 2017 and 2018 NRDL negotiations were analyzed. Logistic regression was used to investigate factors associated with listing decisions. Ordinary least squares and Tobit regression were used to investigate factors associated with negotiated price discounts. Independent variables were published cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), disease area, burden of disease (disability-adjusted life years), company ownership (domestic or foreign) and regulatory approval year.ResultsTwenty-eight out of sixty-two negotiated drugs had one or more published CEA studies in the English or Chinese language, although neither the presence of a study nor the central ICER estimates were predictive of price discount or listing. A longer time since regulatory approval was a significant predictor of listing (p < 0.05). Disease area (oncology) and ownership (foreign) were significant predictors of a higher price discount (p < 0.01).ConclusionsThe NRDL plays a key role in providing access to healthcare for the 95 percent of China's population that is covered by public insurance. We found several factors that were associated with reimbursement decisions. Many of the medicines in the NRDL negotiation have CEA evidence, although the role of CEA in reimbursement decision making in China remains inconclusive.

The Role of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Global Anesthesia.

The Role of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Global Anesthesia.

The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in the development of indicators to support incentive-based behaviour in primary care in England.

In England, general practitioners are incentivized through a national pay-for-performance scheme to adopt evidence-based quality improvement initiatives using a portfolio of Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) indicators. We describe the development of the methods used to assess the cost-effectiveness of these pay-for-performance indicators and how they have contributed to the development of new indicators. Prior to analysis of new potential indicators, an economic subgroup of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Indicator Advisory Committee is formed to assess evidence on the cost-effectiveness of potential indicators in terms of the health benefits gained, compared to the cost of the intervention and the cost of the incentive. The expert subgroup is convened to reach consensus on the amounts that could potentially be paid to general practices for achieving new indicators. Indicators are also piloted in selected general practices and evidence gathered about their practical implementation. The methods used to assess economic viability of new pilot indicators represent a pragmatic and effective way of providing information to inform recommendations. Current policy to reduce QOF funding could shift the focus from national (QOF) to local schemes, with economic appraisal remaining central.

The Role of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Developing Nutrition Policy

Concern about the overconsumption of unhealthy foods is growing worldwide. With high global rates of noncommunicable diseases related to poor nutrition and projections of more rapid increases of rates in low- and middle-income countries, it is vital to identify effective but low-cost interventions. Cost-effectiveness studies show that individually targeted dietary interventions can be effective and cost-effective, but a growing number of modeling studies suggest that population-wide approaches may bring larger and more sustained benefits for population health at a lower cost to society. Mandatory regulation of salt in processed foods, in particular, is highly recommended. Future research should focus on lacunae in the current evidence base: effectiveness of interventions addressing the marketing, availability, and price of healthy and unhealthy foods; modeling health impacts of complex dietary changes and multi-intervention strategies; and modeling health implications in diverse subpopulations to identify interventions that will most efficiently and effectively reduce health inequalities.

Cost-Effectiveness of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Patients with Atypical Cytology for the Detection of Urothelial Carcinoma

Patients with atypical cytology and equivocal or negative cystoscopy pose a challenge due to uncertainty about the presence of cancer. We determined the cost-effectiveness of using fluorescence in situ hybridization assays to determine the need for biopsy in patients with atypical cytology and equivocal or negative cystoscopy. Data from 2 large prospective studies evaluating the usefulness of fluorescence in situ hybridization in the setting of atypical cytology to detect urothelial carcinoma were combined. The data were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity for the UroVysion fluorescence in situ hybridization assay in various clinical scenarios. Cost data were obtained from our institution and Medicare reimbursement rates. Evaluations with or without bladder biopsy and with or without upper tract evaluation were considered. The study included 263 patients with atypical cytology and equivocal (62) or negative (201) cystoscopy. In patients with equivocal cystoscopy (assuming biopsy was performed in the operating room) biopsy based on fluorescence in situ hybridization results saved $1,740 per patient ($3,267 vs $1,527 per patient) and avoided 42 biopsies compared to biopsy in all patients. If office based biopsies were used then cost savings using fluorescence in situ hybridization results were $95 per patient. Among patients with negative cystoscopy biopsy based on fluorescence in situ hybridization resulted in costs savings of $2,241 per patient, avoiding 167 biopsies, compared to biopsy in all patients. Assuming office based biopsy, the cost savings were $216 per patient. The decision to perform biopsy based on fluorescence in situ hybridization assay in patients with atypical cytology and equivocal or negative cystoscopy was associated with a significant decrease in bladder cancer associated costs.

Decision-making on malaria vaccine introduction: the role of cost-effectiveness analysis

As highlighted earlier, cost–effectiveness is only one criterion among many that influence decision-making in public health. When deciding to implement an intervention, efficiency must always be balanced with other criteria, including implementation capacity, feasibility and impact on poverty and equity.14 In the case of RTS,S/AS01, WHO will provide an updated cost–effectiveness assessment in 2015, at the time when decision-making by countries will be necessary. The status of the field of malaria vaccine cost–effectiveness does not yet support the use of simple, national-level vaccine impact or cost–effectiveness tools by country programmes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis for priority-setting in South Africa - what are the possibilities?

Priority-setting in the health system is necessary because resources are constrained. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in supporting decision-making around health care priorities in South Africa is explored by referring to South African studies that have provided clinical and policy guidance at the levels of the patient, the service and the population. Cost-effectiveness evidence is positioned in relation to other concerns such as equity and the overall performance of the health system.

Cost, Effectiveness, and Cost-Effectiveness

Pluck the goose so as to obtain the most feathers with the least hissing . — —Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Minister of Finance to King Louis XIV of France Incremental or marginal cost-effectiveness ratios are founded on a number of assumptions that weaken their suitability as a way to balance competing economic and clinical priorities. We therefore propose a more relevant and responsible way to gauge the impact of clinical management strategies based on “consumer protection” principles—explicit disclosure of (1) the total magnitude of expected benefit in the target population (in life-years or quality-adjusted life-years), (2) the total monetary cost (in per capita inflation-adjusted dollars), and (3) a formal plan by which the added costs would be paid. Health policy decisions should therefore be based on the inherent trade-offs in the component measures of cost and effectiveness and not on a simple ratio of the two. Cost-effectiveness ratios are thereby rendered superfluous. Incremental or marginal cost-effectiveness ratios are widely viewed as rational ways to balance competing clinical and economic priorities that arise as a consequence of the inevitable disconnect between an individual’s wants and the society’s willingness to pay for those wants.1–5 The purpose of this essay is to question the practical relevance of these ratios with respect to strategic planning in health care, and offer a suitable alternative. In doing so, we will focus on the more pragmatic issues underlying cost-effectiveness analysis, and gloss over a variety of technical details such as the difference between a privately financed free market and the publicly financed healthcare market, between costs and charges, and between unadjusted and quality-adjusted outcomes. Our pragmatic perspective is not likely to be welcomed by orthodox experts in cost-effectiveness analysis. We believe, however, that any such criticisms can be blunted by recognizing the important distinctions between regulatory and clinical …

The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in the era of pharmacogenomics.

The broad availability of genetic information and technologies heralds an era when practitioners will utilise genomic testing to individualise patients' care. Pharmacogenomics uses a spectrum of approaches to explore the association of genetic variation with drug efficacy or toxicity. Investigators have described a broad array of genetic polymorphisms that confer inter-individual differences in drug response. Pharmacogenomics offers the potential to improve drug effectiveness, reduce adverse drug reactions and provide cost-effective care. However, it has had little impact on current clinical practice and the economic implications of pharmacogenomics remain unclear. Assessing the incremental cost effectiveness of a pharmacogenomic strategy involves examination of factors associated with the genotype of interest, the genomic test, the disease state and the treatment. A pharmacogenomic strategy is likely to be cost effective when: (i) the polymorphism under consideration is prevalent in the population and has a high degree of penetrance; (ii) genetic testing is highly sensitive and specific, and less costly alternative tests that could be used to individualise therapy are not readily available; (iii) the disease state involves outcomes with significant morbidity or mortality if left untreated; and (iv) the treatment involves significant outcomes and/or costs that can be impacted by genotype-individualised therapy. We foresee pharmacogenomic applications being particularly relevant for drugs: with a narrow therapeutic index or a high degree of variability in inter-individual response; where there are limitations in current methods for monitoring their adverse effects and treatment responses; and where there are few alternative treatment options. Because of the characteristics of chemotherapeutic agents and the severity of clinical outcomes in cancer, oncology appears to be one of the most appropriate disease areas for the application of pharmacogenomics. We have developed a framework which can assist researchers, pharmacists, physicians, and policy makers in evaluating the implications of specific strategies, and identifying when formal cost-effectiveness analyses should be conducted to quantitatively evaluate the benefits of pharmacogenomics.

An economic perspective on evidence-based patient choice in surgery.

The aim of the present paper is to provide an economic perspective on current and emerging issues relating to surgical decision-making. The central issue discussed in the paper is choice and how this relates to patient management. The paper explores three factors that may influence the nature of choice; they are--evidence-based medicine, patient involvement in making choices and the role of cost-effectiveness analysis in surgery. Together, these factors are driving a shift from the traditional model of care based on medical beneficence to one based more on individual patient autonomy. This shift has been described as a move towards 'evidence-based patient choice' (EBPC). The concept of EBPC is relatively new and ill defined. Yet it encapsulates what is happening now and what will occur more dramatically in the future; that is, the nature of the relationship between surgeon and patient is changing. We hope that this paper will provoke discussion on the concept of EBPC and cost-effectiveness analysis in surgical decision-making.

Genomics in Medicine and Public Health: Role of Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Genomics in Medicine and Public Health: Role of Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Genomics in Medicine and Public Health: Role of Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Genomics in Medicine and Public Health: Role of Cost-effectiveness Analysis

The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in managed-care decisions.

This article considers the role of cost-effectiveness studies in the formulary and disease-state management decisions of managed-care entities. In a recently published symposium volume [Soc Sci Med 1997; 45 (4): 505-647], US managed-care entities were found to be among the leaders in applying cost-effectiveness studies to healthcare decisions. At the same time, a number of barriers were identified that hinder their wider usage in the managed-care sector. These factors are analysed in this paper along with the prospects for future changes. The potential roles for government policy in this area are also discussed in the final section of the article.

The Role of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Health and Medicine

RUSSELL LOUISE B.; GOLD, MARTHE R.; SIEGEL, JOANNA E.; DANIELS, NORMAN; WEINSTEIN, MILTON C.; Diaz, James H. M.D., Dr.P.H.

ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF INTERVENTIONS IN ENDOCRINOLOGY

This article provides a review of methods for conducting cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit studies. Economic evaluations of interventions designed to improve outcomes of patients with diabetes and osteoporosis are reviewed, and key issues for future research are discussed. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in reimbursement decision making at the public and private levels is explored.

The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine

To develop consensus-based recommendations guiding the conduct of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to improve the comparability and quality of studies. The recommendations apply to analyses intended to inform the allocation of health care resources across a broad range of conditions and interventions. This article, first in a 3-part series, discusses how this goal affects the conduct and use of analyses. The remaining articles will outline methodological and reporting recommendations, respectively. The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, was convened by the US Public Health Service (PHS). The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, and alternative procedures for measuring and assigning values to resource use and health outcomes. The panel met 11 times during 2 1/2 years with PHS staff and methodologists from federal agencies. Working groups brought issues and preliminary recommendations to the full panel for discussion. Draft recommendations were circulated to outside experts and the federal agencies prior to finalization. The panel's recommendations define a "reference case" cost-effectiveness analysis, a standard set of methods to serve as a point of comparison across studies. The reference case analysis is conducted from the societal perspective and accounts for benefits, harms, and costs to all parties. Although CEA does not reflect every element of importance in health care decisions, the information it provides is critical to informing decisions about the allocation of health care resources.

The Role of Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Health and Medicine

Objective. —To develop consensus-based recommendations guiding the conduct of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to improve the comparability and quality of studies. The recommendations apply to analyses intended to inform the allocation of health care resources across a broad range of conditions and interventions. This article, first in a 3-part series, discusses how this goal affects the conduct and use of analyses. The remaining articles will outline methodological and reporting recommendations, respectively. Participants. —The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, was convened by the US Public Health Service (PHS). Evidence. —The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, and alternative procedures for measuring and assigning values to resource use and health outcomes. Consensus Process. —The panel met 11 times during 21/2 years with PHS staff and methodologists from federal agencies. Working groups brought issues and preliminary recommendations to the full panel for discussion. Draft recommendations were circulated to outside experts and the federal agencies prior to finalization. Conclusions. —The panel's recommendations define a costeffectiveness analysis, a standard set of methods to serve as a point of comparison across studies. The reference case analysis is conducted from the societal perspective and accounts for benefits, harms, and costs to all parties. Although CEA does not reflect every element of importance in health care decisions, the information it provides is critical to informing decisions about the allocation of health care resources.

What is cost‐effectiveness analysis?

The treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension is used to illustrate the role of cost-effectiveness analysis in assessing the economic efficiency of pharmacological interventions. The reasons why it is important to consider economic efficiency are discussed, after which the major issues involved in conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis are outlined. Attention is focused on the relative merits of measuring benefits in terms of intermediate and final outcome indicators, and the concept of marginal cost-effectiveness analysis is introduced. Although some difficulties arise, cost-effectiveness analysis is a potentially powerful guide for decisions about the allocation of scarce resources.