Use Of Cost-effectiveness Data Research Articles

The influence of cost-per-DALY information in health prioritisation and desirable features for a registry: a survey of health policy experts in Vietnam, India and Bangladesh.

BackgroundEconomic evaluation has been implemented to inform policy in many areas, including coverage decisions, technology pricing, and the development of clinical practice guidelines. However, there are barriers to evidence-based policy in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that include limited stakeholder awareness, resources and data availability, as well as the lack of capacity to conduct country-specific economic evaluations. This study aims to survey health policy experts’ opinions on barriers to use of cost-effectiveness data in these settings and to obtain their advice on how to make a new cost-per-DALY database being developed by Tufts Medical Center more relevant to LMICs. It also identifies the factors influencing transferability.MethodsIn-depth interviews were conducted with 32 participants, including policymakers, technical advisors, and researchers in Health Ministries, universities and non-governmental organisations in Bangladesh, India (New Delhi, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka) and Vietnam.ResultsThe survey revealed that, in all settings, the use of cost-effectiveness information in policy development is lacking, owing to limited knowledge among policymakers and inadequate human resources with health economics expertise in the government sector. Furthermore, researchers in universities do not have close connections with health authorities. In India and Vietnam, the demand for evidence to inform coverage decisions tends to increase as the countries are moving towards universal health coverage. The informants in all countries argue that cost-effectiveness data are useful for decision-makers; however, most of them do not perform data searches by themselves but rely on the information provided by the technical advisor counterparts. Most interviewees were familiar with using evidence from other countries and were also aware of the influences of contextual elements as a limitation of transferability. Finally, strategies to promote the newly developed database include training on basic economic evaluation for policymakers and researchers, and effective communication programs, with support from reputable global agencies.ConclusionsAlthough cost-effectiveness information is recognised as essential in resource allocation, there are several impediments in the generation and use of such evidence to inform priority setting in LMICs. As such, the Cost-per-DALY database should be well-designed and introduced with appropriate promotion strategies so that it will be helpful in real-world policymaking.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0156-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PHP364 - The Evaluation of Innovative Drugs Applying Business Valuation Concepts

Many pharmaceutical companies are now commercialising innovative expensive medicinal products, e.g. biologicals, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which will probably exceed the accepted threshold values for reimbursement. The goal of this research is to propose an additional methodology to evaluate innovative drugs from a broader perspective by applying concepts from business valuation, when the ICER exceeds the threshold. In a pure free health market, the price of the new innovative drug would be determined by demand and supply mechanisms, and all considerations about the use of cost-effectiveness data would be redundant. On the other hand, the health authorities leave the responsibility for medical innovation to the market. Therefore medical innovation relies on the market mechanisms in the finance market of biotechnology including the incentives of the capital providers, who demand a required return of investment. The justification of the drug price can be based on the Discounted Cash Flow method. The Discounted Cash Flow method is based on the expected free cash flows and the required cost of capital, can be used to validate the price of the new drug from a narrow investor’s perspective. The free cash flow represent the sales from the pharmaceuticals, and cash necessary for capital expenditures represent the costs for research & development (R&D) and marketing. The cost of capital refers to the opportunity cost of making a specific investment, which is the rate of return required to persuade the investor to make a given investment. Conclusion: We propose a policy approach for the evaluation of innovative drugs by bridging concepts from health economics and business economic valuation. This approach may justify a drug price from an investor’s perspective when the ICER exceeds the threshold and may be used in negotiations between governments and companies.

Attitude of Iranian Medical Oncologists Toward Economic Aspects, and Policy-making in Relation to New Cancer Drugs.

Although medical oncologists can have an important role in controlling the cost of cancer treatment, there is little information about their attitudes toward the cost of cancer treatment and the impact of cost on their treatment recommendations, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, we assessed the attitude of Iranian medical oncologists toward some economic aspects of new cancer drugs. We translated a questionnaire that was used in similar studies in the United States and Canada into Persian and modified it according to the local setting in Iran. The face and content validity of the questionnaire were assessed by oncologists before being used in the survey. We distributed the questionnaire and collected the data from 80 oncologists who participated in the 13th Annual Congress of the Iranian Society of Medical Oncology and Hematology (ISMOH). Fifty-two oncologists participated in our study (a response rate of 65%). The majority of oncologists stated that drug costs and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs influence their treatment recommendations (92% and 94%, respectively). Most oncologists (70%) felt that they are ready enough to use cost-effectiveness information in their treatment decisions, and 74% believed that patients should only have access to cancer treatments that are cost-effective. Most oncologists agree that the government should have control over drug prices, and more use of cost-effectiveness data is required for decision-making about cancer drug coverage. Ninety-one percent of oncologists said that they always or frequently discuss cancer treatment costs with their patients. Oncologists believed that academic groups (research centers and scientific societies) (81%) and the Ministry of Health (MoH) (43%) are the most eligible groups for determining whether a drug provides good value. Iranian medical oncologists are ready to participate in the health technology assessment and priority-setting process. This situation creates a unique opportunity for the government to rely on scientific societies and find an appropriate solution for the improvement of patients' access to high-quality care.

Lonely at the top and stuck in the middle? The ongoing challenge of using cost-effectiveness information in priority setting : Comment on "Use of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions: experiences from the national guidelines for heart diseases in Sweden".

The topic of how cost-effectiveness information informs priority setting in healthcare remains important to both policy and practice. This commentary considers the study carried out by Eckard and colleagues in Sweden. In it we distinguish between the conditions at national and local levels and put forward some recommendations for research into local priority setting in particular.

The use (or rather the non-use) of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions - are we underestimating the barriers to using health economics in real world priority setting decisions?: Comment on "Use of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions: experiences from the national guidelines for heart diseases in Sweden".

After having practicing and researching health economics for nearly 15 years now, it has become clear to me that the use of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions is rather a rare than a common practice. The Eckard et al. article though, describes a wonderful exception to this rule and a very good example of how it can be used when the conditions are right. However, do we fully understand what these conditions are? In this commentary article I will address some of the institutional and cultural conditions that need to be fulfilled in order for cost-effectiveness data to actually be used in priority setting decisions.

Use of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions: experiences from the national guidelines for heart diseases in Sweden.

The inclusion of cost-effectiveness data, as a basis for priority setting rankings, is a distinguishing feature in the formulation of the Swedish national guidelines. Guidelines are generated with the direct intent to influence health policy and support decisions about the efficient allocation of scarce healthcare resources. Certain medical conditions may be given higher priority rankings i.e. given more resources than others, depending on how serious the medical condition is. This study investigated how a decision-making group, the Priority Setting Group (PSG), used cost-effectiveness data in ranking priority setting decisions in the national guidelines for heart diseases. A qualitative case study methodology was used to explore the use of such data in ranking priority setting healthcare decisions. The study addressed availability of cost-effectiveness data, evidence understanding, interpretation difficulties, and the reliance on evidence. We were also interested in the explicit use of data in ranking decisions, especially in situations where economic arguments impacted the reasoning behind the decisions. This study showed that cost-effectiveness data was an important and integrated part of the decision-making process. Involvement of a health economist and reliance on the data facilitated the use of cost-effectiveness data. Economic arguments were used both as a fine-tuning instrument and a counterweight for dichotomization. Cost-effectiveness data were used when the overall evidence base was weak and the decision-makers had trouble making decisions due to lack of clinical evidence and in times of uncertainty. Cost-effectiveness data were also used for decisions on the introduction of new expensive medical technologies. Cost-effectiveness data matters in decision-making processes and the results of this study could be applicable to other jurisdictions where health economics is implemented in decision-making. This study contributes to knowledge on how cost-effectiveness data is used in actual decision-making, to ensure that the decisions are offered on equal terms and that patients receive medical care according their needs in order achieve maximum benefit.

United States physician communication on cost of cancer care under the affordable health care act

Background: The aim of this study is to survey United States oncologists as healthcare system changes are implemented to reassess physician perceptions about the cost of cancer care and physicians’ perceived needs.Methods: From June through August of 2013, an electronic survey was sent to practicing oncologists across 50 states.Results: The electronic survey response rate was 15% (136 oncologists out of 899 total physicians) with respondents from 35 of the 50 states. Sixty percent of respondents thought that both out-of-pocket costs and healthcare system costs of cancer treatments were likely or extremely likely to have a larger effect on their decisions regarding which cancer treatments to recommend to patients in the future under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). A large majority of respondents felt that physician education was needed on the use of cost-effectiveness data and on communicating cost of therapies with patients, 91% and 85%, respectively.Conclusion: Respondents reported that their clinical treatment decisions are influenced by concerns over out-of-pocket patient costs, and that they want more cost and comparative effectiveness research as well as more education on how to communicate with patients about cost of therapy.

The moral psychology of rationing among physicians: the role of harm and fairness intuitions in physician objections to cost-effectiveness and cost-containment

IntroductionPhysicians vary in their moral judgments about health care costs. Social intuitionism posits that moral judgments arise from gut instincts, called “moral foundations.” The objective of this study was to determine if “harm” and “fairness” intuitions can explain physicians’ judgments about cost-containment in U.S. health care and using cost-effectiveness data in practice, as well as the relative importance of those intuitions compared to “purity”, “authority” and “ingroup” in cost-related judgments.MethodsWe mailed an 8-page survey to a random sample of 2000 practicing U.S. physicians. The survey included the MFQ30 and items assessing agreement/disagreement with cost-containment and degree of objection to using cost-effectiveness data to guide care. We used t-tests for pairwise subscale mean comparisons and logistic regression to assess associations with agreement with cost-containment and objection to using cost-effectiveness analysis to guide care.Results1032 of 1895 physicians (54%) responded. Most (67%) supported cost-containment, while 54% expressed a strong or moderate objection to the use of cost-effectiveness data in clinical decisions. Physicians who strongly objected to the use of cost-effectiveness data had similar scores in all five of the foundations (all p-values > 0.05). Agreement with cost-containment was associated with higher mean “harm” (3.6) and “fairness” (3.5) intuitions compared to “in-group” (2.8), “authority” (3.0), and “purity” (2.4) (p < 0.05). In multivariate models adjusted for age, sex, region, and specialty, both “harm” and “fairness” were significantly associated with judgments about cost-containment (OR = 1.2 [1.0-1.5]; OR = 1.7 [1.4-2.1], respectively) but were not associated with degree of objection to cost-effectiveness (OR = 1.2 [1.0-1.4]; OR = 0.9 [0.7-1.0]).ConclusionsMoral intuitions shed light on variation in physician judgments about cost issues in health care.

Cost-Utility Analysis: Current Methodological Issues and Future Perspectives

The use of cost–effectiveness as final criterion in the reimbursement process for listing of new pharmaceuticals can be questioned from a scientific and policy point of view. There is a lack of consensus on main methodological issues and consequently we may question the appropriateness of the use of cost–effectiveness data in health care decision-making. Another concern is the appropriateness of the selection and use of an incremental cost–effectiveness threshold (Cost/QALY). In this review, we focus mainly on only some key methodological concerns relating to discounting, the utility concept, cost assessment, and modeling methodologies. Finally we will consider the relevance of some other important decision criteria, like social values and equity.

Continental Divide? The Attitudes of US and Canadian Oncologists on the Costs, Cost-Effectiveness, and Health Policies Associated With New Cancer Drugs

Oncologists in the United States and Canada work in different health care systems, but physicians in both countries face challenges posed by the rising costs of cancer drugs. We compared their attitudes regarding the costs and cost-effectiveness of medications and related health policy. Survey responses of a random sample of 1,355 United States and 238 Canadian medical oncologists (all outside of Québec) were compared. Response rate was 59%. More US oncologists (67% v 52%; P < .001) favor access to effective treatments regardless of cost, while more Canadians favor access to effective treatments only if they are cost-effective (75% v 58%; P < .001). Most (84% US, 80% Canadian) oncologists state that patient out-of-pocket costs influence their treatment recommendations, but less than half the respondents always or frequently discuss the costs of treatments with their patients. The majority of oncologists favor more use of cost-effectiveness data in coverage decisions (80% US, 69% Canadian; P = .004), but fewer than half the oncologists in both countries feel well equipped to use cost-effectiveness information. Majorities of oncologists favor government price controls (57% US, 68% Canadian; P = .01), but less than half favor more cost-sharing by patients (29% US, 41% Canadian; P = .004). Oncologists in both countries prefer to have physicians and nonprofit agencies determine whether drugs provide good value. Oncologists in the United States and Canada generally have similar attitudes regarding cancer drug costs, cost-effectiveness, and associated policies, despite practicing in different health care systems. The results support providing education to help oncologists in both countries use cost-effectiveness information and discuss drug costs with their patients.

A survey of U.S. and Canadian oncologists’ attitudes toward the cost, cost-effectiveness (CE), and reimbursement of cancer drugs

9502 Background: Drug costs and reimbursement issues offer significant challenges to U.S. and Canadian oncologists even though they practice in substantially different health care systems. However, little is known about the attitudes of American and Canadian oncologists towards these issues. Methods: We surveyed 1,379 U.S. and 356 Cdn oncologists to assess their attitudes to cancer drug costs, CE and reimbursement policies. Results: Response rate was 57% in the U.S. and 48% in Canada. Oncologists in both countries stated that patients' “out-of-pocket” drug costs influenced their treatment recommendations (84% U.S., 80% Cdn respondents). Most respondents felt that every patient should have access to effective cancer treatments regardless of cost (66% US; 54% Cdn), while 59% of U.S. and 72% of Cdn and respondents believed that patients should only have access to effective cancer treatments that provided “good value for money.” 70% of U.S. and 64% Cdn respondents felt that &lt;$100,000 per life year gained was a reasonable definition of “good value for money” but less than half of respondents (42% US, 49% Cdn) felt well prepared to interpret and use CE information in their treatment decisions. A majority of respondents (57% US, 69% Cdn) felt government price controls for cancer drugs are needed while a minority felt that more cost-sharing by patients was needed (29% US, 37% Cdn). Most oncologists felt that evaluating whether a drug provides “good value” should be overseen by an independent non-profit agency (57% US, 71% Cdn) or physicians (61% US and Cdn); in contrast, few believed that government (21% US, 33% Cdn), patients (36% US, 37% Cdn) or insurance companies (6% US, 10% Cdn) should determine “good value”. 79% of U.S. and 69% of Cdn respondents felt more use of CE data in coverage and reimbursement decisions is needed. Conclusions: Oncologists in the U.S. and Canada share many similar attitudes to cancer drug costs, CE, and reimbursement policies despite differences in their health care systems. In both countries, oncologists favor more use of CE information. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

The Evolving Use of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Formulary Management Within the Department of Veterans Affairs

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) runs the largest integrated healthcare system in the nation. Formulary management within VHA primarily involves 3 national groups: the Medical Advisory Panel, the Veterans Integrated Service Network Formulary Leaders, and the Pharmacy Benefits Management Strategic Healthcare Group. Together, these groups manage the VHA national drug formulary with a goal of providing a comprehensive, safe, and cost-effective pharmacy benefit for veterans. Traditionally, VHA has relied on cost-minimization analyses in formulary decisions. More recently, VHA has emphasized the use of cost-effectiveness data, especially for newer, costly drugs. In addition to including this data in drug monographs, the VHA has begun requiring formal cost-effectiveness analysis from manufacturers of selected pharmaceuticals. VHA has also requested that clinically relevant information such as quality of life plus mortality benefit be made available from industry so that internal cost analyses can be performed. It is hoped that by setting the expectation that cost-effectiveness will be formally considered in all VHA formulary decisions, the pharmaceutical industry and others will be stimulated to collect and report data that enables these analyses. We believe that if other organizations also place an emphasis on economic evaluations, industry and the public will be more accepting of decisions that incorporate cost considerations.

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: An Excellent Case Study

Numerous randomized controlled trials have shown that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality from sudden cardiac death. Evidence-based medicine can elucidate the benefits of treatment and inform Medicare policy when applied in a consistent and nonselective manner. The use of cost-effectiveness data to determine Medicare coverage-and therefore access to a therapy-involves many practical challenges. Cost-effectiveness analysis may be more useful as a tool to guide marketplace decision making than as a regulatory mechanism. Medicare coverage does not mandate use of a therapy; it allows the discussion to occur between a patient and his or her doctor.

Local use of cost-effectiveness data

Local use of cost-effectiveness data