Authors’ Reply to Hussain et al.: “Cost Effectiveness of Dialysis Modalities: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations” |
Comment on: “Cost Effectiveness of Dialysis Modalities: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations” |
Applying an Implementation Framework to the Use of Evidence from Economic Evaluations in Making Healthcare DecisionsAbstractBackground and Objective
There is a need for the application of theory in understanding the use of evidence from economic evaluations in healthcare decision making. The purpose of this study is to review the published literature on the use of evidence from economic evaluations for healthcare decision making and to map the findings to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
Methods
A systematic search strategy was used to identify studies investigating the factors that determine the use of evidence from economic evaluation in healthcare decision making. Barriers and facilitators identified in the included studies were mapped across the five CFIR domains, with the “intervention” referring to the use of economic evaluations in decision making. Gaps, inconsistencies and emergent relations were identified through the mapping process.
Results
Fifty-three studies met eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The CFIR constructs associated with the Intervention Characteristics and those associated with the knowledge and beliefs of users of economic evaluations were widely cited in the identified barriers and facilitators. Other constructs from the CFIR had not been reported in the literature, such as ‘organisational networks’ and ‘individual stage of change’. Most of the stages in the implementation process as described by the CFIR were reflected in the identified barriers and facilitators.
Discussion
By categorising barriers and facilitators into domains, the CFIR provides a systematic approach to assess how these factors interact. Literature gaps in the literature regarding the use of economic evaluation in healthcare decision making were identified, specifically issues regarding organisational networks and the role of feedback.
Conclusions
Through mapping findings from studies of the use of evidence from economic evaluations in healthcare decision making, we present an implementation framework based on the CFIR for understanding the use of economic evaluations into practice.
|
Mepilex Border Sacrum and Heel Dressings for the Prevention of Pressure Ulcers: A NICE Medical Technology GuidanceAbstract
Mepilex Border Sacrum and Heel dressings are self-adherent, multilayer foam dressings designed for use on the heel and sacrum aiming to prevent pressure ulcers. The dressings are used in addition to standard care protocols for pressure ulcer prevention. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selected Mepilex Border Sacrum and Heel dressings for evaluation. The External Assessment Centre (EAC) critiqued the company’s submission. Thirteen studies (four randomised controlled trials and nine nonrandomised comparative studies) were included. The majority of studies compared Mepilex Border Sacrum dressings (plus standard care) with standard care alone. Comparative evidence for Mepilex Border Heel dressings was limited. A meta-analysis indicated a non-statistically significant difference in favour of Mepilex Border Sacrum dressings for pressure ulcer incidence [RR 0.51 (95% CI 0.22–1.18)]. The company produced a de novo cost model, which was critiqued by the EAC. After the EAC updated input parameters, cost savings of £19 per patient compared with standard care alone for pressure ulcer prevention were estimated with Mepilex Border dressings predicted to be cost saving in 57% of iterations. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee reviewed the evidence and judged that, although Mepilex Border Heel and Sacrum dressings have potential to prevent pressure ulcers in people who are considered to be at risk in acute care settings, further evidence is required to address uncertainties around the claimed benefits of the dressings and the incidence of pressure ulcers in an NHS acute-care setting. After a public consultation, NICE published this as Medical Technology Guidance 40.
|
Physical Activity and Healthcare Costs: Projections for Poland in the Context of an Ageing PopulationAbstractBackground
The proportion of older people in many countries, including Poland, is expected to increase, which will lead to a rise in healthcare costs.
Objectives
This study aims to analyse the impact of older adults’ physical activity on public spending on healthcare in Poland over the long term.
Method
To include the physical activity factor needed for our long-term projections, we modified the macro-simulation model used by the European Commission in Poland. We used the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe database to calculate the number of healthcare users depending on their level of physical activity. We used three measures of healthcare users: people with chronic diseases, people who were in hospital or visited a doctor more than once in the previous year, and people who subjectively evaluated their health as fair or poor.
Results
We found that a higher level of physical activity in older adults is associated with lower public expenditure on healthcare for all measures adopted. However, the magnitude of this effect differed depending on the measure used, with gains ranging from 0.4 to 1.2% of gross domestic product per year by the end of the projection horizon.
Conclusion
Our findings provide a strong argument for social policy in Poland to intensify the promotion of physical activity in society to decrease future healthcare costs of older adults.
|
The Costs of Hepatitis C by Liver Disease Stage: Estimates from the Veterans Health AdministrationAbstractBackground
The release of highly effective but costly medications for the treatment of hepatitis C virus combined with a doubling in the incidence of hepatitis C virus have posed substantial financial challenges for many healthcare systems. We provide estimates of the cost of treating patients with hepatitis C virus that can inform the triage of pharmaceutical care in systems with limited healthcare resources.
Methods
We conducted an observational study using a national US cohort of 206,090 veterans with laboratory-identified hepatitis C virus followed from Fiscal Year 2010 to 2014. We estimated the cost of: non-advanced Fibrosis-4; advanced Fibrosis-4; hepatocellular carcinoma; liver transplant; and post-liver transplant. The former two stages were ascertained using laboratory result data; the latter stages were ascertained using administrative data. Costs were obtained from the Veterans Health Administration’s activity-based cost accounting system and more closely represent the actual costs of providing care, an improvement on the charge data that generally characterizes the hepatitis C virus cost literature. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate and predict costs per liver disease stage. Missing data were multiply imputed.
Results
Annual costs of care increased as patients progressed from non-advanced Fibrosis-4 to advanced Fibrosis-4, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver transplant (all p < 0.001). Post-liver transplant, costs decreased significantly (p < 0.001). In simulations, patients were estimated to incur the following annual costs: US $17,556 for non-advanced Fibrosis-4; US $20,791 for advanced Fibrosis-4; US $46,089 for liver cancer; US $261,959 in the year of the liver transplant; and US $18,643 per year after the liver transplant.
Conclusions
Cost differences of treating non-advanced and advanced Fibrosis-4 are relatively small. The greatest cost savings would be realized from avoiding progression to liver cancer and transplant.
|
Why is There Discordance between the Reimbursement of High-Cost ‘Life-Extending’ Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices? The Funding of Ventricular Assist Devices in AustraliaAbstract
New health technologies often yield health benefits, but often at a high cost. In Australia, the processes for public reimbursement of high-cost pharmaceuticals and medical devices are different, potentially resulting in inequity in support for new therapies. We explore how reimbursement is different for medical devices compared with pharmaceuticals, including whether higher cost-effectiveness thresholds are accepted for pharmaceuticals. A literature review identified the challenges of economic evaluations for medical devices compared with pharmaceuticals. We used the ventricular assist device as a case study to highlight specific features of medical device funding in Australia. We used existing guidelines to evaluate whether ventricular assist devices would fulfil the requirements for the “Life-Saving Drugs Program”, which is usually reserved for expensive life–extending pharmaceutical treatments of serious and rare medical conditions. The challenges in conducting economic evaluations of medical devices include limited data to support effectiveness, device-operator interaction (surgical experience) and incremental innovations (miniaturisation). However, whilst high-cost pharmaceuticals may be funded by a single source (federal government), the funding of high-cost devices is complex and may be funded via a combination of federal, state and private health insurance. Based on the Life-Saving Drugs Program criteria, we found that ventricular assist devices could be funded by a similar mechanism to that which funds high-cost life-extending pharmaceuticals. This article highlights the complexities of medical device reimbursement. Whilst differences in available evidence affect the evaluation process, differences in funding methods contribute to inequitable reimbursement decisions between medical devices and pharmaceuticals.
|
Budget Impact Analysis of Cancer Screening: A Methodological ReviewAbstractBackground
Budget impact analyses (BIAs) describe changes in intervention- and disease-related costs of new technologies. Evidence on the quality of BIAs for cancer screening is lacking.
Objectives
We systematically reviewed the literature and methods to assess how closely BIA guidelines are followed when BIAs are performed for cancer-screening programs.
Data sources
Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York), and CEA registry of the Tufts Medical Center.
Study eligibility criteria
Eligible studies were BIAs evaluating cancer-screening programs published in English, 2010–2018.
Synthesis methods
Standardized evidence tables were generated to extract and compare study characteristics outlined by the ISPOR BIA Task Force.
Results
Nineteen studies were identified evaluating screening for breast (5), colorectal (6), cervical (3), lung (1), prostate (3), and skin (1) cancers. Model designs included decision-analytic models (13) and simple cost calculators (6). From all studies, only 53% reported costs for a minimum of 3 years, 58% compared to a mix of screening options, 42% reported model validation, and 37% reported uncertainty analysis for participation rates. The quality of studies appeared to be independent of cancer site.
Limitations
“Gray” literature was not searched, misinterpretation is possible due to limited information in publications, and focus was on international methodological guidelines rather than regional guidelines.
Conclusions
Our review highlights considerable variability in the extent to which BIAs evaluating cancer-screening programs followed recommended guidelines. The annual budget impact at least over the next 3–5 years should be estimated. Validation and uncertainty analysis should always be conducted. Continued dissemination efforts of existing best-practice guidelines are necessary to ensure high-quality analyses.
|
Willingness to Pay for Cataract Surgeries Among Patients Visiting Eye Care Facilities in Dhaka, BangladeshAbstractBackground
Cataract is the leading cause of avoidable blindness globally. It is estimated that 89% of people with visual impairment live in low- and middle-income countries where the cost of cataract surgery represents a major barrier for accessing these services. Developing self-sustaining healthcare programs to cater the unmet demands warrants a better understanding of patients’ willingness to pay (WTP) for their services.
Objectives
Using a sample of patients visiting eye care facilities in Dhaka, Bangladesh, we estimate WTP for two different cataract extraction techniques, namely small incision cataract surgery (SICS) and phacoemulsification.
Methods
We used contingent valuation (CV) approach and elicited WTP through double-bounded dichotomous choice experiments. We interviewed 556 randomly selected patients (283 for SICS and 273 for phacoemulsification) from five different eye care hospitals of Dhaka. In this paper, we estimated the mean and marginal WTP using interval regression models. We also compared the estimated WTP and stated demand for cataract surgeries against the prevailing market prices of SICS and phacoemulsification.
Results
We found the mean WTP of BDT 7579 (US$93) for SICS and BDT 10,208 (US$126) for phacoemulsification are equivalent to 12 and 16 days of household income, respectively. Household income and assets appeared as the major determinants of WTP for cataract surgeries. However, we did not find any significant association with gender, occupation, and household size among other socioeconomic characteristics. Comparisons between market prices and average WTP suggest it is possible to have a viable market for SICS, but a subsidy-based model for phacoemulsification will be financially challenging because of low WTP and high costs.
Conclusion
Our findings suggest lower-cost SICS can potentially provide patients access to surgeries to treat cataract conditions. Moreover, price discrimination and cross-subsidization could be a viable strategy to increase the service-uptake as well as ensure financial sustainability.
|
Systematic Review of Decision Analytic Modelling in Economic Evaluations of Low Back Pain and SciaticaAbstractBackground
Low back pain (LBP) and sciatica place significant burden on individuals and healthcare systems, with societal costs alone likely to be in excess of £15 billion. Two recent systematic reviews for LBP and sciatica identified a shortage of modelling studies in both conditions.
Objectives
The aim of this systematic review was to document existing model-based economic evaluations for the treatment and management of both conditions; critically appraise current modelling techniques, analytical methods, data inputs, and structure, using narrative synthesis; and identify unresolved methodological problems and gaps in the literature.
Methods
A systematic literature review was conducted whereby 6512 records were extracted from 11 databases, with no date limits imposed. Studies were abstracted according to a predesigned protocol, whereby they must be economic evaluations that employed an economic decision model and considered any management approach for LBP and sciatica. Study abstraction was initially performed by one reviewer who removed duplicates and screened titles to remove irrelevant studies. Overall, 133 potential studies for inclusion were then screened independently by other reviewers. Consensus was reached between reviewers regarding final inclusion.
Results
Twenty-one publications of 20 unique models were included in the review, five of which were modelling studies in LBP and 16 in sciatica. Results revealed a poor standard of modelling in both conditions, particularly regarding modelling techniques, analytical methods, and data quality. Specific issues relate to inappropriate representation of both conditions in terms of health states, insufficient time horizons, and use of inappropriate utility values.
Conclusion
High-quality modelling studies, which reflect modelling best practice, as well as contemporary clinical understandings of both conditions, are required to enhance the economic evidence for treatments for both conditions.
|
Medicine by Alexandros G. Sfakianakis,Anapafseos 5 Agios Nikolaos 72100 Crete Greece,00302841026182,00306932607174,alsfakia@gmail.com,
Ετικέτες
Τετάρτη 17 Ιουλίου 2019
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Αναρτήθηκε από
Medicine by Alexandros G. Sfakianakis,Anapafseos 5 Agios Nikolaos 72100 Crete Greece,00302841026182,00306932607174,alsfakia@gmail.com,
στις
11:07 μ.μ.
Ετικέτες
00302841026182,
00306932607174,
alsfakia@gmail.com,
Anapafseos 5 Agios Nikolaos 72100 Crete Greece,
Medicine by Alexandros G. Sfakianakis
Εγγραφή σε:
Σχόλια ανάρτησης (Atom)
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου