Suchergebnisse

This book deals with the key techniques and approaches that can be used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of health care interventions. It is a practical guide, using examples and encouraging the reader to apply the methods. A supporting website is available

Health economics has made major contributions to the development of health policy in many countries. This book describes those successes and looks forward to the major contributions that health economics can bring to bear on policy issues in health and health care. It addresses generic policy issues confronting health systems across the world.

Background: Several aspects of the opioid epidemic and of public health care organization in the United States (US) make the conduct of economic evaluation and the design of policies to respond to this crisis particularly challenging. Objectives: This commentary offers suggestions for how economic evaluation may address and overcome four key features of the opioid epidemic: 1) its magnitude and geographical distribution, 2) its intersection with multiple epidemics, 3) its rapidly changing dynamics, 4) its multi-sectoral causes and consequences. Results: We first offer pragmatic suggestions to address the difficulties in delivering a coordinated response given the fragmented nature of health care in the US. In view of the broad suite of responses required to address opioid use disorder and its associated comorbidities, we highlight the need for economic evaluations which consider interventions throughout the continuum of care (i.e. primary, secondary and tertiary levels of prevention). We examine how the use of predictive modelling alongside economic evaluation might be adopted to address the rapidly evolving situation affecting distinct populations and geographic areas and encourage investments in epidemic preparedness. Finally, we propose methods to capture the interdependence of various sectors of government affected by the opioid crisis in economic evaluations to ensure optimal levels of investment towards a comprehensive response. Conclusions: The opioid epidemic in the US represents an unprecedented public health challenge, but sound epidemiological modelling and economic analysis can help to guide use of limited resources committed to addressing it in ways that can have greatest impact in limiting its adverse consequences.

In most societies, resources are distributed by individuals acting in markets and by governments through some form of collective decision-making process. Economic evaluation offers a set of tools to inform collective decisions by examining the resource requirements and outcomes of alternative policies. The 'societal perspective' has been advocated, but less consideration has been given to what this should include and its practical implementation. This paper presents a framework for economic evaluation of policies with costs and outcomes falling on different sectors (e.g. health, criminal justice, education) and involving different decision makers. It extends the 'impact inventory' developed by the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine by considering all affected individuals and reflecting how outcomes attributed to an intervention can be compared with outcomes forgone as a result of resources not being available for other purposes. The framework sets out the series of assessments to be made, distinguishing points at which value judgements feed into the evaluation, and the implications of alternative judgements. These assessments reflect the institutional arrangements of public bodies, for example, their funding, the outcomes they consider important and their relative valuations of these outcomes. By avoiding the use of an abstract 'societal perspective', the contribution of the framework is to inform multiple decision makers with different objectives and provide practical guidance on overall societal impact.

In most societies, resources are distributed by individuals acting in markets and by governments through some form of collective decision-making process. Economic evaluation offers a set of tools to inform collective decisions by examining the resource requirements and outcomes of alternative policies. The 'societal perspective' has been advocated, but less consideration has been given to what this should include and its practical implementation. This paper presents a framework for economic evaluation of policies with costs and outcomes falling on different sectors (e.g. health, criminal justice, education) and involving different decision makers. It extends the 'impact inventory' developed by the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine by considering all affected individuals and reflecting how outcomes attributed to an intervention can be compared with outcomes forgone as a result of resources not being available for other purposes. The framework sets out the series of assessments to be made, distinguishing points at which value judgements feed into the evaluation, and the implications of alternative judgements. These assessments reflect the institutional arrangements of public bodies, for example, their funding, the outcomes they consider important and their relative valuations of these outcomes. By avoiding the use of an abstract 'societal perspective', the contribution of the framework is to inform multiple decision makers with different objectives and provide practical guidance on overall societal impact. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40258-019-00481-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

"Provides up-to-date research on the theories and applications of health economics. Presents approaches to health economics developed at the University of York which are recognized for their high quality and distinction. Possesses practical tools and methods in dealing with health care challenges faced by LMIC countries."

In most societies, resources are distributed by individuals acting in markets and by governments through some form of collective decision-making process. Economic evaluation offers a set of tools to inform collective decisions by examining the resource requirements and outcomes of alternative policies. The 'societal perspective' has been advocated, but less consideration has been given to what this should include and its practical implementation. This paper presents a framework for economic evaluation of policies with costs and outcomes falling on different sectors (e.g. health, criminal justice, education) and involving different decision makers. It extends the 'impact inventory' developed by the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine by considering all affected individuals and reflecting how outcomes attributed to an intervention can be compared with outcomes forgone as a result of resources not being available for other purposes. The framework sets out the series of assessments to be made, distinguishing points at which value judgements feed into the evaluation, and the implications of alternative judgements. These assessments reflect the institutional arrangements of public bodies, for example, their funding, the outcomes they consider important and their relative valuations of these outcomes. By avoiding the use of an abstract 'societal perspective', the contribution of the framework is to inform multiple decision makers with different objectives and provide practical guidance on overall societal impact.

IntroductionProtease inhibitors might be sufficient to maintain complete virological suppression when used as monotherapy for HIV‐1‐positive patients who have achieved sustained virological suppression on combination antiretroviral therapy (ART). The present study estimated the cost‐effectiveness of a strategy of switching the ART to protease inhibitor monotherapy (PIM) with prompt return to combination therapy in the event of viral load rebound compared to continuing the ongoing triple‐therapy (OTT) in the long‐term management of HIV‐1‐positive patients.Materials and MethodsA within‐trial cost‐effectiveness analysis and modelling of lifetime cost‐effectiveness was performed based on a randomized controlled trial of Protease Inhibitor monotherapy Versus Ongoing Triple‐therapy (PIVOT). The setting was HIV outpatient care in the UK National Health Service, and the trial involved 587 patients, aged 18 years or more, who achieved sustained virological suppression and have a CD4+ cell count >100 cells/mm3. Outcomes were NHS costs (2012 UK pounds sterling) and quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALY) with comparative results presented as incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs).ResultsOverall, PIM was cost‐effective compared to OTT. PIM was cost‐saving due to large savings in the ART drug costs while being no less effective in terms of QALYs in the within‐trial analysis and only marginally less effective with modelling. In the base‐case within‐trial analysis, the incremental total cost per patient was −£6,424.11 (95% confidence interval:−£7,418.84 to −£5,429.38) and the incremental QALY was 0.0051 (95% confidence interval: −0.0479 to 0.0582) making PIM dominant compared to OTT. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the importance of assumptions surrounding drug costs, missing data, trial protocol driven costs and mortality. In all sensitivity analyses, PIM was cost‐saving and no marked difference in QALY was observed. Modelling of life time costs and QALYs showed significant cost‐savings and marginally less effectiveness such that switching to PIM appeared cost‐effective at accepted cost‐effectiveness thresholds.ConclusionsThe results suggest that PIM is a cost‐effective treatment strategy compared to OTT for HIV‐1‐positive patients who have achieved sustained virological suppression.

Malawi, like many low-income and middle-income countries, has used health benefits packages (HBPs) to allocate scarce resources to key healthcare interventions. With no widely accepted method for their development, HBPs often promise more than can be delivered, given available resources. An analytical framework is developed to guide the design of HBPs that can identify the potential value of including and implementing different interventions. It provides a basis for informing meaningful discussions between governments, donors and other stakeholders around the trade-offs implicit in package design. Metrics of value, founded on an understanding of the health opportunity costs of the choices faced, are used to quantify the scale of the potential net health impact (net disability adjusted life years averted) or the amount of additional healthcare resources that would be required to deliver similar net health impacts with existing interventions (the financial value to the healthcare system). The framework can be applied to answer key questions around, for example: the appropriate scale of the HBP; which interventions represent 'best buys' and should be prioritised; where investments in scaling up interventions and health system strengthening should be made; whether the package should be expanded; costs of the conditionalities of donor funding and how objectives beyond improving population health can be considered. This is illustrated using data from Malawi. The framework was successfully applied to inform the HBP in Malawi, as a core component of the country's Health Sector Strategic Plan II 2017-2022.

Malawi, like many low-income and middle-income countries, has used health benefits packages (HBPs) to allocate scarce resources to key healthcare interventions. With no widely accepted method for their development, HBPs often promise more than can be delivered, given available resources. An analytical framework is developed to guide the design of HBPs that can identify the potential value of including and implementing different interventions. It provides a basis for informing meaningful discussions between governments, donors and other stakeholders around the trade-offs implicit in package design. Metrics of value, founded on an understanding of the health opportunity costs of the choices faced, are used to quantify the scale of the potential net health impact (net disability adjusted life years averted) or the amount of additional healthcare resources that would be required to deliver similar net health impacts with existing interventions (the financial value to the healthcare system). The framework can be applied to answer key questions around, for example: the appropriate scale of the HBP; which interventions represent 'best buys' and should be prioritised; where investments in scaling up interventions and health system strengthening should be made; whether the package should be expanded; costs of the conditionalities of donor funding and how objectives beyond improving population health can be considered. This is illustrated using data from Malawi. The framework was successfully applied to inform the HBP in Malawi, as a core component of the country's Health Sector Strategic Plan II 2017-2022.

Antimicrobial resistance is a serious challenge to the success and sustainability of our healthcare systems. There has been increasing policy attention given to antimicrobial resistance in the last few years, and increased amounts of funding have been channeled into funding for research and development of antimicrobial agents. Nevertheless, manufacturers doubt whether there will be a market for new antimicrobial technologies sufficient to enable them to recoup their investment. Health technology assessment (HTA) has a critical role in creating confidence that if valuable technologies can be developed they will be reimbursed at a level that captures their true value. We identify 3 deficiencies of current HTA processes for appraising antimicrobial agents: a methods-centric approach rather than problem-centric approach for dealing with new challenges, a lack of tools for thinking about changing patterns of infection, and the absence of an approach to epidemiological risks. We argue that, to play their role more effectively, HTA agencies need to broaden their methodological tool kit, design and communicate their analysis to a wider set of users, and incorporate long-term policy goals, such as containing resistance, as part of their evaluation criteria alongside immediate health gains.

AbstractIntroductionAs prevalence of undiagnosed HIV declines, it is unclear whether testing programmes will be cost‐effective. To guide their HIV testing programmes, countries require appropriate metrics that can be measured. The cost‐per‐diagnosis is potentially a useful metric.MethodsWe simulated a series of setting‐scenarios for adult HIV epidemics and ART programmes typical of settings in southern Africa using an individual‐based model and projected forward from 2018 under two policies: (i) a minimum package of "core" testing (i.e. testing in pregnant women, for diagnosis of symptoms, in sex workers, and in men coming forward for circumcision) is conducted, and (ii) core‐testing as above plus additional testing beyond this ("additional‐testing"), for which we specify different rates of testing and various degrees to which those with HIV are more likely to test than those without HIV. We also considered a plausible range of unit test costs. The aim was to assess the relationship between cost‐per‐diagnosis and the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the additional‐testing policy. The discount rate used in the base case was 3% per annum (costs in 2018 U.S. dollars).ResultsThere was a strong graded relationship between the cost‐per‐diagnosis and the ICER. Overall, the ICER was below $500 per‐DALY‐averted (the cost‐effectiveness threshold used in primary analysis) so long as the cost‐per‐diagnosis was below $315. This threshold cost‐per‐diagnosis was similar according to epidemic and programmatic features including the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV, the HIV incidence and a measure of HIV programme quality (the proportion of HIV diagnosed people having a viral load <1000 copies/mL). However, restricting to women, additional‐testing did not appear cost‐effective even at a cost‐per‐diagnosis of below $50, while restricting to men additional‐testing was cost‐effective up to a cost‐per‐diagnosis of $585. The threshold cost per diagnosis for testing in men to be cost‐effective fell to $256 when the cost‐effectiveness threshold was $300 instead of $500, and to $81 when considering a discount rate of 10% per annum.ConclusionsFor testing programmes in low‐income settings in southern African there is an extremely strong relationship between the cost‐per‐diagnosis and the cost‐per‐DALY averted, indicating that the cost‐per‐diagnosis can be used to monitor the cost‐effectiveness of testing programmes.