Estimating the opportunity costs of bed-days

Capturing the Value of Vaccination within Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics-Practical Considerations for Expanding Valuation by Including Key Concepts

Following the development of a value of vaccination (VoV) framework for health technology assessment/cost-effectiveness analysis (HTA/CEA), and identification of three vaccination benefits for near-term inclusion in HTA/CEA, this final paper provides decision makers with methods and examples to consider benefits of health systems strengthening (HSS), equity, and macroeconomic gains. Expert working groups, targeted literature reviews, and case studies were used. Opportunity cost methods were applied for HSS benefits of rotavirus vaccination. Vaccination, with HSS benefits included, reduced the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) by 1.4-50.5% (to GBP 11,552-GBP 23,016) depending on alternative conditions considered. Distributional CEA was applied for health equity benefits of meningococcal vaccination. Nearly 80% of prevented cases were among the three most deprived groups. Vaccination, with equity benefits included, reduced the ICER by 22-56% (to GBP 7014-GBP 12,460), depending on equity parameters. Macroeconomic models may inform HTA deliberative processes (e.g., disease impact on the labour force and the wider economy), or macroeconomic outcomes may be assessed for individuals in CEAs (e.g., impact on non-health consumption, leisure time, and income). These case studies show how to assess broader vaccination benefits in current HTA/CEA, providing decision makers with more accurate and complete VoV assessments. More work is needed to refine inputs and methods, especially for macroeconomic gains.

Rationing in an Era of Multiple Tight Constraints: Is Cost-Utility Analysis Still Fit for Purpose?

Cost-utility analysis may not be sufficient to support reimbursement decisions when the assessed health intervention requires a large proportion of the healthcare budget or when the monetary healthcare budget is not the only resource constraint. Such cases include joint replacement, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) interventions and settings where all resources are constrained (e.g. post-COVID-19 or in low/middle-income countries). Using literature on health technology assessment, rationing and reimbursement in healthcare, we identified seven alternative frameworks for simultaneous decisions about (dis)investment and proposed modifications to deal with multiple resource constraints. These frameworks comprised constrained optimisation; cost-effectiveness league table; 'step-in-the-right-direction' approach; heuristics based on effective gradients; weighted cost-effectiveness ratios; multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA); and programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). We used numerical examples to demonstrate how five of these alternative frameworks would operate. The modified frameworks we propose could be used in local commissioning and/or health technology assessment to supplement standard cost-utility analysis for interventions that have large budget impact and/or are subject to additional constraints.

Safety and cost of performing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with same day discharge at a large academic hospital

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most common surgical treatment for morbid obesity. While certain specialized ambulatory surgery centers offer LSG on an outpatient basis, patients undergoing LSG at most academic centers are admitted to hospital for initial postoperative convalescence and monitoring. Our institution has begun to offer LSG with same-day discharge (SDD) in select patients. We aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes and costs for patients undergoing LSG with inpatient admission versus SDD.

METHODS

All patients enrolled in the SDD program from December 2020 through July 2022 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients enrolled in this pathway were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis even if ultimately admitted postoperatively. Propensity scoring was used to match these patients 1:1 to those with planned inpatient recovery based on age, BMI, and ASA classification.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were enrolled in the LSG with SDD program during the study period. Among these, 62 patients (82.7%) had successful immediate postoperative discharge. Reasons for cancelation of planned SDD included anxiety (n = 5), pain (n = 3), nausea (n = 2), and one patient each with hypotension, urinary retention, and bleeding. After matching, there were no differences in age, BMI, or ASA classification in a comparison group of patients with planned inpatient recovery. There were no differences in perioperative complications. There were no readmissions or requirements for outpatient intravenous fluids among patients with SDD, compared to n = 3 (4.0%) and n = 2 (2.7%) in the inpatient cohort, respectively. The total perioperative cost for patients undergoing LSG with planned SDD was 6.8% less than those with inpatient recovery.

CONCLUSION

With appropriate protocols, LSG with same-day discharge can safely be performed at large academic surgery centers without increased morbidity or need for additional services in the perioperative period. SDD may be associated with decreased costs and allows for more efficient hospital bed allocation.

On spillovers in economic evaluations: definition, mapping review and research agenda

An important issue in economic evaluations is determining whether all relevant impacts are considered, given the perspective chosen for the analysis. Acknowledging that patients are not isolated individuals has important implications in this context. Increasingly, the term "spillovers" is used to label consequences of health interventions on others. However, a clear definition of spillovers is lacking, and as a result, the scope of the concept remains unclear. In this study, we aim to clarify the concept of spillovers by proposing a definition applicable in health economic evaluations. To illustrate the implications of this definition, we highlight the diversity of potential spillovers through an expanded impact inventory and conduct a mapping review that outlines the evidence base for the different types of spillovers. In the context of economic evaluations of health interventions, we define spillovers as all impacts from an intervention on all parties or entities other than the users of the intervention under evaluation. This definition encompasses a broader range of potential costs and effects, beyond informal caregivers and family members. The expanded impact inventory enables a systematic approach to identifying broader impacts of health interventions. The mapping review shows that the relevance of different types of spillovers is context-specific. Some spillovers are regularly included in economic evaluations, although not always recognised as such, while others are not. A consistent use of the term "spillovers", improved measurement of these costs and effects, and increased transparency in reporting them are still necessary. To that end, we propose a research agenda.

What are economic costs and when should they be used in health economic studies?

Economic analyses of healthcare interventions are an important consideration in evidence-based policymaking. A key component of such analyses is the costs of interventions, for which most are familiar with using budgets and expenditures. However, economic theory states that the true value of a good/service is the value of the next best alternative forgone as a result of using the resource and therefore observed prices or charges do not necessarily reflect the true economic value of resources. To address this, economic costs are a fundamental concept within (health) economics. Crucially, they are intended to reflect the resources' opportunity costs (the forgone opportunity to use those resources for another purpose) and they are based on the value of the resource's next-best alternative use that has been forgone. This is a broader conceptualization of a resource's value than its financial cost and recognizes that resources can have a value that may not be fully captured by their market price and that by using a resource it makes it unavailable for productive use elsewhere. Importantly, economic costs are preferred over financial costs for any health economic analyses aimed at informing decisions regarding the optimum allocation of the limited/competing resources available for healthcare (such as health economic evaluations), and they are also important when considering the replicability and sustainability of healthcare interventions. However, despite this, economic costs and the reasons why they are used is an area that can be misunderstood by professionals without an economic background. In this paper, we outline to a broader audience the principles behind economic costs and when and why they should be used within health economic analyses. We highlight that the difference between financial and economic costs and what adjustments are needed within cost calculations will be influenced by the context of the study, the perspective, and the objective.

Vaccine-Preventable Hospitalisations from Seasonal Respiratory Diseases: What Is Their True Value?

Hospitals in England experience extremely high levels of bed occupancy in the winter. In these circumstances, vaccine-preventable hospitalisations due to seasonal respiratory infections have a high cost because of the missed opportunity to treat other patients on the waiting list. This paper estimates the number of hospitalisations that current vaccines against influenza, pneumococcal disease (PD), COVID-19, and a hypothetical Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccine, could prevent in the winter among older adults in England. Their costs were quantified using a conventional reference costing method and a novel opportunity costing approach considering the net monetary benefit (NMB) obtained from alternative uses of the hospital beds freed-up by vaccines. The influenza, PD and RSV vaccines could collectively prevent 72,813 bed days and save over £45 million in hospitalisation costs. The COVID-19 vaccine could prevent over 2 million bed days and save £1.3 billion. However, the value of hospital beds freed up by vaccination is likely to be 1.1-2 times larger (£48-93 million for flu, PD and RSV; £1.4-2.8 billion for COVID-19) when quantified in opportunity cost terms. Considering opportunity costs is key to ensuring maximum value is obtained from preventative budgets, as reference costing may significantly underestimate the true value of vaccines.

Identification of an Optimal COVID-19 Booster Allocation Strategy to Minimize Hospital Bed-Days with a Fixed Healthcare Budget

Healthcare decision-makers face difficult decisions regarding COVID-19 booster selection given limited budgets and the need to maximize healthcare gain. A constrained optimization (CO) model was developed to identify booster allocation strategies that minimize bed-days by varying the proportion of the eligible population receiving different boosters, stratified by age, and given limited healthcare expenditure. Three booster options were included: B₁, costing US $1 per dose, B₂, costing US $2, and no booster (NB), costing US $0. B₁ and B₂ were assumed to be 55%/75% effective against mild/moderate COVID-19, respectively, and 90% effective against severe/critical COVID-19. Healthcare expenditure was limited to US$2.10 per person; the minimum expected expense using B_1, B_2, or NB for all. Brazil was the base-case country. The model demonstrated that B₁ for those aged <70 years and B₂ for those ≥70 years were optimal for minimizing bed-days. Compared with NB, bed-days were reduced by 75%, hospital admissions by 68%, and intensive care unit admissions by 90%. Total costs were reduced by 60% with medical resource use reduced by 81%. This illustrates that the CO model can be used by healthcare decision-makers to implement vaccine booster allocation strategies that provide the best healthcare outcomes in a broad range of contexts.

Costs of two vancomycin-resistant enterococci outbreaks in an academic hospital

Objective

In early 2017, the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, had an outbreak of 2 strains of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) that spread to various wards. In the summer of 2018, the hospital was again hit by a VRE outbreak, which was detected and controlled early. However, during both outbreaks, fewer patients were admitted to the hospital and various costs were incurred. We quantified the costs of the 2017 and 2018 VRE outbreaks.

Design

Using data from various sources in the hospital and interviews, we identified and quantified the costs of the 2 outbreaks, resulting from tests, closed beds (opportunity costs), cleaning, additional personnel, and patient isolation.

Setting

The University Medical Center Groningen, an academic hospital in the Netherlands.

Results

The total costs associated with the 2017 outbreak were estimated to be €335,278 (US $356,826); the total costs associated with the 2018 outbreak were estimated at €149,025 (US $158,602).

Conclusions

The main drivers of the costs were the opportunity costs due to the reduction in admitted patients, testing costs, and cleaning costs. Although the second outbreak was considerably shorter, the costs per day were similar to those of the first outbreak. Major investments are associated with the VRE control measures, and an outbreak of VRE can lead to considerable costs for a hospital. Aggressively screening and isolating patients who may be involved in an outbreak of VRE may reduce the overall costs and improve the continuity of care within the hospital.

Cost-effectiveness of using a 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine to directly protect adults in England at elevated risk of pneumococcal disease

OBJECTIVES

Despite the current pneumococcal vaccination program in England for older adults and adults with underlying conditions, disease burden remains high. We evaluated cost-effectiveness of 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV20) compared to current pneumococcal recommendations for adults in England.

METHODS

Lifetime outcomes/costs of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) among adults aged 65-99 years and adults aged 18-64 years with underlying conditions in England were projected using a probabilistic cohort model. Vaccination with PCV20 was compared with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) from the National Health Service perspective.

RESULTS

PCV20 was cost saving compared with PPV23 in base case and most sensitivity analyses. In the base case, replacing PPV23 with PCV20 prevented 7,789 and 140,046 cases of IPD and hospitalized CAP, respectively, and 22,199 associated deaths, resulting in incremental gain of 91,375 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental savings of £160M. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, PCV20 (vs. PPV23) was cost saving in 85% of simulations; incremental cost per QALY was below £30,000 in 99% of simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

PCV20 vaccination in adults aged 65-99 years and those aged 18-64 years with underlying comorbidities in England is expected to prevent more hospitalizations, save more lives, and yield lower overall costs than current recommendations for PPV23.

The Value of Vaccines in Maintaining Health System Capacity in England

OBJECTIVES

In situations of excess demand for healthcare, treating one patient means losing the opportunity to treat another. Therefore, each decision bears an opportunity cost. Nevertheless, when assessing the value of health technologies, these opportunity costs are not always fully considered. We present a pragmatic approach for conceptualizing vaccines' health system capacity value when considering opportunity costs.

METHODS

Our approach proxies opportunity costs through the net monetary benefit forgone as scarce healthcare resources are used to treat a vaccine-preventable disease instead of a patient from the waiting list. We apply this approach to cost the resource "hospital beds" for 3 different scenarios of excess demand. Empirically, we estimate the opportunity costs saved for 4 selected vaccination programs from the national schedule in England during a hypothetical scenario of long-lasting excess demand induced by the pandemic.

RESULTS

The opportunity cost avoided through vaccination rises with excess demand for treatment. When treating an acute vaccine-preventable outcome is a suboptimal choice compared with treating elective patients, preventing a vaccine-preventable disease from blocking a hospital bed generates opportunity cost savings of approximately twice the direct costs saved by avoiding vaccine-preventable hospitalizations.

CONCLUSIONS

Policy makers should be aware that, in addition to preventing the outcome of interest, vaccines and other preventative health technologies deliver value in maintaining regular healthcare services and clearing the pent-up demand from the pandemic. Therefore, health system capacity value should be a key-value element in health technology assessment. Existing and potential future vaccination programs deliver more value than hitherto quantified.

Harmonization issues in unit costing of service use for multi-country, multi-sectoral health economic evaluations: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Valuation is a critical part of the costing process in health economic evaluations. However, an overview of specific issues relevant to the European context on harmonizing methodological requirements for the valuation of costs to be used in health economic evaluation is lacking. We aimed to inform the development of an international, harmonized and multi-sectoral costing framework, as sought in the European PECUNIA (ProgrammE in Costing, resource use measurement and outcome valuation for Use in multi-sectoral National and International health economic evaluAtions) project.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review (information extraction 2008-2021) to a) to demonstrate the degree of heterogeneity that currently exists in the literature regarding central terminology, b) to generate an overview of the most relevant areas for harmonization in multi-sectoral and multi-national costing processes for health economic evaluations, and c) to provide insights into country level variation regarding economic evaluation guidance. A complex search strategy was applied covering key publications on costing methods, glossaries, and international costing recommendations augmented by a targeted author and reference search as well as snowballing. Six European countries served as case studies to describe country-specific harmonization issues. Identified information was qualitatively synthesized and cross-checked using a newly developed, pilot-tested data extraction form.

RESULTS

Costing methods for services were found to be heterogeneous between sectors and country guidelines and may, in practice, be often driven by data availability and reimbursement systems in place. The lack of detailed guidance regarding specific costing methods, recommended data sources, double-counting of costs between sectors, adjustment of unit costs for inflation, transparent handling of overhead costs as well as the unavailability of standardized unit costing estimates in most countries were identified as main drivers of country specific differences in costing methods with a major impact on valuation and cost-effectiveness evidence.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a basic summary of existing costing practices for evaluative purposes across sectors and countries and highlights several common methodological factors influencing divergence in cost valuation methods that would need to be systematically incorporated and addressed in future costing practices to achieve more comparable, harmonized health economic evaluation evidence.

Direct Medical Costs of Tetanus, Dengue, and Sepsis Patients in an Intensive Care Unit in Vietnam

Background

Critically ill patients often require complex clinical care by highly trained staff within a specialized intensive care unit (ICU) with advanced equipment. There are currently limited data on the costs of critical care in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aims to investigate the direct-medical costs of key infectious disease (tetanus, sepsis, and dengue) patients admitted to ICU in a hospital in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), Vietnam, and explores how the costs and cost drivers can vary between the different diseases.

Methods

We calculated the direct medical costs for patients requiring critical care for tetanus, dengue and sepsis. Costing data (stratified into different cost categories) were extracted from the bills of patients hospitalized to the adult ICU with a dengue, sepsis and tetanus diagnosis that were enrolled in three studies conducted at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases in HCMC from January 2017 to December 2019. The costs were considered from the health sector perspective. The total sample size in this study was 342 patients.

Results

ICU care was associated with significant direct medical costs. For patients that did not require mechanical ventilation, the median total ICU cost per patient varied between US$64.40 and US$675 for the different diseases. The costs were higher for patients that required mechanical ventilation, with the median total ICU cost per patient for the different diseases varying between US$2,590 and US$4,250. The main cost drivers varied according to disease and associated severity.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the notable cost of ICU care in Vietnam and in similar LMIC settings. Future studies are needed to further evaluate the costs and economic burden incurred by ICU patients. The data also highlight the importance of evaluating novel critical care interventions that could reduce the costs of ICU care.

Principles of Economic Evaluation in a Pandemic Setting: An Expert Panel Discussion on Value Assessment During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to generate significant morbidity and mortality as well as economic and societal impacts, the landscape of potential treatments has slowly begun to broaden. In the case of a novel disease with widespread consequences, society is more likely to place significant value on interventions that reduce the outsized economic burden of COVID-19. Treatments for severe disease will have a different value profile to that of large-scale vaccines because of their application in targeted and potentially small subsets of those with symptomatic disease vs broad deployment as a preventative measure. Where vaccines reduce transmissibility of COVID-19, use of therapeutics will target symptoms, up to and including death for infected individuals. This paper describes discussions from a virtual expert panel that met to attempt a consensus on how existing principles of economic evaluation should be applied to therapeutics that emerge in a pandemic setting, with specific focus on severe hospitalised cases of COVID-19. The panel concluded that the core principles of economic evaluation do not need to be drastically overhauled to meet the challenges of a pandemic, but that there are several additional elements of value such as equity, disease severity, insurance value, and scientific and family spillover effects that should be considered when presenting results to decision makers. The panel also highlighted the persistent challenges on how society should value novel therapies, such as the appropriate cost-effectiveness threshold to apply, which are particularly salient during a pandemic.

How to Prevent Vaccines Falling Victim to Their Own Success: Intertemporal Dependency of Incidence Levels on Indirect Effects in Economic Reevaluations

OBJECTIVES

Incremental cost-effectiveness analyses may inform the optimal choice of healthcare interventions. Nevertheless, for many vaccines, benefits fluctuate with incidence levels over time. Reevaluating a vaccine after it has successfully decreased incidences may eventually cause a disease resurgence if switching to a vaccine with lower indirect benefits. Decisions may successively alternate between vaccines alongside repeated rises and falls in incidence and when indirect effects from historic use are ignored. Our suggested proposal aims to prevent suboptimal decision making.

METHODS

We used a conceptual model of demand to illustrate alternating decisions between vaccines because of time-varying levels of indirect effects. Similar to the concept of subsidies, we propose internalizing the indirect effects achievable with vaccines. In a case study over 60 years, we simulated a hypothetical 10-year reevaluation of 2 oncogenic human papillomavirus vaccines, of which only 1 protects additionally against anogenital warts.

RESULTS

Our case study showed that the vaccine with additional warts protection is initially valued higher than the vaccine without additional warts protection. After 10 years, this differential decreases because of declines in warts incidence, which supports switching to the nonwarts vaccine that causes a warts resurgence eventually. Instead, pricing the indirect effects separately supports continuing with the warts vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

Ignoring how the observed incidences depend on the indirect effects achieved with a particular vaccine may lead to repeated changes in vaccines at successive reevaluations, with unintended resurgences, economic inefficiencies, and eroding vaccine confidence. We propose internalizing indirect effects to prevent vaccines falling victim to their own success.

Bed-days and costs associated with the inpatient burden of healthcare-associated infection in the UK

BACKGROUND

Healthcare-associated infection (HAI) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality resulting in excess costs.

AIM

To investigate the impact of all types of HAI on the inpatient cost of HAI using different approaches.

METHODS

The incidence, types of HAI, and excess length of stay were estimated using data collected as part of the Evaluation of Cost of Nosocomial Infection (ECONI) study. Scottish NHS reference costs were used to estimate unit costs for bed-days. Variable (cash) costs associated with infection prevention and control (IPC) measures and treatment were calculated for each HAI type and overall. The inpatient cost of HAI is presented in terms of bed-days lost, bed-day costs, and cash costs.

FINDINGS

In Scotland 58,010 (95% confidence interval: 41,730-74,840) bed-days were estimated to be lost to HAI during 2018/19, costing £46.4 million (19m-129m). The total annual cost in the UK is estimated to be £774 million (328m-2,192m). Bloodstream infection and pneumonia were the most costly HAI types per case. Cash costs are a small proportion of the total cost of HAI, contributing 2.4% of total costs.

CONCLUSION

Reliable estimates of the cost burden of HAI management are important for assessing the cost-effectiveness of IPC programmes. This unique study presents robust economic data, demonstrating that HAI remains a burden to the UK NHS and bed-days capture the majority of inpatient costs. These findings can be used to inform the economic evaluation and decision analytic modelling of competing IPC programmes at local and national level.

The potential health and economic value of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination alongside physical distancing in the UK: a transmission model-based future scenario analysis and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK first adopted physical distancing measures in March, 2020. Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 became available in December, 2020. We explored the health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 immunisation alongside physical distancing in the UK to gain insights about possible future scenarios in a post-vaccination era.

METHODS

We used an age-structured dynamic transmission and economic model to explore different scenarios of UK mass immunisation programmes over 10 years. We compared vaccinating 75% of individuals aged 15 years or older (and annually revaccinating 50% of individuals aged 15-64 years and 75% of individuals aged 65 years or older) to no vaccination. We assumed either 50% vaccine efficacy against disease and 45-week protection (worst-case scenario) or 95% vaccine efficacy against infection and 3-year protection (best-case scenario). Natural immunity was assumed to wane within 45 weeks. We also explored the additional impact of physical distancing on vaccination by assuming either an initial lockdown followed by voluntary physical distancing, or an initial lockdown followed by increased physical distancing mandated above a certain threshold of incident daily infections. We considered benefits in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs, both to the health-care payer and the national economy. We discounted future costs and QALYs at 3·5% annually and assumed a monetary value per QALY of £20 000 and a conservative long-run cost per vaccine dose of £15. We explored and varied these parameters in sensitivity analyses. We expressed the health and economic benefits of each scenario with the net monetary value: QALYs × (monetary value per QALY) - costs.

FINDINGS

Without the initial lockdown, vaccination, and increased physical distancing, we estimated 148·0 million (95% uncertainty interval 48·5-198·8) COVID-19 cases and 3·1 million (0·84-4·5) deaths would occur in the UK over 10 years. In the best-case scenario, vaccination minimises community transmission without future periods of increased physical distancing, whereas SARS-CoV-2 becomes endemic with biannual epidemics in the worst-case scenario. Ongoing transmission is also expected in intermediate scenarios with vaccine efficacy similar to published clinical trial data. From a health-care perspective, introducing vaccination leads to incremental net monetary values ranging from £12·0 billion to £334·7 billion in the best-case scenario and from -£1·1 billion to £56·9 billion in the worst-case scenario. Incremental net monetary values of increased physical distancing might be negative from a societal perspective if national economy losses are persistent and large.

INTERPRETATION

Our model findings highlight the substantial health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Smaller outbreaks could continue even with vaccines, but population-wide implementation of increased physical distancing might no longer be justifiable. Our study provides early insights about possible future post-vaccination scenarios from an economic and epidemiological perspective.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research, European Commission, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The potential health and economic value of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination alongside physical distancing in the UK: a transmission model-based future scenario analysis and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK first adopted physical distancing measures in March, 2020. Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 became available in December, 2020. We explored the health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 immunisation alongside physical distancing in the UK to gain insights about possible future scenarios in a post-vaccination era.

METHODS

We used an age-structured dynamic transmission and economic model to explore different scenarios of UK mass immunisation programmes over 10 years. We compared vaccinating 75% of individuals aged 15 years or older (and annually revaccinating 50% of individuals aged 15-64 years and 75% of individuals aged 65 years or older) to no vaccination. We assumed either 50% vaccine efficacy against disease and 45-week protection (worst-case scenario) or 95% vaccine efficacy against infection and 3-year protection (best-case scenario). Natural immunity was assumed to wane within 45 weeks. We also explored the additional impact of physical distancing on vaccination by assuming either an initial lockdown followed by voluntary physical distancing, or an initial lockdown followed by increased physical distancing mandated above a certain threshold of incident daily infections. We considered benefits in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs, both to the health-care payer and the national economy. We discounted future costs and QALYs at 3·5% annually and assumed a monetary value per QALY of £20 000 and a conservative long-run cost per vaccine dose of £15. We explored and varied these parameters in sensitivity analyses. We expressed the health and economic benefits of each scenario with the net monetary value: QALYs × (monetary value per QALY) - costs.

FINDINGS

Without the initial lockdown, vaccination, and increased physical distancing, we estimated 148·0 million (95% uncertainty interval 48·5-198·8) COVID-19 cases and 3·1 million (0·84-4·5) deaths would occur in the UK over 10 years. In the best-case scenario, vaccination minimises community transmission without future periods of increased physical distancing, whereas SARS-CoV-2 becomes endemic with biannual epidemics in the worst-case scenario. Ongoing transmission is also expected in intermediate scenarios with vaccine efficacy similar to published clinical trial data. From a health-care perspective, introducing vaccination leads to incremental net monetary values ranging from £12·0 billion to £334·7 billion in the best-case scenario and from -£1·1 billion to £56·9 billion in the worst-case scenario. Incremental net monetary values of increased physical distancing might be negative from a societal perspective if national economy losses are persistent and large.

INTERPRETATION

Our model findings highlight the substantial health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Smaller outbreaks could continue even with vaccines, but population-wide implementation of increased physical distancing might no longer be justifiable. Our study provides early insights about possible future post-vaccination scenarios from an economic and epidemiological perspective.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research, European Commission, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Delayed transfers of care for older people: a wider perspective

Delayed transfers of care (DTOC), often unhelpfully referred to as 'bed blocking', has become a byword for waste and inefficiency in healthcare systems throughout the world. An estimated 2.7 million bed days are occupied each year in England by older people no longer in need of acute treatment, estimated to cost £820 million (2014/15) in inpatient care. Policy and media attention have often been drawn to this narrative of financial waste, resulting in policy setting that directly targets the level of DTOC, but has done little to put patient health first. These figures and policies portray a misleading image of the delays as primarily of concern in terms of their financial burden on acute hospital care, with little consideration given to the quantification on patient health or wider societal impacts. In spite of the multi-factorial decision-making process that occurs for each patient discharge, current evaluation frameworks and national policy setting fail to reflect the complexity of the process. In this commentary, we interrogate the current approach to the quantification of the DTOC impact and explore how policies and evaluation methods can do more to reflect the true impact of the delays.

Cost-effectiveness of implantable ventricular assist devices in older children with stable, inotrope-dependent dilated cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

In a stable, inotrope-dependent pediatric patient with dilated cardiomyopathy, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of continuous-flow VAD implantation compared to a watchful waiting approach using chronic inotropic therapy.

METHODS

We used a state-transition model to estimate the costs and outcomes of 14-year-old (INTERMACS profile 3) patients receiving either VAD or watchful waiting. We measured benefits in terms of lifetime QALYs gained. Model inputs were taken from the literature. We calculated the ICER, or the cost per additional QALY gained, of VADs and performed multiple sensitivity analyses to test how our assumptions influenced the results.

RESULTS

Compared to watchful waiting, VADs produce 0.97 more QALYs for an additional $156 639, leading to an ICER of $162 123 per QALY gained from a healthcare perspective. VADs have 17% chance of being cost-effective given a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses suggest that VADs can be cost-effective if the costs of implantation decrease or if hospitalization costs or mortality among watchful waiting patients is higher.

CONCLUSIONS

As a bridge to transplant, VADs provide a health benefit to children who develop stable, inotrope-dependent heart failure, but immediate implantation is not yet a cost-effective strategy compared to watchful waiting based on commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds. Early VAD support can be cost-effective in sicker patients and if device implantation is cheaper. In complex conditions such as pediatric heart failure, cost-effectiveness should be just one of many factors that inform clinical decision-making.

The tripartite insurance model (TIM): a financial incentive to prevent outbreaks of infections due to multidrug-resistant microorganisms in hospitals

Healthcare-associated infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) constitute a major challenge worldwide, but care providers are often not sufficiently incentivized to implement recommended infection prevention measures to prevent the spread of such infections. We propose a new approach which creates incentives for hospitals, external laboratories and insurers to collaborate on preventing MDRO outbreaks by testing more and implementing infection prevention measures. This tripartite insurance model (TIM) redistributes the costs of preventing and combating MDRO outbreaks in a way that all parties benefit from reducing the number of outbreaks.

Optimizing Benefits of Testing Key Workers for Infection with SARS-CoV-2: A Mathematical Modeling Analysis

Background

Internationally, key workers such as healthcare staff are advised to stay at home if they or household members experience coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–like symptoms. This potentially isolates/quarantines many staff without SARS-CoV-2, while not preventing transmission from staff with asymptomatic infection. We explored the impact of testing staff on absence durations from work and transmission risks to others.

Methods

We used a decision-analytic model for 1000 key workers to compare the baseline strategy of (S0) no RT-PCR testing of workers to testing workers (S1) with COVID-19–like symptoms in isolation, (S2) without COVID-19–like symptoms but in household quarantine, and (S3) all staff. We explored confirmatory re-testing scenarios of repeating all initial tests, initially positive tests, initially negative tests, or no re-testing. We varied all parameters, including the infection rate (0.1–20%), proportion asymptomatic (10–80%), sensitivity (60–95%), and specificity (90–100%).

Results

Testing all staff (S3) changes the risk of workplace transmission by −56.9 to +1.0 workers/1000 tests (with reductions throughout at RT-PCR sensitivity ≥65%), and absences by −0.5 to +3.6 days/test but at heightened testing needs of 989.6–1995.9 tests/1000 workers. Testing workers in household quarantine (S2) reduces absences the most by 3.0–6.9 days/test (at 47.0–210.4 tests/1000 workers), while increasing risk of workplace transmission by 0.02–49.5 infected workers/1000 tests (which can be minimized when re-testing initially negative tests).

Conclusions

Based on optimizing absence durations or transmission risk, our modeling suggests testing staff in household quarantine or all staff, depending on infection levels and testing capacities.

Integrating economic and health evidence to inform Covid-19 policy in low- and middle- income countries

Covid-19 requires policy makers to consider evidence on both population health and economic welfare. Over the last two decades, the field of health economics has developed a range of analytical approaches and contributed to the institutionalisation of processes to employ economic evidence in health policy. We present a discussion outlining how these approaches and processes need to be applied more widely to inform Covid-19 policy; highlighting where they may need to be adapted conceptually and methodologically, and providing examples of work to date. We focus on the evidential and policy needs of low- and middle-income countries; where there is an urgent need for evidence to navigate the policy trade-offs between health and economic well-being posed by the Covid-19 pandemic.

What causes high costs for rural tuberculosis inpatients? Evidence from five counties in China

BACKGROUND

Tuberculosis (TB) still causes high economic burden on patients in China, especially for rural patients. Our study aims to explore the risk factors associated with the high costs for TB inpatients in rural China from the aspects of inpatients' socio-demographic and institutional attributes.

METHODS

Generalized linear models were utilized to investigate the factors associated with TB inpatients' total costs and out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures. Quantile regression (QR) models were applied to explore the effect of each factor across the different costs range and identify the risk factors of high costs.

RESULTS

TB inpatients with long length of stay and who receive hospitalization services cross provincially, in tertiary and specialized hospitals were likely to face high total costs and OOP expenditures. QR models showed that high total costs occurred in Dingyuan and Funan Counties, but they were not accompanied by high OOP expenditures.

CONCLUSIONS

Early diagnosis, standard treatment and control of drug-resistant TB are still awaiting for more efforts from the government. TB inpatients should obtain medical services from appropriate hospitals. The diagnosis and treatment process of TB should be standardized across all designated medical institutions. Furthermore, the reimbursement policy for migrant workers who suffered from TB should be ameliorated.

Quantifying the economic cost of antibiotic resistance and the impact of related interventions: rapid methodological review, conceptual framework and recommendations for future studies

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic resistance (ABR) poses a major threat to health and economic wellbeing worldwide. Reducing ABR will require government interventions to incentivise antibiotic development, prudent antibiotic use, infection control and deployment of partial substitutes such as rapid diagnostics and vaccines. The scale of such interventions needs to be calibrated to accurate and comprehensive estimates of the economic cost of ABR.

METHODS

A conceptual framework for estimating costs attributable to ABR was developed based on previous literature highlighting methodological shortcomings in the field and additional deductive epidemiological and economic reasoning. The framework was supplemented by a rapid methodological review.

RESULTS

The review identified 110 articles quantifying ABR costs. Most were based in high-income countries only (91/110), set in hospitals (95/110), used a healthcare provider or payer perspective (97/110), and used matched cohort approaches to compare costs of patients with antibiotic-resistant infections and antibiotic-susceptible infections (or no infection) (87/110). Better use of methods to correct biases and confounding when making this comparison is needed. Findings also need to be extended beyond their limitations in (1) time (projecting present costs into the future), (2) perspective (from the healthcare sector to entire societies and economies), (3) scope (from individuals to communities and ecosystems), and (4) space (from single sites to countries and the world). Analyses of the impact of interventions need to be extended to examine the impact of the intervention on ABR, rather than considering ABR as an exogeneous factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Quantifying the economic cost of resistance will require greater rigour and innovation in the use of existing methods to design studies that accurately collect relevant outcomes and further research into new techniques for capturing broader economic outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of the Hall Technique in a Randomized Trial

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes were reported for carious primary molars treated with the Hall technique (HT) as compared with conventional carious tissue removal and restorations (i.e., conventional restoration [CR]) in a 5-y randomized controlled practice-based trial in Scotland. We interrogated this data set further to investigate the cost-effectiveness of HT versus CR. A total of 132 children who had 2 matched occlusal/occlusal-proximal carious lesions in primary molars ( n = 264 teeth) were randomly allocated to HT or CR, provided by 17 general dental practitioners. Molars were followed up for a mean 5 y. A societal perspective was taken for the economic analysis. Direct dental treatment costs were estimated from a Scottish NHS perspective (an NHS England perspective was taken for a sensitivity analysis). Initial, maintenance, and retreatment costs, including rerestorations, endodontic treatments, and extractions, were estimated with fee items. Indirect/opportunity costs were estimated with time and travel costs from a UK perspective. The primary outcome was tooth survival. Secondary outcomes included 1) not having pain or needing endodontic treatments/extractions and 2) not needing rerestorations. Cost-effectiveness and acceptability were estimated from bootstrapped samples. Significantly more molars in HT survived (99%, 95% CI: 98% to 100%) than in CR (92%; 87% to 97%). Also, the proportion of molars retained without pain or requiring endodontic treatment/extraction was significantly higher in HT than CR. In the base case analysis (NHS Scotland perspective), cumulative direct dental treatment costs (Great British pound [GBP]) of HT were 24 GBP (95% CI: 23 to 25); costs for CR were 29 (17 to 46). From an NHS England perspective, the cost advantage of HT (29 GBP; 95% CI: 25 to 34) over CR (107; 86 to 127) was more pronounced. Indirect/opportunity costs were significantly lower for HT (8 GBP; 95% CI: 7 to 9) than CR (19; 16 to 23). Total cumulative costs were significantly lower for HT (32 GBP; 95% CI: 31 to 34) than CR (49; 34 to 69). Based on a long-term practice-based trial, HT was more cost-effective than CR with HT retained for longer and experiencing less complications at lower costs.

Estimating the Hospital Burden of Norovirus-Associated Gastroenteritis in England and Its Opportunity Costs for Nonadmitted Patients

Background

Norovirus places a substantial burden on healthcare systems, arising from infected patients, disease outbreaks, beds kept unoccupied for infection control, and staff absences due to infection. In settings with high rates of bed occupancy, opportunity costs arise from patients who cannot be admitted due to beds being unavailable. With several treatments and vaccines against norovirus in development, quantifying the expected economic burden is timely.

Methods

The number of inpatients with norovirus-associated gastroenteritis in England was modeled using infectious and noninfectious gastrointestinal Hospital Episode Statistics codes and laboratory reports of gastrointestinal pathogens collected at Public Health England. The excess length of stay from norovirus was estimated with a multistate model and local outbreak data. Unoccupied bed-days and staff absences were estimated from national outbreak surveillance. The burden was valued conventionally using accounting expenditures and wages, which we contrasted to the opportunity costs from forgone patients using a novel methodology.

Results

Between July 2013 and June 2016, 17.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.6%‒21.6%) of primary and 23.8% (95% CI, 20.6%‒29.9%) of secondary gastrointestinal diagnoses were norovirus attributable. Annually, the estimated median 290000 (interquartile range, 282000‒297000) occupied and unoccupied bed-days used for norovirus displaced 57800 patients. Conventional costs for the National Health Service reached £107.6 million; the economic burden approximated to £297.7 million and a loss of 6300 quality-adjusted life-years annually.

Conclusions

In England, norovirus is now the second-largest contributor of the gastrointestinal hospital burden. With the projected impact being greater than previously estimated, improved capture of relevant opportunity costs seems imperative for diseases such as norovirus.