Family Spillover Effects: Are Economic Evaluations Misrepresenting the Value of Healthcare Interventions to Society?

Addressing financial hardship in malignant hematology and hematopoietic cell transplant: a team approach

ABSTRACT

Financial hardship is a common experience for patients and their families after the diagnosis of a hematologic malignancy and is associated with worse outcomes. Health care costs, increased costs of living, income poverty, and inadequate wealth contribute to financial hardship after the diagnosis and treatment of a hematologic malignancy and/or hematopoietic cell transplant. Given the multidimensional nature of financial hardship, a multidisciplinary team-based approach is needed to address this public health hazard. Hematologists and oncologists may mitigate the impact of financial hardship by matching treatment options with patient goals of care and reducing symptom burden disruptive to employment. Social workers and financial navigators can assist with screening and resource deployment. Policymakers and researchers can identify structural and policy changes to prevent financial hardship. By alleviating this major health care burden from patients, care teams may improve survival and quality of life for patients with hematologic malignancies.

Unpaid Caring and Health-Related Quality of Life: Longitudinal Analysis of Understanding Society (the UK Household Longitudinal Survey)

OBJECTIVES

Decision models for economic evaluation are increasingly including health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for informal/unpaid carers, but these estimates often come from poor quality data and typically rely on cross-sectional analysis. We aimed to identify within-person effects using longitudinal analysis of 13 waves of Understanding Society (the UK Household Longitudinal Survey).

METHODS

We analyzed data for coresident carer and care-recipient dyads, where the carer reported "looking after or giving special help to" the care recipient in any of the 13 waves. We used fixed-effects models to study the effects of caring for the care recipient (the "caregiving" effect) using volume of care (hours per week) and continuous duration of caregiving (years) and caring about the care recipient (the "family" effect) using the care recipient's HRQoL on the carer's HRQoL. HRQoL was measured using the Short Form 6 Dimension, calculated from the Short Form 12.

RESULTS

We found consistent evidence for the family effect: improving care recipient's HRQoL by 0.1 would improve carer's HRQoL by approximately 0.012. We also consistently found evidence of a small but statistically significant decrement to carer's HRQoL for each additional year of caring. These findings were robust to scenario analyses. Evidence for the relationship between volume of care and carer's HRQoL was less clear.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose that our estimates can be used to populate economic models to predict changes in carers' HRQoL over time and allow disutilities to be estimated separately for the family and caregiving effect.

Development of stakeholder-informed recommendations for inclusion of family spillover effects in health technology assessment

BACKGROUND

The impacts of disease and treatment on a patient's family members and informal caregivers are known as "family spillover effects." Although many formal value frameworks call for the consideration of these effects, they are often not included in health technology assessments (HTAs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). A formal evaluation of stakeholder perspectives may help address the disconnect for inclusion of family spillover effects observed in practice.

OBJECTIVE

To develop stakeholder-driven recommendations for the measurement and use of family spillover effects in the United States and to identify research opportunities.

METHODS

We first conducted a targeted literature review of US-based CEAs and HTA reports from the past 10 years to assess the current use of family spillover effects. We then used a purposeful sampling technique to conduct 25 qualitative interviews with outcomes researchers, patient advocates, health economists, and health policy and payer experts to gather perspectives on when and how family spillover effects should be considered in HTA processes. We conducted a thematic analysis of the interview transcripts to identify key themes and develop preliminary recommendations. Finally, we conducted an online workshop with 8 stakeholders to discuss, rate, and refine preliminary recommendations to develop final recommendations.

RESULTS

A key theme identified in the stakeholder interviews was the role that data availability, analyst preferences, and prior precedence play in limiting the inclusion of spillover effects in HTAs. Additional themes included support for the inclusion of both qualitative and quantitative spillover effects and the need to capture broad and diverse impacts across populations. We developed 15 recommendations from the consensus building workshop addressing measurement, CEA modeling, and HTA processes. Key recommendations included (1) a transparent process for deciding when family spillover effects should be included, (2) measurement of direct and indirect costs with priority based on the magnitude of impact, (3) the use of validated measures, (4) the use of proxy information and expert elicitation when quality data are unavailable, and (5) the use of a modified impact inventory table for transparency of included effects. Research opportunities included patient involvement in family spillover effect research and HTAs, mapping algorithms and non-preference-based caregiver measures to generate utilities, and consensus best practices for modeling.

CONCLUSIONS

The inconsistent inclusion of family spillover effects in HTAs and CEAs remains a persistent challenge. The stakeholder-driven recommendations and research opportunities identified in this study may help improve the transparency, measurement, and use of family spillover effects in assessing the clinical and economic value of novel medical technologies.

Healthcare Stakeholder Perspectives on a Value Assessment Approach for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Therapies

Purpose

Traditional value assessment frameworks are challenged in comprehensively assessing the societal value new therapies bring to individuals with rare, progressive, genetic, fatal, neuromuscular diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). The objective of this study was to identify how value assessment frameworks may need to be adapted to measure the value to society of DMD therapies.

Patients and Methods

Three stakeholder groups (6 patient advocates, 4 clinicians, 3 health economists; N = 13) participated in semi-structured interviews around the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research's Value Flower, which includes elements to consider within value assessments of healthcare technologies.

Results

All stakeholders agreed that traditional value assessment frameworks based on the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) are narrow and will undervalue new DMD therapies. All stakeholders expressed some level of concern that using the QALY as a key metric of value discriminates against patients with severe progressive diseases and disabilities. Some stakeholders saw value in using the QALY for cross-disease comparisons in resource-constrained environments if the methodology was appropriate. All stakeholders recommended considering additional elements of value in decision-making around new DMD therapies. These elements reflect: economic and humanistic costs incurred by patients, caregivers, and families with Duchenne, such as indirect out-of-pocket costs, lost productivity, and family spillovers; meaningful attributes for individuals with disabilities and high unmet need, such as severity of disease, value of hope, and real option value; and factors that contribute to improvements in population health, such as insurance value, equity, and scientific spillovers.

Conclusion

These findings highlight the need to expand traditional value assessment frameworks and take a holistic approach that incorporates the perspectives of individuals with Duchenne, caregivers, clinicians, and health economists when assessing the societal value of new DMD therapies. Broadening value assessment will prevent restricted or delayed access to therapies for individuals with Duchenne.

Mapping of Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) scores to EQ-5D: algorithm to calculate utility values

OBJECTIVE

Although decision scientists and health economists encourage inclusion of family member/informal carer utility in health economic evaluation, there is a lack of suitable utility measures comparable to patient utility measures such those based on the EQ-5D. This study aims to predict EQ-5D-3L utility values from Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) scores, to allow the use of FROM-16 data in health economic evaluation when EQ-5D data is not available.

METHODS

Data from 4228 family members/partners of patients recruited to an online cross-sectional study through 58 UK-based patient support groups, three research support platforms and Welsh social services departments were randomly divided five times into two groups, to derive and test a mapping model. Split-half cross-validation was employed, resulting in a total of ten multinomial logistic regression models. The Monte Carlo simulation procedure was used to generate predicted EQ-5D-3L responses, and utility scores were calculated and compared against observed values. Mean error and mean absolute error were calculated for all ten validation models. The final model algorithm was derived using the entire sample.

RESULTS

The model was highly predictive, and its repeated fitting using multinomial logistic regression demonstrated a stable model. The mean differences between predicted and observed health utility estimates ranged from 0.005 to 0.029 across the ten modelling exercises, with an average overall difference of 0.015 (a 2.2% overestimate, not of clinical importance).

CONCLUSIONS

The algorithm developed will enable researchers and decision scientists to calculate EQ-5D health utility estimates from FROM-16 scores, thus allowing the inclusion of the family impact of disease in health economic evaluation of medical interventions when EQ-5D data is not available.

Examining how well economic evaluations capture the value of mental health

Health economics evidence informs health-care decision making, but the field has historically paid insufficient attention to mental health. Economic evaluations in health should define an appropriate scope for benefits and costs and how to value them. This Health Policy provides an overview of these processes and considers to what extent they capture the value of mental health. We suggest that although current practices are both transparent and justifiable, they have distinct limitations from the perspective of mental health. Most social value judgements, such as the exclusion of interindividual outcomes and intersectoral costs, diminish the value of improving mental health, and this reduction in value might be disproportionate compared with other types of health. Economic analyses might have disadvantaged interventions that improve mental health compared with physical health, but research is required to test the size of such differential effects and any subsequent effect on decision-making systems such as health technology assessment systems. Collaboration between health economics and the mental health sciences is crucial for achieving mental-physical health parity in evaluative frameworks and, ultimately, improving population mental health.

Recommendations for Emerging Good Practice and Future Research in Relation to Family and Caregiver Health Spillovers in Health Economic Evaluations: A Report of the SHEER Task Force

BACKGROUND

Omission of family and caregiver health spillovers from the economic evaluation of healthcare interventions remains common practice. When reported, a high degree of methodological inconsistency in incorporating spillovers has been observed.

AIM

To promote emerging good practice, this paper from the Spillovers in Health Economic Evaluation and Research (SHEER) task force aims to provide guidance on the incorporation of family and caregiver health spillovers in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. SHEER also seeks to inform the basis for a spillover research agenda and future practice.

METHODS

A modified nominal group technique was used to reach consensus on a set of recommendations, representative of the views of participating subject-matter experts. Through the structured discussions of the group, as well as on the basis of evidence identified during a review process, recommendations were proposed and voted upon, with voting being held over two rounds.

RESULTS

This report describes 11 consensus recommendations for emerging good practice. SHEER advocates for the incorporation of health spillovers into analyses conducted from a healthcare/health payer perspective, and more generally inclusive perspectives such as a societal perspective. Where possible, spillovers related to displaced/foregone activities should be considered, as should the distributional consequences of inclusion. Time horizons ought to be sufficient to capture all relevant impacts. Currently, the collection of primary spillover data is preferred and clear justification should be provided when using secondary data. Transparency and consistency when reporting on the incorporation of health spillovers are crucial. In addition, given that the evidence base relating to health spillovers remains limited and requires much development, 12 avenues for future research are proposed.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of health spillovers in economic evaluations has been called for by researchers and policymakers alike. Accordingly, it is hoped that the consensus recommendations of SHEER will motivate more widespread incorporation of health spillovers into analyses. The developing nature of spillover research necessitates that this guidance be viewed as an initial roadmap, rather than a strict checklist. Moreover, there is a need for balance between consistency in approach, where valuable in a decision making context, and variation in application, to reflect differing decision maker perspectives and to support innovation.

A Systematic Review of Methods Used by Pediatric Cost-Utility Analyses to Include Family Spillover Effects

BACKGROUND

A child's health condition affects family members' health and well-being. However, pediatric cost-utility analysis (CUA) commonly ignores these family spillover effects leading to an incomplete understanding of the cost and benefits of a child's health intervention. Methodological challenges exist in assessing, valuing, and incorporating family spillover effects.

OBJECTIVE

This study systematically reviews and compare methods used to include family spillover effects in pediatric CUAs.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, Cochrane collection, CINAHL, INAHTA, and the Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation (PEDE) database from inception to 2020 to identify pediatric CUAs that included family spillover effects. The search was updated to 2021 using PEDE. The data describing in which family members spillover effects were measured, and how family spillover effects were measured, incorporated, and reported, were extracted. Common approaches were grouped conceptually. Further, this review identified theories or theoretical frameworks used to justify approaches for integrating family spillover effects into CUA.

RESULTS

Of 878 pediatric CUAs identified, 35 included family spillover effects. Most pediatric CUAs considered family spillover effects on one family member. Pediatric CUAs reported eight different approaches to measure the family spillover effects. The most common method was measuring the quality-adjusted life years (QALY) loss of the caregiver(s) or parent(s) due to a child's illness or disability using an isolated approach whereby family spillover effects were quantified in individual family members separately from other health effects. Studies used four approaches to integrate family spillover effects into CUA. The most common method was to sum children's and parents/caregivers' QALYs. Only two studies used a theoretical framework for incorporation of family spillover effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Few pediatric CUAs included family spillover effects and the observed variation indicated no consensus among researchers on how family spillover effects should be measured and incorporated. This heterogeneity is mirrored by a lack of practical guidelines by Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies or a theoretical foundation for including family spillover effects in pediatric CUA. The results from this review may encourage researchers to develop a theoretical framework and HTA agencies to develop guidelines for including family spillover effects. Such guidance may lead to more rigorous and standardized methods for including family spillover effects and better-quality evidence to inform decision-makers on the cost-effectiveness of pediatric health interventions.

Modelling Informal Carers' Health-Related Quality of Life: Challenges for Economic Evaluation

There has been increasing interest in including carers' health-related qualify of life (HRQoL) in decision models, but currently there is no best practice guidance as to how to do so. Models thus far have typically assumed that carers' HRQoL can be predicted from patient health states, as we illustrate with three examples of disease-modifying treatments. However, this approach limits the mechanisms that influence carers' HRQoL solely to patient health and may not accurately reflect carers' outcomes. In this article, we identify and discuss challenges associated with modelling intervention effects on carers' HRQoL: attaching carer utilities to patient disease states, the size of the caring network, aggregation of carer and patient HRQoL, patient death, and modelling longer-term carer HRQoL. We review and critique potential alternatives to modelling carers' HRQoL in decision models: trial-based analyses, qualitative consideration, cost-consequence analysis, and multicriteria decision analysis, noting that each of these also has its own challenges. We provide a framework of issues to consider when modelling carers' HRQoL and suggest how these can be addressed in current practice and future research.

The Effect of "Offline-to-Online" Trust Transfer on the Utilization of Online Medical Consultation Among Chinese Rural Residents: Experimental Study

BACKGROUND

Online medical consultation can serve as a valuable means for rural residents to access high-quality health care resources, thereby mitigating the geographic and economic disadvantages prevalent in rural areas. Nevertheless, due to lower cognitive abilities, rural residents often face challenges in trusting and making effective use of online medical consultations. More likely, adopting a bounded rational decision-making model that facilitates the "offline-to-online" trust transfer could prove to be a potentially effective approach. This strategy aims to encourage less technologically experienced rural residents to trust and make use of online medical consultations.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to characterize the status of "offline-to-online" trust transfer among rural residents in the context of internet health care, and analyze its direct impact on facilitating the utilization of online medical consultation. Additionally, we investigate the family spillover effect of "offline-to-online" trust transfer in promoting the use of online medical consultation among rural family members, considering its distributional effect across various education levels of the population.

METHODS

A multistage stratified random sampling method was used to survey participants in rural areas of China from July to September 2021, encompassing a total of 2597 rural residents from 960 rural households. Propensity score values were estimated using logit regression, and the propensity score matching method, using the K-nearest neighbor matching, radius matching, and kernel matching methods, was applied to create matched treatment and control samples of rural residents based on their experience of "offline-to-online" trust transfer. Subsequently, we calculated average treatment effect scores to compare the differences in utilizing online medical consultation between the treatment and control rural samples.

RESULTS

As many as 551/960 (57.4%) rural residents experienced an "offline-to-online" trust transfer, with a higher likelihood observed in the older population with lower levels of education and higher satisfaction with local health care services. Furthermore, rural residents who underwent "offline-to-online" trust transfer were 37%-40% more likely to utilize online medical consultation compared with those who did not experience this trust transfer. Additionally, family members of householders who underwent "offline-to-online" trust transfer were 25%-28% more likely to utilize online medical consultation than those whose householders did not experience this trust transfer. Notably, when compared with populations with high-level education, the "offline-to-online" trust transfer had more significant direct and spillover effects on the utilization of online medical consultation services among rural residents with low-level education.

CONCLUSIONS

To enhance the "offline-to-online" trust transfer among rural residents and its facilitation in their utilization of online medical consultation, as well as other mobile health (mHealth) and ubiquitous health (uHealth) services, we recommend that online health care providers adopt a "patient-oriented" service model. This approach aims to elevate rural residents' satisfaction with local health care services and harness the trust-building functions inherent in physician-patient relationships and among family members.

Modelling Spillover Effects on Informal Carers: The Carer QALY Trap

The provision of informal (unpaid) care can impose significant 'spillover effects' on carers, and accounting for these effects is consistent with the efficiency and equity objectives of health technology assessment (HTA). Inclusion of these effects in health economic models, particularly carer health-related quality of life (QOL), can have a substantial impact on net quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains and the relative cost effectiveness of new technologies. Typically, consideration of spillover effects improves the value of a technology, but in some circumstances, consideration of spillover effects can lead to situations whereby life-extending treatments for patients may be considered cost ineffective due to their impact on carer QOL. In this piece we revisit the classic 'QALY trap' and introduce an analogous 'carer QALY trap' which may have practical implications for economic evaluations where the inclusion of carer QOL reduces incremental QALY gains. Such results may align with a strict QALY-maximisation rule, however we consider the extent to which this principle may be at odds with the preferences of carers themselves (and possibly society more broadly), potentially leading decision makers into the carer QALY trap as a result. We subsequently reflect on potential solutions, highlighting the important (albeit limited) role that deliberation has to play in HTA.

The Feasibility and Validity of Preference-Based Quality of Life Measures With Informal Carers: A Think-Aloud Study

OBJECTIVES

A range of preference-based quality of life (QoL) measures have been proposed for use with informal carers. Qualitative evaluation of validity and feasibility of the measures is an important step in understanding whether measures will work as intended. At present, little is known about the performance of different types of preference-based QoL measures with informal carers. The objective of this study was to qualitatively assess the feasibility, content validity (including face validity), and acceptability of 5 QoL measures (the Carer Experience Scale, CarerQoL-7D, ASCOT-C, ICECAP-A, and EQ-5D-5L) with informal carers.

METHODS

A total of 24 "think-aloud" interviews were conducted with a cross-section of carers of adults in the United Kingdom. This think-aloud process was followed by semistructured discussion to probe issues of validity and feasibility in more detail. The interview data were transcribed, coded to identify the frequency of errors in completing the QoL measures and thematically analyzed to study the validity, feasibility, and acceptability of the measures.

RESULTS

Few errors (3%-7% per item) were identified in completing each of the measures with little distinct pattern. Most participants found the measures to be concise, clear, and relevant. Challenges included relevance, context, time period, missing items, multiple questions, and response options. Informal carers generally expressed a preference for using a care-related QoL measure.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing preference-based QoL measures have encouraging validity and feasibility within a mixed sample of informal carers, with minor challenges raised. These challenges ought to be considered, alongside the decision context, when administering QoL measures in this context.

Cost of Cancer in Adolescents and Young Adults in the United States: Results of the 2021 Report by Deloitte Access Economics, Commissioned by Teen Cancer America

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report, commissioned by Teen Cancer America and performed by Deloitte Access Economics in 2021, was to estimate the total costs incurred by adolescent and young adults (AYAs) after cancer diagnosis in the United States (US) over their life course.

METHODS

The incidence of cancer in 2019 among AYAs age 15-39 years was estimated from the US Cancer Statistics Public Use Database, and relative survival was projected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Cost domains included health system, productivity, and well-being costs. Components were estimated with published literature and pooled data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 2008 to 2012 and inflated to 2019 dollars.

RESULTS

The economic and human costs of cancer in AYAs are substantial-$23.5 billion overall, corresponding to $259,324 per person over the lifetime. The majority of costs are borne by AYA cancer survivors themselves in the form of lost productivity, loss of well-being, and loss of life.

CONCLUSION

These findings underscore the need to address the burden of cancer in AYAs through targeted programs for AYAs, such as financial navigation and health insurance literacy interventions, as well as local and national policy initiatives to address access to and enhanced coverage for clinical trials participation, fertility services, and survivorship care.