Surveying the Cost-Effectiveness of the 20 Procedures with the Largest Public Health Services Waiting Lists in Ireland: Implications for Ireland's Cost-Effectiveness Threshold

Supply-Side Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Questions for Evidence-Based Policy

There is growing interest in cost-effectiveness thresholds as a tool to inform resource allocation decisions in health care. Studies from several countries have sought to estimate health system opportunity costs, which supply-side cost-effectiveness thresholds are intended to represent. In this paper, we consider the role of empirical estimates of supply-side thresholds in policy-making. Recent studies estimate the cost per unit of health based on average displacement or outcome elasticity. We distinguish the types of point estimates reported in empirical work, including marginal productivity, average displacement, and outcome elasticity. Using this classification, we summarise the limitations of current approaches to threshold estimation in terms of theory, methods, and data. We highlight the questions that arise from alternative interpretations of thresholds and provide recommendations to policymakers seeking to use a supply-side threshold where the evidence base is emerging or incomplete. We recommend that: (1) policymakers must clearly define the scope of the application of a threshold, and the theoretical basis for empirical estimates should be consistent with that scope; (2) a process for the assessment of new evidence and for determining changes in the threshold to be applied in policy-making should be created; (3) decision-making processes should retain flexibility in the application of a threshold; and (4) policymakers should provide support for decision-makers relating to the use of thresholds and the implementation of decisions stemming from their application.

Cost-effectiveness evidence on approved cancer drugs in Ireland: the limits of data availability and implications for public accountability

BACKGROUND

We surveyed evidence published by Ireland's National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) on the cost-effectiveness of cancer drugs approved for funding within the Irish public healthcare system. The purpose is threefold: to assess the completeness and clarity of publicly available cost-effectiveness data of such therapies; to provide summary estimates of that data; to consider the implications of constraints on data availability for accountability regarding healthcare resource allocation.

METHODS

The National Cancer Control Programme lists 91 drug-indication pairs approved between June 2012 and July 2020. Records were retrieved from the NCPE website for each drug-indication pair, including, where available, health technology assessment (HTA) summary reports. We assessed what cost-effectiveness data regarding approved interventions is available, aggregated it and considered the consequences of reporting constraints.

RESULTS

Among the 91 drug-indication pairs 61 were reimbursed following full HTA, 22 after a rapid review process and 8 have no corresponding NCPE record. Of the 61 where an HTA report was available, 41 presented costs and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) estimates of the interventions compared. Cost estimates and corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are based on prices on application for reimbursement. Reimbursed prices are not published. Aggregating over the drug-indication pairs for which data is available, we find a mean incremental health gain of 0.85 QALY and an aggregate ICER of €100,295/QALY, which exceeds Ireland's cost-effectiveness threshold of €45,000/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Reimbursement applications by pharmaceutical manufacturers for cancer drugs typically exceed Ireland's cost-effectiveness threshold, often by a considerable margin. On aggregate, the additional total net cost of new drugs relative to current treatments needs to be more than halved for the prices sought on application to be justified for reimbursement. Commercial confidentiality regarding prices and cost-effectiveness upon reimbursement compromises accountability regarding the fair and efficient allocation of scarce healthcare resources.

The Need for Standardizing Diagnosis, Treatment and Clinical Care of Cholecystitis and Biliary Colic in Gallbladder Disease

Gallstones affect 20% of the Western population and will grow in clinical significance as obesity and metabolic diseases become more prevalent. Gallbladder removal (cholecystectomy) is a common treatment for diseases caused by gallstones, with 1.2 million surgeries in the US each year, each costing USD 10,000. Gallbladder disease has a significant impact on the logistics and economics of healthcare. We discuss the two most common presentations of gallbladder disease (biliary colic and cholecystitis) and their pathophysiology, risk factors, signs and symptoms. We discuss the factors that affect clinical care, including diagnosis, treatment outcomes, surgical risk factors, quality of life and cost-efficacy. We highlight the importance of standardised guidelines and objective scoring systems in improving quality, consistency and compatibility across healthcare providers and in improving patient outcomes, collaborative opportunities and the cost-effectiveness of treatment. Guidelines and scoring only exist in select areas of the care pathway. Opportunities exist elsewhere in the care pathway.

Systematic review and standardised assessment of Chinese cross-cultural adapted hip Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)

PURPOSE

To perform a systemic literature search to identify Chinese cross culturally adapted and new designed Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used for hip assessment, then a standardized evaluation of available instruments in order to provide evidence of high-quality PROMs for clinical use and adoption in future hip registries.

METHODS

A Systematic Review of the following databases: PUBMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, CNKI was performed to identify relevant PROMs. Instruments underwent standardized assessment and scoring using the EMPRO tool by two independent reviewers. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).

RESULTS

2188 articles were retrieved, with seven articles fitting the inclusion criteria consisting of six hip PROMs. Five PROMs were cross culturally adapted and one was originally designed in Mandarin Chinese. Total scores (/100) after EMPRO evaluation: Osteoarthritis of Knee and Hip Quality of Life (OAKHQOL): 55; Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS): 52; International Hip Outcome Tool (SC-iHOT-33): 45; Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS): 37; Questionnaire on the Perceptions and Functions of Patients about Total Hip Arthroplasty (QPFPTHA): 36; Oxford Hip Score (OHS): 35. ICC values were 0.73 for the SC-iHOT-33 and ranged between 0.83-0.93 for the other PROMs indicating good to excellent inter-rater agreement.

CONCLUSION

Among the commonly used hip-specific PROMs found in arthroplasty registries, none of the Chinese adapted versions evaluated by EMPRO is currently rated acceptable for clinical use. Only OAKHQOL and HAGOS reached acceptability threshold. Further research on the attributes of cross-cultural adaptation, interpretability and burden assessment would be helpful.

Revision of Ireland's Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: New State-Industry Drug Pricing Deal Should Adequately Reflect Opportunity Costs

Ireland's cost-effectiveness threshold is currently €45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). It has previously been determined by periodic agreements between the State and a pharma industry lobby body. A new deal is due in July 2021 and it is therefore timely to re-examine Ireland's threshold, how it is set and transparency around adherence to it. Previous research has noted a series of problems with the threshold, including that it is likely too high relative to the opportunity cost of unmet need within Ireland's health system. This means reimbursement at the threshold may do net harm to population health. The high threshold may also mean the Irish health system is failing to satisfy existing legislation on healthcare resource allocation. Recent COVID-19-related pressures on healthcare capacity and public spending appear to increase the urgency for an evidence-based revision of threshold to better reflect opportunity costs within the Irish healthcare system. Despite these problems, the prospects for reform of the threshold do not appear strong as the political and institutional incentives may favour the status quo. At the very least, the State should provide greater transparency regarding how the threshold is set and adhered to. A potential reform for consideration in the longer run could include a partial abandonment of thresholds in favour of an auction process to achieve the lowest cost per QALY from new drug interventions.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Current Varicose Veins Treatments

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of technologies for treatment of varicose veins over 5 years - conservative care (CONS), surgery (HL/S), ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and cyanoacrylate glue occlusion (CAE).

METHODS

A systematic review was updated and used to construct a Markov decision model. Outcomes were re-intervention on the truncal vein, re-treatment of residual varicosities and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and costs over five years.

RESULTS

UGFS has a significantly greater re-intervention rate than other procedures, while there is no significant difference between the other procedures. The cost per QALY of EVLA versus UGFS in our base-case model is £16966 ($23700) per QALY, which is considered cost-effective in the UK. RFA, MOCA and CAE have greater procedure costs than EVLA with no evidence of greater benefit for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

EVLA is the most cost-effective therapeutic option, with RFA a close second, in adult patients requiring treatment in the upper leg for incompetence of the GSV. MOCA, UGFS, CAE, CONS and HL/S are not cost-effective at current prices in the UK National Health Service. MOCA and CAE appear promising but further evidence on effectiveness, re-interventions and health-related quality of life is needed, as well as how cost-effectiveness may vary across settings and reimbursement systems.

On the role of cost-effectiveness thresholds in healthcare priority setting

In the past few years, empirical estimates of the marginal cost at which health care produces a quality-adjusted life year (QALY, k) have begun to emerge. In theory, these estimates could be used as cost-effectiveness thresholds by health-maximizing decision makers, but prioritization decisions in practice often include other considerations than just efficiency. Pharmaceutical reimbursement in Sweden is one such example, where the reimbursement authority (TLV) uses a threshold range to give priority to disease severity and rarity. In this paper, we argue that estimates of k should not be used to inform threshold ranges. Instead, they are better used directly in health technology assessment (HTA) to quantify how much health is forgone when a new technology is funded in place of other healthcare services. Using a recent decision made by TLV as a case, we show that an estimate of k for Sweden implies that reimbursement meant forgoing 8.6 QALYs for every QALY that was gained. Reporting cost-effectiveness evidence as QALYs forgone per QALY gained has several advantages: (i) it frames the decision as assigning an equity weight to QALYs gained, which is more transparent about the trade-off between equity and efficiency than determining a monetary cost per QALY threshold, (ii) it makes it less likely that decision makers neglect taking the opportunity cost of reimbursement into account by making it explicit, and (iii) it helps communicate the reason for sometimes denying reimbursement in a way that might be less objectionable to the public than current practice.

QALY-time: experts' view on the use of the quality-adjusted LIFE year in COST-effectiveness analysis in palliative care

Background

The Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) is internationally recognized as standard metric of health outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in healthcare. The ongoing debate concerning the appropriateness of its use for decision-making in palliative care has been recently mapped in a review. The aim was to report on and draw conclusions from two expert meetings that reflected on earlier mapped issues in order to reach consensus, and to advise on the QALY’s future use in palliative care.

Methods

A nominal group approach was used. In order to facilitate group decision making, three statements regarding the use of the QALY in palliative care were discussed in a structured way. Two groups of international policymakers, healthcare professionals and researchers participated. Data were analysed qualitatively using inductive coding.

Results

1) Most experts agreed that the recommended measurement tool for the QALYs ‘Q’ component, the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), is inappropriate for palliative care. A more sensitive tool, which might be based on the capabilities approach, could be used or developed. 2) Valuation of time should be incorporated in the ‘Q’ part, leaving the linear clock time in the ‘LY’ component. 3) Most experts agreed that the QALY, in its current shape, is not suitable for palliative care.

Conclusions

1) Although the EQ-5D does not suffice, a generic tool is needed for the QALY. As long as no suitable alternative is available, other tools can be used besides or serve as basis for the EQ-5D because of issues in conceptual overlap. 2) Future research should further investigate the valuation of time issue, and how best to integrate it in the ‘Q’ component. 3) A generic outcome measure of effectiveness is essential to justly allocate healthcare resources. However, experts emphasized, the QALY is and should be one of multiple criteria for choices in the healthcare insurance package.

Reflecting the Health Opportunity Costs of Funding Decisions Within Value Frameworks: Initial Estimates and the Need for Further Research

PURPOSE

Evaluating whether a new health technology provides good value for money requires an assessment of its opportunity cost. If the opportunity cost of the new health technology exceeds the benefits, however measured, a net loss is produced. Value frameworks using economic evaluation methods have been developed to guide the assessment of the value of new technologies within health care in response to rising spending. However, few explicitly consider health opportunity costs and fewer still base health opportunity costs on empirical estimates. This may partly be due to the dearth of estimates available, with only a handful of countries having estimates based on within-country data. To fill this gap, this study provides estimates of cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted for 33 high-income countries and the remaining Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and BRIICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China and South Africa).

METHODS

Cost per DALY averted for each country was based on estimated elasticities of the health effects of changes in expenditure on health outcomes from applying an existing published econometric model that uses cross-country data to an expanded dataset and other existing elasticities drawn from selected UK within-country studies to country-level data on health expenditure, demographic characteristics, and burden of ill health. To provide a comprehensive picture of the state of research around empirical estimates of health opportunity costs for these countries, results from this study are reported against previously published estimates of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for the same countries.

FINDINGS

All but one of the ranges estimated fall below 3× the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, the upper end of the widely applied range of 1-3× GDP per capita. The range of estimates based on applying an existing published econometric model that uses cross-country data to an expanded dataset are higher than when cost per DALY averted is calculated from other existing elasticities of the health effects of changes in expenditure drawn from selected UK within-country studies. They also tend to be higher than published estimates of cost per QALY gained.

IMPLICATIONS

This study provides placeholder cost per DALY averted estimates that reflect health opportunity costs for 33 high-income countries and the remaining OECD and BRIICS countries. These estimates can be used to estimate the health opportunity costs of government health care expenditure until country-specific health opportunity cost are estimated using within-country data.

Implications of Nonmarginal Budgetary Impacts in Health Technology Assessment: A Conceptual Model

OBJECTIVES

This paper introduces a framework with which to conceptualize the decision-making process in health technology assessment for new interventions with high budgetary impacts. In such circumstances, the use of a single threshold based on the marginal productivity of the healthcare system is inappropriate. The implications of this for potential partial implementation, horizontal equity, and pharmaceutical pricing are illustrated using this framework.

RESULTS

Under the condition of perfect divisibility and given an objective of maximizing health, a large budgetary impact of a new treatment may imply that optimal implementation is partial rather than full, even at a given incremental cost-effectiveness ratio that would nevertheless mean the decision to accept the treatment in full would not lead to a net reduction in health. In a one-shot price-setting game, this seems to give rise to potential horizontal equity concerns. When the assumption of fixity of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (arising from the assumed exogeneity of the manufacturer's price) is relaxed, it can be shown that the threat of partial implementation may be sufficient to give rise to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at which cost the entire potential population is treated, maximizing health at an increased level, and with no contravention of the horizontal equity principle.

Estimating the marginal cost of a life year in Sweden's public healthcare sector

Although cost-effectiveness analysis has a long tradition of supporting healthcare decision-making in Sweden, there are no clear criteria for when an intervention is considered too expensive. In particular, the opportunity cost of healthcare resource use in terms of health forgone has not been investigated empirically. In this work, we therefore seek to estimate the marginal cost of a life year in Sweden's public healthcare sector using time series and panel data at the national and regional levels, respectively. We find that estimation using time series is unfeasible due to reversed causality. However, through panel instrumental variable estimation we are able to derive a marginal cost per life year of about SEK 370,000 (EUR 39,000). Although this estimate is in line with emerging evidence from other healthcare systems, it is associated with uncertainty, primarily due to the inherent difficulties of causal inference using aggregate observational data. The implications of these difficulties and related methodological issues are discussed.