Health economic evaluation in England

Cost-effectiveness of a potential anti-tick vaccine with combined protection against Lyme borreliosis and tick-borne encephalitis in Slovenia

This study assessed cost-effectiveness of a potential anti-tick vaccine that would protect against both Lyme borreliosis (LB) and tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) in a highly endemic setting of Slovenia. A Markov model was developed to estimate cost-effectiveness of a vaccine with potential combined protection against LB and TBE from the societal perspective. The model expressed time in annual cycles, followed a target population through their lifetime, and applied an annual discounting of 3%. A target population entered the model in a susceptible state, with time dependent probabilities to acquire LB/TBE. Disease manifestations were either resolved within one cycle, or a patient developed LB/TBE sequelae. The vaccination consisted of initial immunization and one revaccination. Estimates of LB/TBE direct and indirect costs, and data on natural course of LB/TBE were obtained from Slovenian databases. Effectiveness of the vaccine with potential combined protection against LB/TBE was derived from studies on existing TBE and LB vaccines, while utility estimates were collected from various literature sources. A vaccine with potential combined protection against LB/TBE was predicted to have an incremental cost of €771,300 per 10,000 vaccinated persons, an incremental utility of 17QALYs and a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 46,061€/QALY. Vaccine cost, effectiveness and discount rates were identified as the most influential model parameters. A wholesale price for a vaccine shot of €9.13 would lead to cost savings followed by health gains for the vaccination strategy. The base-case ICER was below commonly accepted thresholds of cost-effectiveness, indicating that a combined LB/TBE vaccine might be a cost-effective option in Slovenia. With early Health Technology Assessment becoming increasingly important, this analysis still represents a rare example of cost-effectiveness assessment prior to market authorisation. Although obviously in such a situation some key parameters are unknown, our model sets up a tool to analyse pharmacoeconomic criteria that can help development of a cost-effective health technology, in this case a combined tick-borne diseases vaccine.

Health Economics as Rhetoric: The Limited Impact of Health Economics on Funding Decisions in Four European Countries

BACKGROUND

A response to the challenge of high-cost treatments in health care has been economic evaluation. Cost-effectiveness analysis presented as cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained has been controversial, raising heated support and opposition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of economic evaluation in decisions on what to fund in four European countries and discuss the implications of our findings.

METHODS

We used a protocol to review the key features of the application of economic evaluation in reimbursement decision making in England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, reporting country-specific highlights.

RESULTS

Although the institutions and processes vary by country, health economic evaluation has had limited impact on restricting access of controversial high-cost drugs. Even in those countries that have gone the furthest, ways have been found to avoid refusing to fund high-cost drugs for particular diseases including cancer, multiple sclerosis, and orphan diseases. Economic evaluation may, however, have helped some countries to negotiate price reductions for some drugs. It has also extended to the discussion of clinical effectiveness to include cost.

CONCLUSIONS

The differences in approaches but similarities in outcomes suggest that health economic evaluation be viewed largely as rhetoric (in D.N. McCloskey's terms in The Rhetoric of Economics, 1985). This is not to imply that economics had no impact: rather that it usually contributed to the discourse in ways that differed by country. The reasons for this no doubt vary by perspective, from political science to ethics. Economic evaluation may have less to do with rationing or denial of medical treatments than to do with expanding the discourse used to discuss such issues.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of hospital-based home care compared to hospital-based care for children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes; a randomised controlled trial; results after two years' follow-up

Background

Practices regarding hospitalisation of children at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes vary both within countries and internationally, and high-quality evidence of best practice is scarce. The objective of this study was to close some of the gaps in evidence by comparing two alternative regimens for children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes: hospital-based care and hospital-based home care (HBHC), referring to specialist care in a home-based setting.

Methods

A randomised controlled trial, including 60 children aged 3–15 years, took place at a university hospital in Sweden. When the children were medically stable, they were randomised to either the traditional, hospital-based care or to HBHC.

Results

Two years after diagnosis there were no differences in HbA1c (p = 0.777), in episodes of severe hypoglycaemia (p = 0.167), or in insulin U/kg/24 h (p = 0.269). Over 24 months, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in how parents’ reported the impact of paediatric chronic health condition on family (p = 0.138) or in parents’ self-reported health-related quality of life (p = 0.067). However, there was a statistically significant difference regarding healthcare satisfaction, favouring HBHC (p = 0.002). In total, healthcare costs (direct costs) were significantly lower in the HBHC group but no statistically significant difference between the two groups in estimated lost production (indirect costs) for the family as a whole. Whereas mothers had a significantly lower value of lost production, when their children were treated within the HBHC regime, fathers had a higher, but not a significantly higher value. The results indicate that HBHC might be a cost-effective strategy in a healthcare sector perspective. When using the wider societal perspective, no difference in cost effectiveness or cost utility was found.

Conclusions

Overall, there are only a few, well-designed and controlled studies that compare hospital care to different models of home care. The results of this study provide empirical support for the safety and feasibility of HBHC when a child is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Our results further indicate that the model of care may have an impact on families’ daily living, not only during the initial period of care but for a longer period of time.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov with identity number NCT00804232, December 2008.