Cost-effectiveness thresholds: methods for setting and examples from around the world

Use of Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds in Healthcare Public Policy: Progress and Challenges

The article offers a comparative analysis of the influence of cost-effectiveness thresholds in the decision-making processes in financing policies, coverage, and price regulation of health technologies in nine countries. We investigated whether countries used cost-effectiveness thresholds for public health policy decision making and found that few countries have adopted the cost-effectiveness threshold as an official criterion for financing, reimbursement, or pricing. However, in countries where it is applied, such as Thailand, the results have been very favorable in terms of minimizing health technology prices and ensuring the financial sustainability of the health system. Although the cost-effectiveness threshold has opportunities for improvement, particularly in certain institutional contexts and with adequate participation of the different strategic actors in the formulation of public policy, its potential use and added value are significant in various aspects.

Measuring EQ-5D-5L utility values in parents who have experienced perinatal death

BACKGROUND

Policymakers use clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence to support decisions about health service commissioning. In England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend that in cost-effectiveness analyses "effectiveness" is measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), derived from health utility values. The impact of perinatal death (stillbirth/neonatal death) on parents' health utility is currently unknown. This knowledge would improve the robustness of cost-effectiveness evidence for policymakers.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to estimate the impact of perinatal death on parents' health utility.

METHODS

An online survey conducted with mothers and fathers in England who experienced a perinatal death. Participants reported how long ago their baby died and whether they/their partner subsequently became pregnant again. They were asked to rate their health on the EQ-5D-5L instrument (generic health measure). EQ-5D-5L responses were used to calculate health utility values. These were compared with age-matched values for the general population to estimate a utility shortfall (i.e. health loss) associated with perinatal death.

RESULTS

There were 256 survey respondents with a median age of 40 years (IQR 26-40). Median time since death was 27 months (IQR 8-71). The mean utility value of the sample was 0.774 (95% CI 0.752-0.796). Utility values in the sample were 13% lower than general population values (p < 0.05). Over 10 years, this equated to a loss of 1.1 QALYs. This reduction in health utility was driven by anxiety and depression.

CONCLUSIONS

Perinatal death has important and long-lasting health impacts on parents. Mental health support following perinatal bereavement is especially important.

Poor sample size reporting quality and insufficient sample size in economic evaluations conducted alongside pragmatic trials: a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

Economic evaluations based on well-designed and -conducted pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) can provide valuable evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions, enhancing the relevance and applicability of findings to healthcare decision-making. However, economic evaluation outcomes are seldom taken into consideration during the process of sample size calculation in pragmatic trials. The reporting quality of sample size and information on its calculation in economic evaluations that are well-suited to pRCTs remain unknown. This study aims to assess the reporting quality of sample size and estimate the power values of economic evaluations in pRCTs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a cross-sectional survey using data of pRCTs available from PubMed and OVID from 1 January 2010 to 24 April 2022. Two groups of independent reviewers identified articles; three groups of reviewers each extracted the data. Descriptive statistics presented the general characteristics of included studies. Statistical power analyses were performed on clinical and economic outcomes with sufficient data.

RESULTS

The electronic search identified 715 studies and 152 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 26 were available for power analysis. Only 9 out of 152 trials (5.9%) considered economic outcomes when estimating sample size, and only one adjusted the sample size accordingly. Power values for trial-based economic evaluations and clinical trials ranged from 2.56% to 100% and 3.21%-100%, respectively. Regardless of the perspectives, in 14 out of the 26 studies (53.8%), the power values of economic evaluations for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were lower than those of clinical trials for primary endpoints (PEs). In 11 out of the 24 (45.8%) and in 8 out of the 13 (61.5%) studies, power values of economic evaluations for QALYs were lower than those of clinical trials for PEs from the healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively. Power values of economic evaluations for non-QALYs from the healthcare and societal perspectives were potentially higher than those of clinical trials in 3 out of the 4 studies (75%). The power values for economic outcomes in Q1 were not higher than those for other journal impact factor quartile categories.

CONCLUSION

Theoretically, pragmatic trials with concurrent economic evaluations can provide real-world evidence for healthcare decision makers. However, in pRCT-based economic evaluations, limited consideration, and inadequate reporting of sample-size calculations for economic outcomes could negatively affect the results' reliability and generalisability. We thus recommend that future pragmatic trials with economic evaluations should report how sample sizes are determined or adjusted based on the economic outcomes in their protocols to enhance their transparency and evidence quality.

Cost-Effectiveness of Technologies for the Treatment of Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Systematic Review of Economic Studies

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to systematically collect data on cost-effectiveness analyses that assess technologies to treat type I and II spinal muscular atrophy and evaluate their recommendations.

METHODS

A structured electronic search was conducted in 4 databases. Additionally, a complementary manual search was conducted. Complete economic studies that evaluated nusinersen, risdiplam, onasemnogene abeparvovec (OA), and the best support therapy (BST) from the health system's perspective were selected. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were compared with various thresholds for the analysis. The review was registered a priori in PROSPERO (CRD42022365391).

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included in the analyses. They were all published between 2017 and 2022 and represent the recommendations in 8 countries. Most studies adopted 5, 6, or 10-state Markov models. Some authors took part in multiple studies. Four technologies were evaluated: BST (N = 14), nusinersen (N = 19), risdiplam (N = 5), and OA (N = 9). OA, risdiplam, and nusinersen were considered inefficient compared with the BST. Risdiplam and OA were generally regarded as cost-effective when compared with nusinersen. Because nusinersen is not a cost-effective drug, no recommendation can be derived from this result. Risdiplam and OA were compared in 2 studies that presented opposite results.

CONCLUSIONS

Nusinersen, risdiplam, and OA are being adopted worldwide as a treatment for spinal muscular atrophy. Despite that, the pharmacoeconomic analyses show that the technologies are not cost-effective compared with the BST. The lack of controlled studies for risdiplam and OA hamper any conclusions about their face-to-face comparison.

Advanced-scope pharmacist roles in medical outpatient clinics: a cost-consequence analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of evidence that supports the clinical effectiveness of pharmacist roles in outpatient settings. However, limited studies have investigated the economic efficiency of advanced-scope outpatient pharmacist roles, particularly in the Australian setting. Assessing the overall costs and benefits of these outpatient pharmacist roles is needed to ensure service sustainability.

AIMS

To use a cost-consequence approach to evaluate the advanced-scope outpatient pharmacist roles across multiple clinic disciplines from the hospital perspective.

METHODS

A cost-consequence analysis was undertaken using data from a previous clinical-effectiveness study. All outpatient pharmacist consults conducted from 1 June 2019 to 31 May 2020 across 18 clinic disciplines were evaluated. Consequences from the pharmacist services included number of consults conducted, number of medication-related activities and number of resolved recommendations.

RESULTS

The overall cost to the hospital for the outpatient pharmacist service across all clinics was AU$1 991 122, with a potential remuneration of AU$3 895 247. There were 10 059 pharmacist consults undertaken for the 12-month period. Medication-related activities performed by pharmacists primarily included 6438 counselling and education activities and 4307 medication list activities. When the specialist pharmacist roles were added to the outpatient clinics, several health service benefits were also realised.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of pharmacist roles to outpatient clinics can increase the cost of services; however, they also can increase medication optimisation activities. Future research should examine a societal perspective that includes broader cost and effectiveness outcomes. This study could justify the implementation of advanced-scope outpatient pharmacist roles in other Australian hospitals.

Cost-effectiveness of proactive health support-telephone-based self-management support compared with standard care for persons at risk of hospital admission

BACKGROUND

A small share of patients account for a large proportion of costs to the healthcare system in Denmark as in many Western countries. A telephone-based self-management support, proactive health support (PaHS), was suggested for prevention of hospitalisations for persons at risk of hospital admission. These persons have chronic diseases, unplanned hospitalisations and age ≥ 65 years. However, evidence is limited on whether this type of intervention is cost-effective.

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICER) of PaHS, compared with standard care.

METHODS

The economic evaluation was nested within a randomised controlled trial, and was based on a health system perspective, with follow-up and time horizon of 12 months. We measured incremental costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. Total average costs per patient included PaHS programme costs, and costs in hospitals, primary care and municipalities. We analysed differences by generalised linear models with Gamma distribution for costs and mixed models for QALY.

RESULTS

We analysed data on 6,139 patients, where 3,041 received PaHS and 3,098 received usual care. We found no difference in healthcare costs, and programme costs were on average €1,762 per patient, providing incremental costs of €2,075. Incremental effects on QALY were 0.007, resulting in an ICER of €296,389 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence of PaHS being cost-effective in this study, but the results will be used to identify new ways to organise similar interventions and identify patients with the objective to reduce health system costs per patient.

A systematic review on the direct approach to elicit the demand-side cost-effectiveness threshold: Implications for low- and middle-income countries

Several literature review studies have been conducted on cost-effectiveness threshold values. However, only a few are systematic literature reviews, and most did not investigate the different methods, especially in-depth reviews of directly eliciting WTP per QALY. Our study aimed to 1) describe the different direct approach methods to elicit WTP/QALY; 2) investigate factors that contribute the most to the level of WTP/QALY value; and 3) investigate the relation between the value of WTP/QALY and GDP per capita and give some recommendations on feasible methods for eliciting WTP/QALY in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A systematic review concerning select studies estimating WTP/QALY from a direct approach was carried out in seven databases, with a cut off date of 03/2022. The conversion of monetary values into 2021 international dollars (i$) was performed via CPI and PPP indexes. The influential factors were evaluated with Bayesian model averaging. Criteria for recommendation for feasible methods in LMICs are made based on empirical evidence from the systematic review and given the resource limitation in LMICs. A total of 12,196 records were identified; 64 articles were included for full-text review. The WTP/QALY method and values varied widely across countries with a median WTP/QALY value of i$16,647.6 and WTP/QALY per GDP per capita of 0.53. A total of 11 factors were most influential, in which the discrete-choice experiment method had a posterior probability of 100%. Methods for deriving WTP/QALY vary largely across studies. Eleven influential factors contribute most to the level of values of WTP/QALY, in which the discrete-choice experiment method was the greatest affected. We also found that in most countries, values for WTP/QALY were below 1 x GDP per capita. Some important principles are addressed related to what LMICs may be concerned with when conducting studies to estimate WTP/QALY.

Systematic review of the impact of health care expenditure on health outcome measures: implications for cost-effectiveness thresholds

OBJECTIVE

Empirical estimates of the impact of healthcare expenditure on health outcome measures may inform the cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) for guiding funding decisions. This study aims to systematically review studies that estimated this, summarize and compare the estimates by country income level.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, York Research database, and [anonymized] for Reviews and Dissemination database from inception to 1 August 2023. For inclusion, a study had to be an original article, estimating the impact of healthcare expenditure on health outcome measures at a country level, and presented estimates, in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) or disability-adjusted life year (DALY).

RESULTS

We included 18 studies with 385 estimates. The median (range) estimates were PPP$ 11,224 (PPP$ 223 - PPP$ 288,816) per QALY gained and PPP$ 5,963 (PPP$ 71 - PPP$ 165,629) per DALY averted. As ratios of Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDPPC), these estimates were 0.376 (0.041-182.840) and 0.318 (0.004-37.315) times of GDPPC, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The commonly used CET of GDPPC seems to be too high for all countries, but especially low-to-middle-income countries where the potential health losses from misallocation of the same money are greater.

REGISTRATION

The review protocol was published and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020147276).

Why cost-effectiveness thresholds for global health donors should differ from thresholds for Ministries of Health (and why it matters)

Healthcare cost-effectiveness analysis is increasingly used to inform priority-setting in low- and middle-income countries and by global health donors. As part of such analyses, cost-effectiveness thresholds are commonly used to determine what is, or is not, cost-effective. Recent years have seen a shift in best practice from a rule-of-thumb 1x or 3x per capita GDP threshold towards using thresholds that, in theory, reflect the opportunity cost of new investments within a given country. In this paper, we observe that international donors face both different resource constraints and opportunity costs compared to national decision-makers. Hence, their perspective on cost-effectiveness thresholds must be different. We discuss the potential implications of distinguishing between national and donor thresholds and outline broad options for how to approach setting a donor-perspective threshold. Further work is needed to clarify healthcare cost-effectiveness threshold theory in the context of international aid and to develop practical policy frameworks for implementation.

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of sacral neuromodulation in the treatment of severe faecal incontinence

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of sacral neuromodulation in the treatment of severe faecal incontinence as compared with symptomatic management.

METHODS

In the public health field, a micro-costing evaluation method was conducted from the perspectives of the health system and the society. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used as a decision index, and we considered various scenarios to evaluate the impact of the cost of symptomatic management and percutaneous nerve evaluation success rate in its calculation. Clinical data were retrieved from a consecutive cohort of 93 patients with severe faecal incontinence undergoing sacral neuromodulation after a failure of conservative (pharmacological and biofeedback) and/or surgical (sphincteroplasty) first-line treatments were considered.

RESULTS

The long-term incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing sacral neuromodulation versus symptomatic management was 14347€/QALY and 28523€/QALY from the societal and health service provider's perspectives, respectively. If the definitive pulse generator implant success rate was 100%, incremental cost-effectiveness would correspond to 6831€/QALY and 16761€/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacral neuromodulation may be considered a cost-effective technique in the long-term treatment of severe faecal incontinence from the societal and health care sector perspectives. Improving patient selection and determining the predictive outcome factors for successful sacral neuromodulation in the treatment of faecal incontinence would improve cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness and willing-to-pay thresholds for vertebral augmentation of osteoporotic vertebral fractures, what are they based on: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Although there is substantial clinical evidence on the safety and effectiveness of vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral fractures, cost-effectiveness is less well known. The objective of this study is to provide a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies and policy-based willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for different vertebral augmentation (VA) procedures, vertebroplasty (VP) and balloon kyphoplasty (BK), for osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs).

DESIGN

A systematic review targeting cost-effectiveness studies of VA procedures for OVFs.

DATA SOURCES

Six bibliographic databases were searched from inception up to May 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Studies were eligible if meeting all predefined criteria: (1) VP or BK intervention, (2) OVFs and (3) cost-effectiveness study. Articles not written in English, abstracts, editorials, reviews and those reporting only cost data were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Information was extracted on study characteristics, cost-effective estimates, summary decisions and payer WTP thresholds. Incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was the main outcome measure. Studies were summarised by a structured narrative synthesis organised by comparisons with conservative management (CM). Two independent reviewers assessed the quality (risk of bias) of the systematic review and cost-effectiveness studies by peer-reviewed checklists.

RESULTS

We identified 520 references through database searching and 501 were excluded as ineligible by titles and abstract. Ten reports were identified as eligible from 19 full-text reviews. ICER for VP versus CM evaluated as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) ranged from €22 685 (*US$33 395) in Netherlands to £-2240 (*US$-3273), a cost-saving in the UK. ICERs for BK versus CM ranged from £2706 (*US$3954) in UK to kr600 000 (*US$90 910) in Sweden. ICERs were within payer WTP thresholds for a QALY based on historical benchmarks.

CONCLUSIONS

Both VP and BK were judged cost-effective alternatives to CM for OVFs in economic studies and were within WTP thresholds in multiple healthcare settings.

Future medical and non-medical costs and their impact on the cost-effectiveness of life-prolonging interventions: a comparison of five European countries

When healthcare interventions prolong life, people consume medical and non-medical goods during the years of life they gain. It has been argued that the costs for medical consumption should be included in cost-effectiveness analyses from both a healthcare and societal perspective, and the costs for non-medical consumption should additionally be included when a societal perspective is applied. Standardized estimates of these so-called future costs are available in only a few countries and the impact of inclusion of these costs is likely to differ between countries. In this paper we present and compare future costs for five European countries and estimate the impact of including these costs on the cost-effectiveness of life-prolonging interventions. As countries differ in the availability of data, we illustrate how both individual- and aggregate-level data sources can be used to construct standardized estimates of future costs. Results show a large variation in costs between countries. The medical costs for the Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom are large compared to Spain and Greece. Non-medical costs are higher in Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom than in Greece. The impact of including future costs on the ICER similarly varied between countries, ranging from €1000 to €35,000 per QALY gained. The variation between countries in impact on the ICER is largest when considering medical costs and indicate differences in both structure and level of healthcare financing in these countries. Case study analyses were performed in which we highlight the large impact of including future costs on ICER relative to willingness-to-pay thresholds.

[Concepts and application of cost-benefit evaluation in an international overview]

Due to market access of high-priced new drugs, the financial burden on the health care system and the appropriateness of drug prices are often doubted. Is it time for a broader perspective of health technology assessment in Germany, which has so far focused on clinical value? Should cost and benefit aspects of new technologies be given equal weight in future assessments of market access for new technologies? The experiences of European neighbors and the Standing Committee on Vaccination with cost-benefit analyses are encouraging. Introducing cost-benefit analyses as a further decision criterion in the pricing of new technologies naturally creates additional work for the players involved but also offers the opportunity to provide transparent and understandable answers to the question of what a health improvement is worth. In view of the increasing funding challenges facing the statutory health insurance system in Germany, this question will continue to gain importance.

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.

Should Hungary Pay More for a QALY Gain than Higher-Income Western European Countries?

OBJECTIVES

Cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) play a particularly important role in the reimbursement decisions of health technologies in countries with limited healthcare resources. Our goal is to develop a scientifically solid proposal for a revised cost-effectiveness threshold, as part of the planned review of the Hungarian health economic guidance.

METHODS

The Threshold Working Group of the Hungarian Health Economics Association performed a targeted review on CETs in European countries. International trends on CETs served as a basis for our recommendation, which was discussed at the Association's workshop and deliberated at an expert committee meeting with representatives from the national health technology assessment (HTA) and healthcare payer bodies, and academic HTA centres.

RESULTS

The current Hungarian CET is one of the highest among European countries relative to GDP per capita, and even higher in nominal value than the CET applied by NICE. As opposed to the current, single Hungarian threshold, other European countries apply multiple thresholds. The Working Group recommends that Hungary should also apply multiple CETs in the range of 1.5-3 times GDP per capita with stratification according to the relative quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of the new technology. In addition, multiple CETs in the range of 3-10 times GDP per capita is recommended for technologies in rare diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

CETs should be aligned with the country's economic performance and should reflect societal preferences. Our recommendation may increase the efficiency of healthcare resource allocation in Hungary by strengthening the role of HTA in the reimbursement decisions and favouring new technologies with higher QALY gain.

The Use of Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds for Evaluating Health Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries From 2015 to 2020: A Review

OBJECTIVES

Evidence-informed priority setting, in particular cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), can help target resources better to achieve universal health coverage. Central to the application of CEA is the use of a cost-effectiveness threshold. We add to the literature by looking at what thresholds have been used in published CEA and the proportion of interventions found to be cost-effective, by type of threshold.

METHODS

We identified CEA studies in low- and middle-income countries from the Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry that were published between January 1, 2015, and January 6, 2020. We extracted data on the country of focus, type of interventions under consideration, funder, threshold used, and recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 230 studies with a total 713 interventions were included in this review; 1 to 3× gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was the most common type of threshold used in judging cost-effectiveness (84.3%). Approximately a third of studies (34.2%) using 1 to 3× GDP per capita applied a threshold at 3× GDP per capita. We have found that no study used locally developed thresholds. We found that 79.3% of interventions received a recommendation as "cost-effective" and that 85.9% of studies had at least 1 intervention that was considered cost-effective. The use of 1 to 3× GDP per capita led to a higher proportion of study interventions being judged as cost-effective compared with other types of thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the wide concerns about the use of 1 to 3× GDP per capita, this threshold is still widely used in the literature. Using this threshold leads to more interventions being recommended as "cost-effective." This study further explore alternatives to the 1 to 3× GDP as a decision rule.

Impact of a New Cost-Effectiveness Threshold Implementation on Cancer Formulary Decisions in Jordan

Rising prices of novel cancer medications are increasing the economic burden from cancer in Jordan, risking the ability of cancer patients to access lifesaving and life-extending treatments. Furthermore, in the absence of a national health technology assessment (HTA) framework, medication prices in Jordan are set based on manufacturers' pricing considerations and not a value proposition. In response to these challenges, King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC), the de facto national cancer institute, developed a first-in-country, cancer-specific, cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) to aid institutional decision makers in approving only cost-effective medications. Over the past 10 years, cost-effectiveness analyses based on this CET have led to the introduction of > 70% of requested novel cancer medications after manufacturers agreed to lower prices, beyond registration prices, to meet the CET. Future work is warranted to empirically derive a CET for Jordan to better guide reimbursement decisions.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer Surveillance Among BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers: A Systematic Review

Background

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are suggested with regular breast cancer surveillance screening strategies using mammography with supplementary MRI as an adjunct tool in Western countries. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, however, the benefits of screening modalities remain controversial among different mutated genes and screening schedules.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to collect and compare the results of different cost-effectiveness analyses. A simulated model was used to predict the impact of screening strategies in the target group on cost, life-year gained, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

Nine cost-effectiveness studies were included. Combined mammography and MRI strategy is cost-effective in BRCA1 mutation carriers for the middle-aged group (age 35 to 54). BRCA2 mutation carriers are less likely to benefit from adjunct MRI screening, which implies that mammography alone would be sufficient from a cost-effectiveness perspective, regardless of dense breast cancer.

Conclusions

Precision screening strategies among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers should be conducted according to the acceptable ICER, i.e., a combination of mammography and MRI for BRCA1 mutation carriers and mammography alone for BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020205471.

Expectations for the Development of Health Technology Assessment in Brazil

The implementation of health technology assessment (HTA) in emerging countries depends on the characteristics of the health care system and the needs of public health care. The objective of this survey was to investigate experts' expectations for the development of HTA in Brazil and to derive measures to strengthen the impact of HTA in Brazil on health care decisions. Based on a scoping literature review, a questionnaire was developed proposing eight theses for seven domains of HTA: (i) capacity building, (ii) public involvement, (iii) role of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), (iv) institutional framework, (v) scope of HTA studies, (vi) methodology of HTA, and (vii) HTA as the basis for jurisdiction. Thirty experts responded in full to the survey and agreed to five of the eight theses proposed. Experts suggested several measures to promote HTA within the scope of each domain, thus addressing capacity building related to HTA, availability, and reliability of population data, and legal endowment of the HTA system. Finally, HTA processes in Brazil should also address public health issues (e.g., appraisal of interventions directed at chronic diseases).

A Systematic Review of Demand-Side Methods of Estimating the Societal Monetary Value of Health Gain

OBJECTIVES

Although many reviews of the literature on cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) exist, the availability of new studies and the absence of a fully comprehensive analysis warrant a new review. This study systematically reviews demand-side methods for estimating the societal monetary value of health gain.

METHODS

Several electronic databases were searched from inception to October 2019. To be included, a study had to be an original article in any language, with a clearly described method for estimating the societal monetary values of health gain and with all estimated values reported. Estimates were converted to US dollars ($), using purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates and the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (2019).

RESULTS

We included 53 studies; 45 used direct approach and 8 used indirect approach. Median estimates from the direct approach were PPP$ 24 942 (range 554-1 301 912) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), which were typically 0.53 (range 0.02-24.08) GDP per capita. Median estimates using the indirect approach were PPP$ 310 051 (range 36 402-7 574 870) per QALY, which accounted for 7.87 (range 0.68-116.95) GDP per capita.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review found that the societal values of health gain or CETs were less than GDP per capita. The great variety in methods and estimates suggests that a more standardized and internationally agreed methodology for estimating CET is warranted. Multiple CETs may have a role when QALYs are not equally valued from a societal perspective (eg, QALYs accruing to people near death compared with equivalent QALYs to others).

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.

Economic analysis of the 'Take Charge' intervention for people following stroke: Results from a randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

To undertake an economic analysis of the Take Charge intervention as part of the Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS) study.

DESIGN

An open, parallel-group, randomised trial comparing active and control interventions with blinded outcome assessment.

SETTING

Community.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults (n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke.

INTERVENTIONS

The Take Charge intervention, a strengths based, self-directed rehabilitation intervention, in two doses (one or two sessions), and a control intervention (no Take Charge sessions).

MEASURES

The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved for the period between randomisation (always post hospital discharge) and 12 months following acute stroke. QALYs were calculated from the EuroQol-5D-5L. Costs of stroke-related and non-health care were obtained by questionnaire, hospital records and the New Zealand Ministry of Health.

RESULTS

One-year post hospital discharge cost of care was mean (95% CI) $US4706 (3758-6014) for the Take Charge intervention group and $6118 (4350-8005) for control, mean (95% CI) difference $ -1412 (-3553 to +729). Health utility scores were mean (95% CI) 0.75 (0.73-0.77) for Take Charge and 0.71 (0.67-0.75) for control, mean (95% CI) difference 0.04 (0.0-0.08). Cost per QALY gained for the Take Charge intervention was $US -35,296 (=£ -25,524, € -30,019). Sensitivity analyses confirm Take Charge is cost-effective, even at a very low willingness-to-pay threshold. With a threshold of $US5000 per QALY, the probability that Take Charge is cost-effective is 99%.

CONCLUSION

Take Charge is cost-effective and probably cost saving.

Establishment and implementation of hospital-based health technology assessment at King Hussein Cancer Center: can our model be an example?

OBJECTIVE

To describe the establishment of, and assess the implementation of, a hospital-based health technology assessment (HTA) program in a comprehensive cancer center in Jordan.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional assessment study of the HTA program from 2008 to 2018. We used an indicator-based assessment that included structural, process, and outcome indicators. Structural indicators measured the program's enablers. Process indicators measured activities and outputs, whereas outcome indicators measured the program impact. A data collection form was prepared to collect data related to each indicator.

RESULTS

The program met its core structural and process indicators. The Center for Drug Policy and Technology Assessment was established as an organizational entity to conduct assessments. A functional decision-making entity is available. There are competent pharmacists to conduct assessments, including economic evaluation and decision analytical modeling. There is a structured capacity building program that has been implemented within the last 5 years. Specific submission, assessment, and appraisal processes were established and implemented. Reference methodological guidelines for efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness assessments were developed and used by assessors. Thirty-one HTA reports were produced from 2012 to 2018 with a 100 percent utilization rate. Twenty-three medications were listed under restriction, and eight were rejected. The prices of twenty-one medications out of the twenty-three listed medications were reduced based on the HTA assessment results.

CONCLUSION

The HTA program at the King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC) in Jordan is functional, is effective with a high utilization rate of produced assessments, and is having a positive impact on price reductions.

Cost per DALY averted in low, middle- and high-income countries: evidence from the global burden of disease study to estimate the cost-effectiveness thresholds

BACKGROUND

Determining the cost-effectiveness thresholds for healthcare interventions has been a severe challenge for policymakers, especially in low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to estimate the cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted for countries with different levels of Human Development Index (HDI) and Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

METHODS

The data about DALYs, per capita health expenditure (HE), HDI, and GDP per capita were extracted for 176 countries during the years 2000 to 2016. Then we examined the trends on these variables. Panel regression analysis was performed to explore the correlation between DALY and HE per capita. The results of the regression models were used to calculate the cost per DALY averted for each country.

RESULTS

Age-standardized rate (ASR) DALY (DALY per 100,000 population) had a nonlinear inverse correlation with HE per capita and a linear inverse correlation with HDI. One percent increase in HE per capita was associated with an average of 0.28, 0.24, 0.18, and 0.27% decrease on the ASR DALY in low HDI, medium HDI, high HDI, and very high HDI countries, respectively. The estimated cost per DALY averted was $998, $6522, $23,782, and $69,499 in low HDI, medium HDI, high HDI, and very high HDI countries. On average, the cost per DALY averted was 0.34 times the GDP per capita in low HDI countries. While in medium HDI, high HDI, and very high HDI countries, it was 0.67, 1.22, and 1.46 times the GDP per capita, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the cost-effectiveness thresholds might be less than a GDP per capita in low and medium HDI countries and between one and two GDP per capita in high and very high HDI countries.

Empirical Monetary Valuation of a Quality-Adjusted Life-Year in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A Willingness-to-Pay Analysis

BACKGROUND

No willingness-to-pay (WTP) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) value exists for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to determine the WTP for a QALY in the KSA.

METHODS

Adult citizens of the KSA, patients with cancer, or members of the general public (MGP) were recruited to participate in a time trade-off survey to elicit health utilities. Cancer was chosen as the disease of interest for patients and the MGP, with a scenario describing stage 3 colorectal cancer, because it is a disease condition that impacts on both quality of life and survival time. In a second step, respondents were asked about their WTP to move from the estimated health state to a state of perfect health for 1 year (QALY). Finally, that amount was processed to generate the WTP for a full QALY. The second step was repeated with a 5-year horizon. Sensitivity analyses were performed without outliers.

RESULTS

From 400 participants, data from 378 subjects were obtained and usable: 177 patients, 201 MGP; 278 male, 100 female subjects; 231 aged 26-65 years. Demographic distribution varied widely between the two subgroups for age, education level, and employment status, but with less variation in sex and income. Elicited health utilities were 0.413 (0.472 after adjustment) for the overall group, 0.316 (0.416) for patients, and 0.499 (0.508) for MGP. Overall WTP for a QALY was $US25,600 (adjusted $US32,000) for the 1-year horizon and $US19,200 (adjusted $US22,720) for the 5-year horizon.

CONCLUSION

This was the first empirical attempt to estimate the WTP per QALY for the KSA. Results are comparable to those in some other countries and to gross domestic product figures for the KSA. Further research in a country-wide sample is warranted.

What next after GDP-based cost-effectiveness thresholds?

Public payers around the world are increasingly using cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) to assess the value-for-money of an intervention and make coverage decisions. However, there is still much confusion about the meaning and uses of the CET, how it should be calculated, and what constitutes an adequate evidence base for its formulation. One widely referenced and used threshold in the last decade has been the 1-3 GDP per capita, which is often attributed to the Commission on Macroeconomics and  WHO guidelines on Choosing Interventions that are Cost Effective (WHO-CHOICE). For many reasons, however, this threshold has been widely criticised; which has led experts across the world, including the WHO, to discourage its use. This has left a vacuum for policy-makers and technical staff at a time when countries are wanting to move towards Universal Health Coverage .

This article seeks to address this gap by offering five practical options for decision-makers in low- and middle-income countries that can be used instead of the 1-3 GDP rule, to combine existing evidence with fair decision-rules or develop locally relevant CETs. It builds on existing literature as well as an engagement with a group of experts and decision-makers working in low, middle and high income countries.

Valuing health outcomes: developing better defaults based on health opportunity costs

BACKGROUND

Current health economic analysis guidelines emphasize the importance of using nationally appropriate cost and valuation inputs. However, some countries lack national data, and some analyses focus on interventions with costs and benefits at regional or global scales.

METHODS

Recognizing the need for better estimates of appropriate values for application at these levels than those used in the past, we characterize population-weighted dollar per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted by World Bank Income Level based on available national estimates of the marginal productivity of the healthcare system.

RESULTS

The defaults suggested here reflect health opportunity costs across countries more consistent with existing evidence than those previously used or recommended. As countries change income levels and healthcare spending, and as additional or updated marginal productivity of healthcare expenditure estimates become available, we expect the defaults to change.

CONCLUSION

The best option for informing decisions around resource allocation in health care such that they improve health outcomes overall remains the use of time-appropriate country-specific estimates of the marginal productivity of the healthcare system. Instead of single, time-invariant defaults, health economists should seek to develop valuation inputs that better account for health opportunity costs and do so over time.

Cost-effectiveness analysis is a mandatory strategy for health systems: evidence from a study involving therapies for hepatitis C

Cost-effectiveness analysis is essential in health decision making. Several countries use it as synthesis of evidence to incorporate health technologies. The protease inhibitors (PI) boceprevir (BOC) and telaprevir (TVR) are indicated for chronic hepatitis C treatment and were incorporated in guidelines worldwide. Pre-marketing clinical trials showed higher sustained virological response rates in relation to previous therapies, but the incorporation of PIs generated a significant financial impact. The aim of this study was to discuss the relevance of cost-effectiveness analysis through a study that involved the inclusion of PIs in a clinical protocol. The analysis was part of a real-life study that included patients infected with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 treated in a tertiary university hospital in Brazil. Triple therapies (TT) with ribavirin (RBV), peginterferon α-2a (Peg-INF α-2a) and BOC or TVR were compared to dual therapy with RBV and Peg-INF α-2a. Sensitivity analysis of the cost-effectiveness ratio indicated an 88.2% chance of TTs presenting a higher cost per cure. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) exceeded the Brazilian gross domestic product (GDP) per capita by three times in all proposed scenarios. The sensitivity of ICER showed an 88.4% chance of TT not being cost-effective. The impact of PI incorporation was negative and the conduct about this could have been different if a previous cost-effectiveness analysis had been conducted.

Protocol of a randomized open label multicentre trial comparing continuous intrajejunal levodopa infusion with deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease - the INfusion VErsus STimulation (INVEST) study

Background

Both Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) and Continuous intrajejunal Levodopa Infusion (CLI) are effective therapies for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease (PD). To our knowledge, no direct head-to-head comparison of DBS and CLI has been performed, whilst the costs probably differ significantly. In the INfusion VErsus STimulation (INVEST) study, costs and effectiveness of DBS and CLI are compared in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients with PD, to study whether higher costs of one of the therapies are justified by superiority of that treatment.

Methods

A prospective open label multicentre RCT is being performed, with ancillary patient preference observational arms. Patients with PD who, despite optimal pharmacological treatment, have severe response fluctuations, bradykinesia, dyskinesias, or painful dystonia are eligible for inclusion. A total of 66 patients will be randomized. There is no minimal inclusion in the patient preference arms. The primary health economic outcomes are costs per unit on the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39) and costs per unit Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) at 12 months. The main clinical outcome is patient-reported quality of life measured with the PDQ-39 at 12 months. Patients will additionally be followed during 36 months after initiation of the study treatment.

Discussion

The INVEST trial directly compares the costs and effectiveness of the advanced therapies DBS and CLI.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register identifier 4753, registered November 3rd, 2014; EudraCT number 2014–001501-32, Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02480803.

Economic evaluations of oral medications for breast cancer treatment in the U.S.: a systematic review with a focus on cost-effectiveness threshold

Introduction: With the advent of targeted therapy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently approved several oral anticancer medications (OAMs) for breast cancer (BC). Despite the improved effectiveness of those OAMs, the high financial burden is an issue. Evidence from cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can provide valuable information for decision-makers when deciding whether to use these high-priced medications. Many CEAs on OAMs have been conducted using various analytical approaches and cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs). However, there is no comprehensive systematic review of CEAs across all OAMs.Area covered: PubMed and Cochrane library were used to select for CEAs of OAM for BC in the U.S. published by May 2019. Among the 25 included studies, studies published between 1993 and 2011 analyzed either early BC (n = 11) or advanced/metastatic BC (n = 5), those between 2012-2019 analyzed advanced/metastatic BC (n = 9). Studies including targeted therapies were published after 2009. The CETs tended to increase over time and were higher in the studies for advanced/metastatic BC (median = $125,000) than those for early BC (median = $50,000).Expert commentary: The target population and medications of interest have changed and the methods of articles have evolved. The range of CETs tends to differ by study setting with an increase over time.

The Price of Substitute Technologies

BACKGROUND

Only a small share of new drugs is truly innovative; 85% to 90% of all new health technologies have little or no advantage over existing therapeutic alternatives. Health economic evaluations can be used to induce acceptable prices for new technologies through threshold pricing.

OBJECTIVE

This work discusses a cost-effectiveness threshold (λ) to be applied to the price regulation of substitute technologies.

METHODS

Considering that substitute technologies add only small marginal benefits in terms of innovation or ethical considerations to the system, it does not make sense to allow a loss of efficiency to list them. It has been postulated that the threshold calculated from opportunity costs (κ) represents its maximum possible value and that there must be a threshold (β) that maximizes consumer surplus. For a substitute technology to be listed, the cost of treatment associated with it must be lower than the cost of treatment of the incumbent technology added to the difference in effectiveness priced at the threshold.

RESULTS

There is no reason for us to believe that the oligopolistic pharmaceutical market is currently charging prices at the cost of production. That way, the cost-effectiveness ratio of the incumbent technology, when lower than κ, is shown through a deductive process to be a plausible estimate for λ that fulfills the objective of maximizing consumer benefit, granting producers a part of the combined surplus to stimulate research and development; that is, it would be between β and κ.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the price of substitute technologies should be limited by the cost-effectiveness ratio of the incumbent technology.

Barriers for Access to New Medicines: Searching for the Balance Between Rising Costs and Limited Budgets

Introduction: There is continued unmet medical need for new medicines across countries especially for cancer, immunological diseases, and orphan diseases. However, there are growing challenges with funding new medicines at ever increasing prices along with funding increased medicine volumes with the growth in both infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases across countries. This has resulted in the development of new models to better manage the entry of new medicines, new financial models being postulated to finance new medicines as well as strategies to improve prescribing efficiency. However, more needs to be done. Consequently, the primary aim of this paper is to consider potential ways to optimize the use of new medicines balancing rising costs with increasing budgetary pressures to stimulate debate especially from a payer perspective. Methods: A narrative review of pharmaceutical policies and implications, as well as possible developments, based on key publications and initiatives known to the co-authors principally from a health authority perspective. Results: A number of initiatives and approaches have been identified including new models to better manage the entry of new medicines based on three pillars (pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities). Within this, we see the growing role of horizon scanning activities starting up to 36 months before launch, managed entry agreements and post launch follow-up. It is also likely there will be greater scrutiny over the effectiveness and value of new cancer medicines given ever increasing prices. This could include establishing minimum effectiveness targets for premium pricing along with re-evaluating prices as more medicines for cancer lose their patent. There will also be a greater involvement of patients especially with orphan diseases. New initiatives could include a greater role of multicriteria decision analysis, as well as looking at the potential for de-linking research and development from commercial activities to enhance affordability. Conclusion: There are a number of ongoing activities across countries to try and fund new valued medicines whilst attaining or maintaining universal healthcare. Such activities will grow with increasing resource pressures and continued unmet need.

Systems, design and value-for-money in the NHS: mission impossible?

NHS organisations are being challenged to transform -themselves sustainably in the face of increasing demands, but they have little room for error. To manage trade-offs and risks precisely, they must integrate two very different streams of -expertise: systems approaches to service design and implementation, and economic evaluation of the type pioneered by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for pharmaceuticals and interventions. Neither approach is fully embedded in NHS service transformation, while the combination as an integrated discipline is still some way away. We share three examples to show how design methods may be deployed within a value-for-money framework to plan operationally and in terms of clinical outcomes. They are real cases briefly described and the unreferenced ones are anonymised. They have been selected by one of the authors (TY) during his sabbatical research because each illustrates a commonly observed challenge. To meet these challenges, we argue that the health economics cost / quality-adjusted life year (QALY) framework promulgated by NICE provides an under-appreciated lens for thinking about trade-offs and we highlight some systems tools which have also been under-utilised in this context.