Cost effectiveness analysis: some problems of implementation

Results of the Lynn Sage Second-Opinion Program for local therapy in patients with breast carcinoma. Changes in management and determinants of where care is delivered

BACKGROUND

The treatment options of breast conservation therapy (BCT) and immediate reconstruction for patients with carcinoma of the breast have not been adopted widely. The objectives of this study were to determine how often a second opinion on the local therapy of breast carcinoma changed patient management and to identify factors predictive of remaining at the second-opinion site for therapy.

METHODS

Two hundred thirty-one patients with intraductal carcinoma or Stage I and II breast carcinoma were reviewed retrospectively. At the time of the second opinion, patients completed a questionnaire regarding their initial surgical opinion and the reason for seeking consultation.

RESULTS

Only 46% of patients had a complete discussion of treatment options prior to the second opinion. The second opinion changed management in 54 patients (20.3%). The most common finding was eligibility for BCT in patients who were offered only mastectomy. Definitive local therapy occurred at the second-opinion site in 65.8% of patients. The only predictors of remaining at the second-opinion site were insurance type (P = 0.008) and the patient's perception that options were not discussed at the initial opinion (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Second opinions provide useful information to patients and may change the management of their disease. They result in significant patient capture for an institution.

The impact of a spouse-caregiver support group on care recipient health care costs

Frail elderly veterans who received care at a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center and whose spouse-caregivers participated in support groups to which they had been randomly assigned had lower health care costs over a 1-year period than did control participants. The greatest impact was observed for participants perceived by their spouse-caregivers to be in the poorest health. What is important to consider about this result in terms of health care policymaking is that support groups targeted for spouse-caregivers of elderly veterans in poor health produced significant outpatient, inpatient, and total cost savings for the care recipients, and were cost effective.

Methods of cost-effectiveness analysis: areas of consensus and debate

Methods of evaluating socioeconomic relationships have evolved over many years, and a number of specific approaches have been developed. Among the techniques available, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) has emerged as the most widely used and accepted method. Yet, despite considerable effort by the analytical community to refine this technique into one more useful for making health policy decisions, much debate and confusion still persist among analysts, readers, and policy-makers concerning methods standards and the overall usefulness of CEA in resource allocation decision making. Thus the purpose of this paper is to summarize, critically examine, and comment on existing recommended methods for socioeconomic evaluation of health care interventions. In particular, we examine an exhaustive set of component methods within the general area of cost-effectiveness and comment on areas of apparent consensus and debate. Our review reveals many areas of agreement and many yet to be resolved. Analysts generally agree on the components of the overall framework for an analysis; basic methodologic principles; the general treatment of costs; the principle of marginal analysis; the need for and general approach to discounting; the use of sensitivity analysis; the extent to which ethical issues can be incorporated; and the importance of choosing appropriate alternatives for comparison. The principal areas in which disagreement still persists are choice of study design, measurement and valuation of health outcomes including conversion of health outcomes to economic values, transformation of efficacy results into effectiveness outcomes, and the empirical measurement of costs.

Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses of magnetic resonance imaging

Any new technology that promises significant costs as well as potential benefits generates considerable interest. Such innovations bring into bold relief the fundamental problem of achieving maximal medical benefits while efficiently and equitably allocating scarce resources (II). Two tools that decision makers can use to assess the benefits and costs of implementing new technologies are cost- benefit analysis (CBA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). One technology that seems especially appropriate for the application of CBA and CEA is nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging.