Cost-Effectiveness Threshold for Healthcare: Justification and Quantification

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.

A Review of Current Approaches to Evaluating and Reimbursing New Medicines in a Subset of OECD Countries

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to review the current evaluation and funding processes for new drugs in different developed countries, to provide a comparative framework with detailed, homogeneous, and up-to-date information.

METHODS

Scientific publications, reports and websites were reviewed between July and December 2021 using PubMed, Google Scholar, and grey literature sources. The main items searched were actors and processes, including timelines, characteristics of clinical and economic evaluations, participation of stakeholders, elements of price and reimbursement decisions, cost-effectiveness thresholds and specific funds. The analysed 13 countries were Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Scotland, South Korea, Spain and Sweden.

RESULTS

Eight countries perform the assessment process separated from the pricing decision. Countries measure each drug's added therapeutic value through multi-attribute value scales, algorithms, non-prescriptive lists of criteria, or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health technology assessment (HTA) methodologies differ in their outcome measures, elicitation techniques, comparators, and perspectives. The criteria used for pricing and reimbursement include humanistic, clinical, and economic aspects. Only Scotland, England, the Netherlands, Canada and Portugal use explicit efficiency thresholds. Health care professionals participate in all assessment committees, and patients are becoming increasingly involved in most countries. The official time from marketing authorisation to the completion of the evaluation and pricing processes varied from 126 to 540 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Most analysed countries show a trend towards value-based approaches that consider value for money to society, but also other economic, clinical, and humanistic criteria. Good practices included robustness, transparency, independence, and participation.

Does natural and hybrid immunity obviate the need for frequent vaccine boosters against SARS-CoV-2 in the endemic phase?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has entered its endemic phase and we observe significantly declining infection fatality rates due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). On this background, it is crucial but challenging to define current and future vaccine policy in a population with a high immunity against SARS-CoV-2 conferred by previous infections and/or vaccinations. Vaccine policy must consider the magnitude of the risks conferred by new infection(s) with current and evolving SARS-CoV-2 variants, how these risks vary in different groups of individuals, how to balance these risks against the apparently small, but existent, risks of harms of vaccination, and the cost-benefit of different options. More evidence from randomized controlled trials and continuously accumulating national health data is required to inform shared decision-making with people who consider vaccination options. Vaccine policy makers should cautiously weight what vaccination schedules are needed, and refrain from urging frequent vaccine boosters unless supported by sufficient evidence.

Are Lockdowns Effective in Managing Pandemics?

The present coronavirus crisis caused a major worldwide disruption which has not been experienced for decades. The lockdown-based crisis management was implemented by nearly all the countries, and studies confirming lockdown effectiveness can be found alongside the studies questioning it. In this work, we performed a narrative review of the works studying the above effectiveness, as well as the historic experience of previous pandemics and risk-benefit analysis based on the connection of health and wealth. Our aim was to learn lessons and analyze ways to improve the management of similar events in the future. The comparative analysis of different countries showed that the assumption of lockdowns’ effectiveness cannot be supported by evidence—neither regarding the present COVID-19 pandemic, nor regarding the 1918–1920 Spanish Flu and other less-severe pandemics in the past. The price tag of lockdowns in terms of public health is high: by using the known connection between health and wealth, we estimate that lockdowns may claim 20 times more life years than they save. It is suggested therefore that a thorough cost-benefit analysis should be performed before imposing any lockdown for either COVID-19 or any future pandemic.