Do health economic evaluations using observational data provide reliable assessment of treatment effects?

Evaluation of the Healthy Start voucher scheme on maternal vitamin use and child breastfeeding: a natural experiment using data linkage

Background

Having a good start in life during pregnancy and infancy has been shown to be important for living both a healthy life and a longer life. Despite the introduction of many policies for the early-years age group, including voucher schemes, with the aim of improving nutrition, there is limited evidence of their impact on health.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of the Healthy Start voucher scheme on infant, child and maternal outcomes, and to capture the lived experiences of the Healthy Start voucher scheme for low-income women.

Design

This was a natural experiment study using existing data sets, linked to routinely collected health data sets, with a nested qualitative study of low-income women and an assessment of the health economics.

Setting

Representative sample of Scottish children and UK children.

Participants

Growing Up in Scotland cohort 2 (n = 2240), respondents to the 2015 Infant Feeding Study (n = 8067) and a sample of 40 participants in the qualitative study.

Interventions

The Health Start voucher, a means-tested scheme that provides vouchers worth £3.10 per week to spend on liquid milk, formula milk, fruit and vegetables.

Main outcome measures

Infant and child outcomes - breastfeeding initiation and duration; maternal outcomes - vitamin use pre and during pregnancy.

Results

The exposed group were women receiving the Healthy Start voucher (R), with two control groups: eligible and not claiming the Healthy Start voucher (E) and nearly eligible. There was no difference in vitamin use during pregnancy for either comparison (receiving the Healthy Start voucher, 82%; eligible and not claiming the Healthy Start voucher, 86%; p = 0.10 vs. receiving the Healthy Start voucher, 87%; nearly eligible, 88%; p = 0.43) in the Growing Up in Scotland cohort. Proportions were similar for the Infant Feeding Study cohort (receiving the Healthy Start voucher, 89%; eligible and not claiming the Healthy Start voucher, 86%; p = 0.01 vs. receiving the Healthy Start voucher, 89%; nearly eligible, 87%; p = 0.01); although results were statistically significantly different, these were small effect sizes. There was no difference for either comparison in breastfeeding initiation or breastfeeding duration in months in Growing Up in Scotland, but there was a negative effect of the Healthy Start voucher in the Infant Feeding Survey. This contrast between data sets indicates that results are inconclusive for breastfeeding. The qualitative study found that despite the low monetary value the women valued the Healthy Start voucher scheme. However, the broader lives of low-income women are crucial to understand the constraints to offer a healthy diet.

Limitations

Owing to the policy being in place, it was difficult to identify appropriate control groups using existing data sources, especially in the Infant Feeding Study.

Conclusions

As the Healthy Start voucher scheme attempts to influence health behaviour, this evaluation can inform other policies aiming to change behaviour and use voucher incentives. The null effect of Healthy Start vouchers on the primary outcomes may be due to the value of the vouchers being insufficient to change the broader lives of low-income women to offer a healthy diet.

Future work

The methods developed to undertake an economic evaluation alongside a natural experiment using existing data can be used to explore the cost-effectiveness of the Healthy Start voucher scheme.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Economic evidence with respect to cost-effectiveness of the transitional care model among geriatric patients discharged from hospital to home: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The German hospital-to-home discharge management of geriatric patients has long been criticized. The implementation of the American Transitional Care Model (TCM) could help to reduce readmissions and costs. The objective of this review was to check the scientific evidence of the cost-effectiveness of the TCM.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in six databases for the time period of 26 years was conducted. The studies had to meet all pre-defined inclusion criteria. The data extraction is based on a criteria chart from literature. The methodological quality was assessed using the tools of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute as well as the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list. The results transferability to German health care system was explained based on the criteria from the literature.

RESULTS

Three American studies met all criteria. They showed partial cost analyses but no full economic analyses. It could be assumed that the economic effect of the TCM changes over time. The costs of a care coordinator could not be determined because few detailed information was reported. The TCM may have negative consequences for hospitals. The results are not transferable to Germany.

CONCLUSION

There is no scientific evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the defined TCM. The optimal TCM duration still needs to be clarified. A detailed overview with units and prices and an additional consideration of the hospital perspective could help to make the information more transparent when deciding about the TCM implementation. A full economic analysis under German conditions or for similar European countries is necessary.

How Are We Measuring Cost-Effectiveness in Total Joint Arthroplasty Studies? Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

As volumes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) continue to rise, it is important to understand their economic impact. No systematic review on cost-effectiveness of THA/TKA has been performed since 2016 despite recent changes in the healthcare environment. The purpose of the study is to provide a contemporary analysis of the cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty and the use of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed from 2005 to 2020. Online databases (OVID Medline, PubMed, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, Google Scholar, Elton B. Stephens Co) were queried to identify economic analyses that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of THA/TKA.

RESULTS

In total, 38 studies met the screening criteria. Study designs were primarily Markov models (68%), cohort studies (16%), and randomized trials (8%). Most studies adopted either a societal perspective (45%) or a health system perspective (39%). Analysis revealed that THA/TKA was strongly cost-effective compared to nonsurgical treatment. THA/TKA procedures that were not delayed were more cost-effective than delayed intervention. The majority of studies used QALYs as the primary quality metric (82%); in all these studies there was a significant improvement in QALYs gained.

CONCLUSION

Given the high economic impact of arthroplasty, ongoing assessment of cost-effectiveness is needed. Twenty-four percent of studies included in this systematic review were published in the last 4 years of this 15-year study period, highlighting the need for continuous assessment of aggregate data. Future studies should incorporate the cost-effectiveness of THA and TKA with respect to the work-value provided by surgeon providers to support health policy and reimbursement.

Economic Evaluations of Anticancer Drugs Based on Medico-Administrative Databases: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Oncology is among the most active therapeutic fields in terms of new drug development projects, with increasingly expensive drugs. The expected clinical benefit and cost effectiveness of these treatments in clinical practice have yet to be fully confirmed. Health medico-administrative databases may be useful for assessing the value of anticancer drugs with real-world data.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of our systematic literature review (SLR) were to analyse economic evaluations of anticancer drugs based on health medico-administrative databases, to assess the quality of these evaluations, and to identify the inputs from such databases that can be used in economic evaluations of anticancer drugs.

METHODS

We performed an SLR by using PubMed and Web of Science articles published from January 2008 to January 2019. The search strategy focused on anticancer drug cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs)/cost-utility analyses (CUAs) that were entirely based on medico-administrative databases. The review reported the main choices of economic evaluation methods in the analyses. The quality of the articles was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and risk of bias assessment checklists.

RESULTS

Of the 306 records identified in PubMed, 12 articles were selected, and one additional article was identified through Web of Science. Ten of the 13 articles were CEAs and three were CUAs. Most of the analyses were carried out in North America (n = 11). The economic metric used was the cost per life-year gained (n = 10) or cost per quality-adjusted life-year (n = 3). Reporting of the target analysis population and strategies in the articles was in agreement with the CHEERS guidelines. The structural assumptions underpinning the economic models displayed the poorest reporting quality among the items analysed. Representativeness bias (n = 11) and the issue of censored medical costs (n = 8) were the most frequently analysed risks.

CONCLUSION

A comparison of the economic results was not relevant due to the high heterogeneity of the selected studies. Our SLR highlighted the benefits and pitfalls related to the use of medico-administrative databases in the economic evaluations of anticancer drugs.

A Systematic Review of Methods Used for Confounding Adjustment in Observational Economic Evaluations in Cardiology Conducted between 2013 and 2017

Background. Observational economic evaluations (i.e., economic evaluations in which treatment allocation is not randomized) are prone to confounding bias. Prior reviews published in 2013 have shown that adjusting for confounding is poorly done, if done at all. Although these reviews raised awareness on the issues, it is unclear if their results improved the methodological quality of future work. We therefore aimed to investigate whether and how confounding was accounted for in recently published observational economic evaluations in the field of cardiology. Methods. We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PsycInfo databases using a set of Medical Subject Headings and keywords covering topics in "observational economic evaluations in health within humans" and "cardiovascular diseases." Any study published in either English or French between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017, addressing our search criteria was eligible for inclusion in our review. Our protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018112391). Results. Forty-two (0.6%) out of 7523 unique citations met our inclusion criteria. Fewer than half of the selected studies adjusted for confounding (n = 19 [45.2%]). Of those that adjusted for confounding, propensity score matching (n = 8 [42.1%]) and other matching-based approaches were favored (n = 8 [42.1%]). Our results also highlighted that most authors who adjusted for confounding rarely justified their methodological choices. Conclusion. Our results indicate that adjustment for confounding is often ignored when conducting an observational economic evaluation. Continued knowledge translation efforts aimed at improving researchers' knowledge regarding confounding bias and methods aimed at addressing this issue are required and should be supported by journal editors.

Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations

This article provides an educational review covering the consideration of conducting ‘value for money’ analyses as part of non-randomised study designs including service evaluations. These evaluations represent a vehicle for producing evidence such as value for money of a care intervention or service delivery model. Decision makers including charities and local and national governing bodies often rely on evidence from non-randomised data and service evaluations to inform their resource allocation decision-making. However, as randomised data obtained from randomised controlled trials are considered the ‘gold standard’ for assessing causation, the use of this alternative vehicle for producing an evidence base requires careful consideration. We refer to value for money analyses, but reflect on methods associated with economic evaluations as a form of analysis used to inform resource allocation decision-making alongside a finite budget. Not all forms of value for money analysis are considered a full economic evaluation with implications for the information provided to decision makers. The type of value for money analysis to be conducted requires considerations such as the outcome(s) of interest, study design, statistical methods to control for confounding and bias, and how to quantify and describe uncertainty and opportunity costs to decision makers in any resulting value for money estimates. Service evaluations as vehicles for producing evidence present different challenges to analysts than what is commonly associated with research, randomised controlled trials and health technology appraisals, requiring specific study design and analytic considerations. This educational review describes and discusses these considerations, as overlooking them could affect the information provided to decision makers who may make an ‘ill-informed’ decision based on ‘poor’ or ‘inaccurate’ information with long-term implications. We make direct comparisons between randomised controlled trials relative to non-randomised data as vehicles for assessing causation; given ‘gold standard’ randomised controlled trials have limitations. Although we use UK-based decision makers as examples, we reflect on the needs of decision makers internationally for evidence-based decision-making specific to resource allocation. We make recommendations based on the experiences of the authors in the UK, reflecting on the wide variety of methods available, used as documented in the empirical literature. These methods may not have been fully considered relevant to non-randomised study designs and/or service evaluations, but could improve and aid the analysis conducted to inform the relevant value for money decision problem.

A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments

Internationally, policy makers are increasingly focussed on reducing the detrimental consequences and rising costs associated with unhealthy diets, inactivity, smoking, alcohol and other risk factors on the health of their populations. This has led to an increase in the demand for evidence-based, cost-effective Population Health Interventions (PHIs) to reverse this trend. Given that research designs such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often not suited to the evaluation of PHIs, Natural Experiments (NEs) are now frequently being used as a design to evaluate such complex, preventive PHIs. However, current guidance for economic evaluation focusses on RCT designs and therefore does not address the specific challenges of NE designs. Using such guidance can lead to sub-optimal design, data collection and analysis for NEs, leading to bias in the estimated effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PHI. As a consequence, there is a growing recognition of the need to identify a robust methodological framework for the design and conducting of economic evaluations alongside such NEs. This paper outlines the challenges inherent to the design and conduct of economic evaluations of PHIs alongside NEs, providing a comprehensive framework and outlining a research agenda in this area.

Health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany: a systematic review

Background

Improved data access and funding for health services research have promoted the application of routine data to measure costs and effects of interventions within the German health care system. Following the trend towards real world evidence, this review aims to evaluate the status and quality of health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany.

Methods

To identify relevant economic evaluations, a systematic literature search in the databases PubMed and EMBASE was complemented by a manual search. The included studies had to be full economic evaluations using German routine data to measure either costs, effects, or both. Study characteristics were assessed with a structured template. Additionally, the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) were used to measure quality of reporting.

Results

In total, 912 records were identified and 35 studies were included in the further analysis. The majority of these studies was published in the past 5 years (n = 27, 77.1%) and used insurance claims data as a source of routine data (n = 30, 85.7%). The most common method used for handling selection bias was propensity score matching. With regard to the reporting quality, 42.9% (n = 15) of the studies satisfied at least 80% of the criteria on the CHEERS checklist.

Conclusions

This review confirms that routine data has become an increasingly common data source for health economic evaluations in Germany. While most studies addressed the application of routine data, this analysis reveals deficits in considering methodological particularities and in reporting quality of economic evaluations based on routine data. Nevertheless, this review demonstrates the overall potential of routine data for economic evaluations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3080-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Illustration of the Impact of Unmeasured Confounding Within an Economic Evaluation Based on Nonrandomized Data

Background: Propensity score (PS) methods are frequently used within economic evaluations based on nonrandomized data to adjust for measured confounders, but many researchers omit the fact that they cannot adjust for unmeasured confounders. Objective: To illustrate how confounding due to unmeasured confounders can bias an economic evaluation despite PS matching. Methods: We used data from a previously published nonrandomized study to select a prematched population consisting of 121 patients (46.5%) who received endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and 139 patients (53.5%) who received open surgical repair (OSR), in which sufficient data regarding eight measured confounders were available. One-to-one PS matching was used within this population to select two PS-matched subpopulations. The Matched PS-Smoking Excluded Subpopulation was selected by matching patients using a PS model that omitted patients’ smoking status (one of the measured confounders), whereas the Matched PS-Smoking Included Subpopulation was selected by matching patients using a PS model that included all eight measured confounders. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed within both subpopulations. Results: Both subpopulations were composed of two different sets of 164 patients. Balance within the Matched PS-Smoking Excluded Subpopulation was achieved on all confounders except for patients’ smoking status, whereas balance within the Matched PS-Smoking Included Subpopulation was achieved on all confounders. Results indicated that the ICER of EVAR over OSR differed between both subpopulations; the ICER was estimated at $157,909 per life-year gained (LYG) within the Matched PS-Smoking Excluded Subpopulation, while it was estimated at $235,074 per LYG within the Matched PS-Smoking Included Subpopulation. Discussion: Although effective in controlling for measured confounding, PS matching may not adjust for unmeasured confounders that may bias the results of an economic evaluation based on nonrandomized data.

Arrow physicians: are economics and medicine philosophically incompatible?

Economics is en route to its further expansion in medicine, but many in the medical community remain unconvinced that its impact will be positive. Thus, a philosophical enquiry into the compatibility of economics and medicine is necessary to resolve the disagreements. The fundamental mission of medicine obliges physicians to practise science and compassion to serve the patient's best interests. Conventional (neoclassical) economics assumes that individuals are self-interested and that competitive markets will emerge optimal states. Economics is seemingly incompatible with the emphasis of putting patients' interests first. This idea is refuted by Professor Kenneth Arrow's health economics seminal paper. Arrow emphasizes that medical practice involves agency, knowledge, trust and professionalism, and physician-patient relation critically affects care quality. The term Arrow Physician is used to mean a humanistic carer who has a concern for the patient and acts on the best available evidence with health equity in mind. To make this practice sustainable, implementing appropriate motivations, constitutions and institutions to enable altruistic agency is critical. There is substantial evidence that polycentric governance can encourage building trust and reciprocity, so as to avoid depletion of communal resources. This paper proposes building trusting institutions through granting altruistic physicians adequate autonomy to direct resources based on patients' technical needs. It also summarizes the philosophy bases of medicine and economics. It, therefore, contributes to developing a shared language to facilitate intellectual dialogues, and will encourage trans-disciplinary research into medical practice. This should lead to medicine being reoriented to care for whole persons again.

Can administrative data be used to measure chemotherapy side effects?

Many of the issues with using data from clinical trials and observational studies for economic evaluations are highlighted in the case of chemotherapy side effects. We present the results of an observational cohort study using linked administrative data. The chemotherapy side effects identified in the administrative data are compared with patient self-reports of such events. The results of these comparisons are then used to guide a discussion of the issues surrounding the use of administrative data to identify clinical events for the population of economic models. Although the advantages of easy access and generalizability of the results make administrative data an attractive option for populating economic models, this is not always possible because of the limitations of these data.

The possibilities of day surgery system development within the health policy in Slovakia

BACKGROUND

In the day surgery system are intertwined elements of state health policy, health care payers' interests, employers of health care system, as well as the interests and wishes of patients. A problem in the health policy is to find a way to regulate ambulatory and short-term surgical procedures, which are hardly distinguishable, and still fulfil the requirements of transparent financing, quality and security. The objective of this paper is to highlight the reasons for the long-term stagnation in Slovakia day surgery and the possibilities of eliminating the structural drivers causing this negative phenomenon.

METHODS

Due to the nature of the analyzed data and desired outcomes, we selected application of correspondence analysis. Results of correspondence analysis provide valuable information necessary for the projection of specialization of one day surgery clinics for that type of procedure, as well as for the support of the new clinics creation (also with the potential state support), the pricing policy, systemic reduction of beds what is connected with reduction of underutilized departments in hospitals, in order to optimize management processes in the healthcare system.

RESULTS

Contribution reveals negative aspects which causing a low level of day surgery in Slovakia. Moreover, it reveals the approaches of the different subjects of day surgery. Presented options for setting optimal strategy supporting its development are based on the results of the analysis. Correspondence analysis provided valuable information of present structure of the day surgery system. The determined similarity of the regions and association of specialized fields indicate specific settings of the day surgery system and its components that are inevitable to analyze in the subsequent analytical process.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of the analysis are very important in order to set up the system measures in the process of its further development, which should be part of the strategic plan of each health system. On conceptual and methodological issues related with reporting of day surgery performances are highlighting international organizations such as the OECD,WHO.

JEL CLASSIFICATION

I13, I18, H51.

One-year disease-related health care costs of incident vertebral fractures in osteoporotic patients

SUMMARY

The study aims to estimate the direct disease-related costs of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) in patients with newly diagnosed fracture in the first year after index in Germany. Analyses reveal that OVCFs are associated with significant costs. In light of high and increasing incidence, the results emphasize importance of research in this field.

INTRODUCTION

OVCF are among the most common fractures related to osteoporosis. They have been shown to be associated with excess mortality and meaningful healthcare costs. Costs calculations have illustrated the significant financial burden to society and national social security systems. However, this information is not available for Germany. Therefore, aim of the study was to estimate the direct disease-related costs of OVCF in patients with newly diagnosed fracture in the first year after index in Germany.

METHODS

Data were obtained from a claims dataset of a large German health insurance fund. Subjects ≥ 60 years with a new vertebral fracture between 2006 and 2010 were studied retrospectively compared to a matched paired OVCF-free patient group. All-cause and fracture-specific medical costs were calculated in the 1-year baseline and follow-up period. Generalized linear model (GLM) was estimated for total follow-up healthcare cost.

RESULTS

A total of 2,277 pairs of matched OVCF and OVCF-free patients were included in the analysis. Baseline costs were higher in the OVCF group. Mean unadjusted all-cause healthcare cost difference in the four quarters following the index date between OVCF and OVCF-free patients was 8,200 <euro> (p < 0.001). Of the difference, almost two third was attributable to inpatient services and one quarter to prescription drug costs. The GLM procedure revealed that OVCF-related costs in the first year after the index date add up to 6,490 <euro> (p < 0.001; CI 5,809 <euro>-6,731 <euro>).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite limitations of this study, our results are consistent with other research and demonstrate that OVCFs are associated with significant costs. The results underline the importance of medical interventions that can help to prevent fractures and treatments, which are cost-effective and can prevent recurrent fractures.