QALY league table of Iran: a practical method for better resource allocation

Estimating Taiwan's QALY league table for catastrophic illnesses: Providing real-world evidence to integrate prevention with treatment for resources allocation

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Curative technologies improve patient's survival and/or quality of life but increase financial burdens. Effective prevention benefits all three. We summarize estimation methods and provide examples of how much money is spent per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) or life year (LY) on treating a catastrophic illness under a lifetime horizon and how many QALYs/LYs and lifetime medical costs (LMC) could be potentially saved by prevention.

METHODS

We established cohorts by interlinkages of Taiwan's nation-wide databases including National Health Insurance. We developed methods to estimate lifetime survival functions, which were multiplied with the medical costs and/or quality of life and summed up to estimate LMC, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) and lifetime average cost per QALY/LY for catastrophic illnesses. By comparing with the age-, sex-, and calendar year-matched referents simulated from vital statistics, we obtained the loss-of-QALE and loss-of-life expectancy (LE).

RESULTS

The lifetime cost-effectiveness ratios of ventilator-dependent comatose patients, dialysis, spinal cord injury, major trauma, and cancers were US$ 96,800, 16,200-20,000, 5500-5,900, 3400-3,600, and 2900-11,900 per QALY or LY, respectively. The successful prevention of lung, liver, oral, esophagus, stomach, nasopharynx, or ovary cancer would potentially save US$ 28,000-97,000 and > 10 QALYs; whereas those for end-stage kidney disease, stroke, spinal injury, or major trauma would be US$ 55,000-300,000 and 10-14 QALYs. Loss-of-QALE and loss-of-LE were less confounded indicators for comparing the lifetime health benefits of different technologies estimated from real-world data.

CONCLUSIONS

Integration of prevention with treatment for resources allocation seems feasible and would improve equity and efficiency.

Comprehensive league table of cost-utility ratios: A systematic review of cost-effectiveness evidence for health policy decisions in India

Background and objectives

Although a relatively recent concept for developing countries, the developed world has been using League Tables as a policy guiding tool for a comprehensive assessment of health expenditures; country-specific "League tables" can be a very useful tool for national healthcare planning and budgeting. Presented herewith is a comprehensive league table of cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) or Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) ratios derived from Health Technology Assessment (HTA) or economic evaluation studies reported from India through a systematic review.

Methods

Economic evaluations and HTAs published from January 2003 to October 2019 were searched from various databases. We only included the studies reporting common outcomes (QALY/DALY) and methodology to increase the generalizability of league table findings. To opt for a uniform criterion, a reference case approach developed by Health Technology Assessment in India (HTAIn) was used for the reporting of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. However, as, most of the articles expressed the outcome as DALY, both (QALY and DALY) were used as outcome indicators for this review.

Results

After the initial screening of 9,823 articles, 79 articles meeting the inclusion criteria were selected for the League table preparation. The spectrum of intervention was dominated by innovations for infectious diseases (33%), closely followed by maternal and child health (29%), and non-communicable diseases (20%). The remaining 18% of the interventions were on other groups of health issues, such as injuries, snake bites, and epilepsy. Most of the interventions (70%) reported DALY as an outcome indicator, and the rest (30%) reported QALY. Outcome and cost were discounted at the rate of 3 by 73% of the studies, at 5 by 4% of the studies, whereas 23% of the studies did not discount it. Budget impact and sensitivity analysis were reported by 18 and 73% of the studies, respectively.

Interpretation and conclusions

The present review offers a reasonably coherent league table that reflects ICER values of a range of health conditions in India. It presents an update for decision-makers for making decisions about resource allocation.

Economic evaluation of medical versus surgical strategies for first trimester therapeutic abortion: A systematic review

Pregnancy termination and abortion-related complications are well-established problems among women at reproductive age and resulted in significant morbidity and mortality. Accordingly, a systematic study was performed to investigate the economic evaluation studies results on costs and benefits of medical and surgical abortion methods. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane library, ProQuest, and ScienceDirect databases as well as Google scholar were searched through June 2021. Original full-text English language studies that performed an economic evaluation analysis comparing medical and surgical methods of pregnancy termination were included in this review. A critical quality assessment was conducted utilizing the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards checklist. The latest web-based tool adjusted the estimates of costs expressed in one specific currency and price year into a specific target currency (the year 2020 $US). Overall, 538 records were retrieved, and 20 studies were deemed eligible for qualitative synthesis. Among the reviewed studies, three studies investigated cost-minimization analysis, three studies investigated cost-utility analysis, and 14 studies investigated cost-effectiveness analysis. The directly comparison of medical with surgical abortion was most frequently studied. Medical abortion saved US$ 6 to US$ 2373 per patient's costs. Medical abortion was cost-effective and cost-saving option in compare to the surgical abortion across all perspectives (the incremental cost effectiveness ratio ranged from US$ 419 to US$ 4,044). Quality scores of included studies ranged from 54% to 100%, and 70% of studies received a score of above 85% and had "excellent" quality. According to the results, based on various economic and clinical effectiveness decision-making criteria used in different studies of health economic evaluation, the majority of research provided evidence on the advantage of pharmaceutical methods compared to surgical methods, as well as the advantages of using combinations therapy compared to single therapeutic interventions.