Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review

A novel set of Austrian reference unit costs for comprehensive societal perspectives consistent with latest European costing methods for economic evaluations

Decision making in public health often happens against the background of scarce resources. The systematic use of economic evaluations can be a main enabler in the alignment of public health goals with budgetary constraints. However, the lack of standardized methodology in terms of costing method and perspective are a critical barrier to the implementation of economic evaluations and the international comparability of results. We present a novel set of 22 reference unit costs (RUCs) optimized for cross-sectoral economic evaluations in Austria suitable for international comparability calculated using the standardized PECUNIA RUC Template. The common framework for costing and reporting, as well as the easy availability of the RUCs will reduce the burden on researchers and policy makers in future economic evaluations. The higher quality, accuracy, transparency and availability of economic evidence for policy design will help to improve the efficiency of public health-relevant healthcare decisions and make it easier for policy makers to bring funding arrangements and decision making across multiple sectors in line with Health-in-All-Policies goals.

The identification of economically relevant health and social care services for mental disorders in the PECUNIA project

BACKGROUND

Health economic research is still facing significant problems regarding the standardization and international comparability of health care services. As a result, comparative effectiveness studies and cost-effectiveness analyses are often not comparable. This study is part of the PECUNIA project, which aimed to improve the comparability of economic evaluations by developing instruments for the internationally standardized measurement and valuation of health care services for mental disorders. The aim of this study was to identify internationally relevant services in the health and social care sectors relevant for health economic studies for mental disorders.

METHODS

A systematic literature review on cost-of-illness studies and economic evaluations was conducted to identify relevant services, complemented by an additional grey literature search and a search of resource use measurement (RUM) questionnaires. A preliminary long-list of identified services was explored and reduced to a short-list by multiple consolidation rounds within the international research team and an external international expert survey in six European countries.

RESULTS

After duplicate removal, the systematic search yielded 15,218 hits. From these 295 potential services could be identified. The grey literature search led to 368 and the RUM search to 36 additional potential services. The consolidation process resulted in a preliminary list of 186 health and social care services which underwent an external expert survey. A final consolidation step led to a basic list of 56 services grouped into residential care, daycare, outpatient care, information for care, accessibility to care, and self-help and voluntary care.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial literature searches led to an extensive number of potential service items for health and social care. Many of these items turned out to be procedures, interventions or providing professionals rather than services and were removed from further analysis. The resulting list was used as a basis for typological coding, the development of RUM questionnaires and corresponding unit costs for international mental health economic studies in the PECUNIA project.

Unit Costs in Health Economic Evaluations: Quo Vadis, Austria?

Evidence-informed healthcare decision-making relies on high quality data inputs, including robust unit costs, which in many countries are not readily available. The objective of the Department of Health Economics' Unit Cost Online Database, developed based on systematic reviews of Austrian costing studies, is to make conducting economic evaluations from healthcare and societal perspectives more feasible with publicly available unit cost information in Austria. This article aims to describe trends in unit cost data sources and reporting using this comprehensive database as a case study to encourage relevant national and international methodological discussions. Database analysis and synthesis included publication/study characteristics and costing reporting details in line with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022) with the year of the database launch as the cut-off point to assess how the methods have developed over time. Forty-two full economic evaluations and 278 unit costs were analyzed (2004-2016: 34 studies/232 unit costs, 2017-2022: 8 studies/46 unit costs). Although the reporting quality of costing details including the study perspective, unit cost sources and years has improved since 2017, the unit cost estimates and sources remained heterogeneous in Austria. While methodologically standardized national-level unit costs would be the gold standard, a systematically collated list of unit costs is a first step towards supporting health economic evaluations nationally.

Harmonization issues in unit costing of service use for multi-country, multi-sectoral health economic evaluations: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Valuation is a critical part of the costing process in health economic evaluations. However, an overview of specific issues relevant to the European context on harmonizing methodological requirements for the valuation of costs to be used in health economic evaluation is lacking. We aimed to inform the development of an international, harmonized and multi-sectoral costing framework, as sought in the European PECUNIA (ProgrammE in Costing, resource use measurement and outcome valuation for Use in multi-sectoral National and International health economic evaluAtions) project.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review (information extraction 2008-2021) to a) to demonstrate the degree of heterogeneity that currently exists in the literature regarding central terminology, b) to generate an overview of the most relevant areas for harmonization in multi-sectoral and multi-national costing processes for health economic evaluations, and c) to provide insights into country level variation regarding economic evaluation guidance. A complex search strategy was applied covering key publications on costing methods, glossaries, and international costing recommendations augmented by a targeted author and reference search as well as snowballing. Six European countries served as case studies to describe country-specific harmonization issues. Identified information was qualitatively synthesized and cross-checked using a newly developed, pilot-tested data extraction form.

RESULTS

Costing methods for services were found to be heterogeneous between sectors and country guidelines and may, in practice, be often driven by data availability and reimbursement systems in place. The lack of detailed guidance regarding specific costing methods, recommended data sources, double-counting of costs between sectors, adjustment of unit costs for inflation, transparent handling of overhead costs as well as the unavailability of standardized unit costing estimates in most countries were identified as main drivers of country specific differences in costing methods with a major impact on valuation and cost-effectiveness evidence.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a basic summary of existing costing practices for evaluative purposes across sectors and countries and highlights several common methodological factors influencing divergence in cost valuation methods that would need to be systematically incorporated and addressed in future costing practices to achieve more comparable, harmonized health economic evaluation evidence.

Establishing a comprehensive list of mental health-related services and resource use items in Austria: A national-level, cross-sectoral country report for the PECUNIA project

BACKGROUND

A comprehensive, comparable assessment of the economic disease burden and the value of relevant care forms a major challenge in the case of mental diseases. This study aimed to inform the development of a resource use measurement (RUM) instrument and harmonized reference unit costs valid for multi-sectoral and multi-national cost assessments for mental health diseases as part of the European PECUNIA project.

METHODS

An iterative, multi-methods approach was applied. Systematic literature reviews appended with national grey literature searches in six European countries were conducted to generate preliminary, literature-based, international, mental health-related service and resource use lists for all investigated sectors in 2018. As part of a multi-national expert survey, these lists were reviewed by 18 Austrian sector-specific experts regarding the clarity, relevance, comprehensiveness and availability in the Austrian context.

RESULTS

Out of 295 items included in the preliminary, international, sector-specific lists (health and social care-201 items, criminal justice-35 items, education-39 items; patient, family and informal care-20 items), a total of 261 items and descriptions (88%) were considered clear by all experts. 42 items (14%) were considered not existing in Austria, and 111 items (38%) were prioritized regarding their relevance in the national context. Thirteen additional items (4%) were suggested to be added to accommodate for Austria-specific features of the individual sectors. Major typological difficulties based on item names were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified country-specific variations and general typological bias and their potential contributions to service and resource use cost variations across countries and sectors call for further systematic investigation. Next, PECUNIA will develop internationally harmonized and comparable definitions of the listed items and their units of analysis based on a new conceptual multi-sectoral costing framework. The developed lists will require consolidation and further prioritization for the development of a patient-reported RUM instrument and consequent reference unit cost valuation.

Costing of Essential Health Service Packages: A Systematic Review of Methods From Developing Economies

OBJECTIVES

Although an increasing number of countries are adopting essential health service packages (EHSPs) and undertaking their cost assessment, standardization of the costing methods and their reporting are imperative to instill confidence in the use of findings of EHSPs as evidence for decision making and resource allocation. This review was conducted to synthesize the EHSP costing reports, focusing on the key costing methods and their reporting standards.

METHODS

A systematic review of English language literature (peer-reviewed as well as gray) was conducted. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Google Scholar, and websites of key institutions were reviewed (2000-2020). Publication characteristics, costing methods, valuation sources, quality, transparency, and reporting standards were assessed and synthesized.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies from 19 countries were included. Most studies were government reports (69%) and reported the use of "bottom-up" approach (76%), OneHealth tool (38%), had international funding (79%), and reported both normative and empirical cost estimates (41%). Six studies (21%) scored "excellent" in conduct and reporting. Stand-alone costing of EHSP had higher mean quality score (80). The projected increase in government budget to implement EHSP ranged from 17% to 117%. Limited availability of reliable data on resources, prices, and coverage of interventions were identified as major limitations for costing of EHSPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial differences in the costing methods and reporting standards of EHSPs made comparisons across countries difficult. Existing costing guidelines and checklists should be adapted for EHSPs with more specific methodological guidance to allow harmonization of methods and reporting.

Adjuvant anti-PD-1 antibody treatment in stage III/IV melanoma: real-world experience and health economic considerations

BACKGROUND

Anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) antibodies have evolved as a new standard of care in the adjuvant treatment of completely resected melanoma. Real-world data on treatment efficacy and safety as well as cost-effectiveness are still limited.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Treatment outcomes were retrospectively analyzed in a continuous patient cohort receiving adjuvant nivolumab (91 patients) or pembrolizumab (9 patients). Based on the obtained clinical data, a semi-Markov model was developed to evaluate cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 11.5 months, disease recurrence was observed in 39 patients (39 %). The site of first recurrence was locoregional in 17, distant in 19, and combined locoregional and distant in three patients. Twelve-month estimates for recurrence- and distant-metastasis-free survival were 64.8 % and 77.4 %, respectively. Sixteen patients experienced grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events, while 22 patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. The base-case Markov model yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 13,330 € per quality-adjusted life year for adjuvant anti-PD-1 antibody treatment compared to a simulated observation cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world outcomes of adjuvant anti-PD-1 antibody therapy in completely resected melanoma appear comparable to clinical trial data. Moreover, our data suggests this treatment strategy to be cost-effective according to Austrian health economic standards.

Costs and where to find them: identifying unit costs for health economic evaluations of diabetes in France, Germany and Italy

BACKGROUND

Health economic evaluations require cost data as key inputs. Many countries do not have standardized reference costs so costs used often vary between studies, thereby reducing transparency and transferability. The present review provided a comprehensive overview of cost sources and suggested unit costs for France, Germany and Italy, to support health economic evaluations in these countries, particularly in the field of diabetes.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted across multiple databases to identify published unit costs and cost data sources for resource items commonly used in health economic evaluations of antidiabetic therapies. The quality of unit cost reporting was assessed with regard to comprehensiveness of cost reporting and referencing as well as accessibility of cost sources from published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of antidiabetic medications.

RESULTS

An overview of cost sources, including tariff and fee schedules as well as published estimates, was developed for France, Germany and Italy, covering primary and specialist outpatient care, emergency care, hospital treatment, pharmacy costs and lost productivity. Based on these sources, unit cost datasets were suggested for each country. The assessment of unit cost reporting showed that only 60% and 40% of CEAs reported unit costs and referenced them for all pharmacy items, respectively. Less than 20% of CEAs obtained all pharmacy costs from publicly available sources.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive account of available costs and cost sources in France, Germany and Italy to support health economists and increase transparency in health economic evaluations in diabetes.

Are Unit Costs the Same? A Case Study Comparing Different Valuation Methods for Unit Cost Calculation of General Practitioner Consultations

OBJECTIVES

To inform allocation decisions in any healthcare system, robust cost data are indispensable. Nevertheless, recommendations on the most appropriate valuation approaches vary or are nonexistent, and no internationally accepted gold standard exists. This costing analysis exercise aims to assess the impact and implications of different calculation methods and sources based on the unit cost of general practitioner (GP) consultations in Austria.

METHODS

Six costing methods for unit cost calculation were explored, following 3 Austrian methodological approaches (AT-1, AT-2, AT-3) and 3 approaches applied in 3 other European countries (Germany, The Netherlands, United Kingdom). Drawing on Austrian data, mean unit costs per GP consultation were calculated in euros for 2015.

RESULTS

Mean unit costs ranged from €15.6 to €42.6 based on the German top-down costing approach (DE) and the Austrian Physicians' Chamber's price recommendations (AT-3), respectively. The mean unit cost was estimated at €18.9 based on Austrian economic evaluations (AT-1) and €17.9 based on health insurance payment tariffs (AT-2). The Dutch top-down (NL) and the UK bottom-up approaches (UK) yielded higher estimates (NL: €25.3, UK: €29.8). Overall variation reached 173%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to systematically investigate the impact of differing calculation methods on unit cost estimates. It shows large variations with potential impact on the conclusions in an economic evaluation. Although different methodological choices may be justified by the adopted study perspective, different costing approaches introduce variation in cross-study/cross-country cost estimates, leading to decreased confidence in data quality in economic evaluations.

Findings from a pilot randomised trial of a social network self-management intervention in COPD

BACKGROUND

Self-Management Support (SMS), refers to the actions taken by individuals to recognise and manage their own health. It is increasingly recognised that individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) require additional support with their Self-management. Emerging evidence suggests that the use of a social network intervention can improve health outcomes and increase quality of life. In order to understand the potential benefits of SMS in COPD, the GENIE (Generating Engagement in Network Support) SMS tool was implemented and evaluated in a COPD primary care context. The GENIE intervention is a social networking tool that consists of 3 parts; a concentric circle modelling to map existing social networks; a questions sections to elicit preferences for activities; a map of selected resources is then produced, aligned with the user's interests and suggestions for connections to existing network members and to new resources.

METHODS

A pilot, parallel, single blind, block randomised controlled trial. Patients with COPD ranging from mild-very severe were recruited. Participants provided written consent and were then randomised to either the intervention or usual care. The primary aim was to understand the clinical benefit through the analysis of health status, symptom burden and quality of life. The secondary outcome measure was health utilisation. NHS cost differences were reported between groups using the GENIE intervention over usual care.

RESULTS

The GENIE pilot results demonstrate maintenance in health status and clinical symptoms with a decrease in anxiety. An overall increase in quality of life was observed, these findings did not reach significance. A cost reduction was demonstrated in inpatient stay with no difference in primary care costs. Overall a cost reduction in NHS service utilisation was indicated in the intervention group.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study indicated that using a social network intervention can encourage the development of new social connections and extend existing support networks for COPD patients. Increasing network support in this population is of benefit to both patients and NHS providers in terms of cost reductions and enhancing wellbeing. This broadens the understanding of possible new approaches to SMS in community COPD patients, which could now be investigated in a larger population over a longer period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov PRS National Library of Medicine. Protocol ID number: 19175, Clinical Trial ID: NCT02935452.

A general framework for classifying costing methods for economic evaluation of health care

According to the most traditional economic evaluation manuals, all "relevant" costs should be included in the economic analysis, taking into account factors such as the patient population, setting, location, year, perspective and time horizon. However, cost information may be designed for other purposes. Health care organisations may lack sophisticated accounting systems and consequently, health economists may be unfamiliar with cost accounting terminology, which may lead to discrepancy in terms used in the economic evaluation literature and management accountancy. This paper identifies new tendencies in costing methodologies in health care and critically comments on each included article. For better clarification of terminology, a pragmatic glossary of terms is proposed. A scoping review of English and Spanish language literature (2005-2018) was conducted to identify new tendencies in costing methodologies in health care. The databases PubMed, Scopus and EconLit were searched. A total of 21 studies were included yielding 43 costing analysis. The most common analysis was top-down micro-costing (49%), followed by top-down gross-costing (37%) and bottom-up micro-costing (14%). Resource data were collected prospectively in 12 top-down studies (32%). Hospital database was the most common way of collection of resource data (44%) in top-down gross-costing studies. In top-down micro-costing studies, the most resource use data collection was the combination of several methods (38%). In general, substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods were found. The convergence of top-down and bottom-up methods may be an important topic in the next decades.

The status of health economic evaluation within decision making in Austria

BACKGROUND

Given limited resources compared to the demand for them, spending resources efficiently is important. Key methods applied for supporting efficient resource allocation are health economic evaluations.

METHODS

Based on secondary literature, we analyze international challenges for using two types of economic evaluations-cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis-in reimbursement decisions and reflect on them for the Austrian case.

RESULTS

The main challenges with the application of economic evaluations are related to the methods, the decision-making culture, and the respective system. The challenges also apply to the Austrian Bismarck system, where almost no formal requirements for using economic evaluations exist, except on a case-by-case basis. Resource allocation in Austria hence occurs, for the most part, implicitly.

CONCLUSION

One way forward towards more explicit efficiency considerations may be to consider more descriptive study types and foster capacity building, standardization of methods and presentation of results, and a mandatory detailed guideline.

Cost-of-illness studies in nine Central and Eastern European countries

BACKGROUND

To date, a multi-country review evaluating the cost-of-illness (COI) studies from the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region has not yet been published. Our main objective was to provide a general description about published COI studies from CEE.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed between 1 January 2006 and 1 June 2017 in Medline, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science to identify all relevant COI studies from nine CEE countries. COI studies reporting costs without any restrictions by age, co-morbidities, or treatment were included. Methodology, publication standards, and cost results were analysed.

RESULTS

We identified 58 studies providing 83 country-specific COI results: Austria (n = 9), Bulgaria (n = 16), Croatia (n = 3), the Czech Republic (n = 10), Hungary (n = 24), Poland (n = 11), Romania (n = 3), Slovakia (n = 3), and Slovenia (n = 4). Endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases (18%), neoplasms (12%), infections (11%), and neurological disorders (11%) were the most frequently studied clinical areas, and multiple sclerosis was the most commonly studied disease. Overall, 57 (98%) of the studies explicitly stated the source of resource use data, 45 (78%) the study perspective, 34 (64%) the costing method, and 24 (58%) reported at least one unit costs. Regardless of methodological differences, a positive relationship was observed between costs of diseases and countries' per capita GDP.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-of-illness studies varied considerably in terms of methodology, publication practice, and clinical areas. Due to these heterogeneities, transferability of the COI results is limited across Central and Eastern European countries.

The societal costs of chronic pain and its determinants: The case of Austria

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is among the most burdensome conditions. Its prevalence ranges between 12% and 30% in Europe, with an estimated 21% among Austrian adults. The economic impact of chronic pain from a societal perspective, however, has not been sufficiently researched. This study aims to provide an estimate of the societal costs for working-age adults with chronic pain in Austria. It explores the impact of sex, number of pain sites, self-reported pain severity, health literacy and private health insurance on costs associated with chronic pain.

METHODS

A bottom-up cost-of-illness study was conducted based on data collected from 54 adult patients with chronic pain at three Viennese hospital outpatient departments. Information on healthcare costs including out-of-pocket expenses and productivity losses due to absenteeism and informal care were collected over 12 months. Resource use estimates were combined with unit costs and mean costs per patient were calculated in € for year 2016.

RESULTS

Mean annual societal costs were estimated at EUR 10191. Direct medical costs were EUR 5725 including EUR 1799 out-of-pocket expenses (mainly pain relieving activities and private therapy). Productivity losses including informal care amounted to EUR 4466. Total costs for women and patients with three or more pain sites were significantly higher. No association with health literacy was found but there was a tendency towards higher out-of-pocket expenses for patients with complementary private health insurance.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to provide a comprehensive assessment of the individual and societal burden of chronic pain in Austria. It highlights that chronic pain is associated with substantial direct medical costs and productivity losses. Patient costs may show systematic differences by health insurance status, implying a need for future research in this area.

Control of Cattle Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases by Acaricide in Southern Province of Zambia: A Retrospective Evaluation of Animal Health Measures According to Current One Health Concepts

One health thinking for health interventions is increasingly being used to capture previously unseen stakeholders and impacts across people, animals, and the environment. The Network for One Health Evaluation (NEOH) proposes a systems-based framework to quantitatively assess integration and highlight the added value (theory of change) that this approach will bring to a project. This case study will retrospectively evaluate the pioneering use of a One Health (OH) approach during an international collaboration (satellite project to tackle production losses due to tick-borne disease in cattle in Southern Zambia in late 1980s). The objective of the evaluation is twofold: retrospective evaluation the OH-ness of the satellite project and identification of costs and benefits. Data for evaluation was recovered from publications, project documents, and witness interviews. A mixed qualitative and quantitative evaluation was undertaken. In this case study, a transdisciplinary approach allowed for the identification of a serious public health risk arising from the unexpected reuse of chemical containers by the local public against advice. Should this pioneering project not have been completed then it is assumed this behavior could have had a large impact on public wellbeing and ultimately reduced regional productivity and compromised welfare. From the economic evaluation, the costs of implementing this OH approach, helping to avoid harm, were small in comparison to overall project costs. The overall OH Index was 0.34. The satellite project demonstrated good OH operations by managing to incorporate the input across multiple dimensions but was slightly weaker on OH infrastructures (OH Ratio = 1.20). These quantitative results can be used in the initial validation and benchmarking of this novel framework. Limitations of the evaluation were mainly a lack of data due to the length of time since project completion and a lack of formal monitoring of program impact. In future health strategy development and execution, routine monitoring and evaluation from an OH perspective (by utilizing the framework proposed by NEOH), could prove valuable or used as a tool for retrospective evaluation of existing policies.