The Role Of Costs In Comparative Effectiveness Research

Lifespan Perspective on Congenital Heart Disease Research: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

More than 90% of patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) are nowadays surviving to adulthood and adults account for over two-thirds of the contemporary CHD population in Western countries. Although outcomes are improved, surgery does not cure CHD. Decades of longitudinal observational data are currently motivating a paradigm shift toward a lifespan perspective and proactive approach to CHD care. The aim of this review is to operationalize these emerging concepts by presenting new constructs in CHD research. These concepts include long-term trajectories and a life course epidemiology framework. Focusing on a precision health, we propose to integrate our current knowledge on the genome, phenome, and environome across the CHD lifespan. We also summarize the potential of technology, especially machine learning, to facilitate longitudinal research by embracing big data and multicenter lifelong data collection.

Priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses for implementation research: Protocol for a scoping review and evidence map

BACKGROUND

The challenge of implementing evidence-based innovations within practice settings is a significant public health issue that the field of implementation research (IR) is focused on addressing. Significant amounts of funding, time, and effort have been invested in IR to date, yet there remains significant room for advancement, especially regarding IR's development of scientific theories as defined by the National Academy of Sciences (i.e., a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between variables that is supported by a vast body of evidence). Research priority setting (i.e., promoting consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society) is a key approach to helping accelerate research advancements. Thus, building upon existing IR, general principles of data reduction, and a general framework for moderated mediation, this article identifies four priority domains, three priority aims, and four testable hypotheses for IR, which we organize in the priority aims and testable hypotheses (PATH) diagram.

METHODS

The objective of this scoping review is to map the extent to which IR has examined the identified PATH priorities to date. Our sample will include IR published in leading implementation-focused journals (i.e., Implementation Science, Implementation Science Communications, and Implementation Research and Practice) between their inception and December 2020. The protocol for the current scoping review and evidence map has been developed in accordance with the approach developed by Arksey and O'Malley and advanced by Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien. Because scoping reviews seek to provide an overview of the identified evidence base rather than synthesize findings from across studies, we plan to use our data-charting form to provide a descriptive overview of implementation research to date and summarize the research via one or more summary tables. We will use the PATH diagram to organize a map of the evidence to date.

DISCUSSION

This scoping review and evidence map is intended to help accelerate IR focused on suggested priority aims and testable hypotheses, which in turn will accelerate IR's development of National Academy of Sciences-defined scientific theories and, subsequently, improvements in public health.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/3vhuj/.

Improving Interactions Between Health Technology Assessment Bodies and Regulatory Agencies: A Systematic Review and Cross-Sectional Survey on Processes, Progress, Outcomes, and Challenges

The need to optimize drug development and facilitate faster access for patients has ignited discussions around the importance of improving interactions between health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and regulatory agencies. In this study, we conducted a systematic review to examine processes, progress, outcomes, and challenges of harmonization/interaction initiatives between HTA bodies and regulatory agencies. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts database were searched up to 21 October 2019. Searches for gray literature (working papers, commissioned reports, policy documents, etc.) were performed via Google scholar and several institutional websites. An online cross-sectional survey was also conducted among HTA (n = 22) and regulatory agencies (n = 6) across Europe to supplement the systematic review. Overall, we found that while there are areas of divergence, there has been progress over time in narrowing the gap in evidentiary requirements for HTA bodies and regulatory agencies. Most regulatory agencies (4/6; 67%) and half (11/22, 50%) of the HTA bodies reported having a formal link for “collaborating” with the other. Several mechanisms such as early tripartite dialogues, parallel submissions (reviews), adaptive licensing pathways, and postauthorization data generation have been explored as avenues for improving collaboration. A number of pilot initiatives have shown positive effects of these models to reduce the time between regulatory and HTA decisions, which may translate into faster access for patients to life-saving therapies. Thus, future approaches aimed at improving harmonization/interaction between HTA bodies and regulatory agencies should build on these existing models/mechanisms while examining their long-term impacts. Several barriers including legal, organizational, and resource-related factors were also identified, and these need to be addressed to achieve greater alignment in the current regulatory and reimbursement landscape.

Real-World Evidence, Causal Inference, and Machine Learning

The current focus on real world evidence (RWE) is occurring at a time when at least two major trends are converging. First, is the progress made in observational research design and methods over the past decade. Second, the development of numerous large observational healthcare databases around the world is creating repositories of improved data assets to support observational research. OBJECTIVE: This paper examines the implications of the improvements in observational methods and research design, as well as the growing availability of real world data for the quality of RWE. These developments have been very positive. On the other hand, unstructured data, such as medical notes, and the sparcity of data created by merging multiple data assets are not easily handled by traditional health services research statistical methods. In response, machine learning methods are gaining increased traction as potential tools for analyzing massive, complex datasets. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning methods have traditionally been used for classification and prediction, rather than causal inference. The prediction capabilities of machine learning are valuable by themselves. However, using machine learning for causal inference is still evolving. Machine learning can be used for hypothesis generation, followed by the application of traditional causal methods. But relatively recent developments, such as targeted maximum likelihood methods, are directly integrating machine learning with causal inference.

Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Despite the increasing importance of tracking clinical outcomes using valid patient-reported outcome measures, most providers do not routinely obtain baseline preoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in patients undergoing spine surgery, precluding objective outcomes analysis in individual practices. We conducted a meta-analysis of pre- and postoperative HRQoL data obtained from the most commonly published instruments to use as reference values.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and an institutional registry for studies reporting EQ-5D, SF-6D, and Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary scores in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical and lumbar spinal conditions published between 2000 and 2014. Observational data was pooled meta-analytically using an inverse variance-weighted, random-effects model, and statistical comparisons were performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine articles were included in the final analysis. Baseline HRQoL scores varied by diagnosis for each of the 3 instruments. On average, postoperative HRQoL scores significantly improved following surgical intervention for each diagnosis using each instrument. There were statistically significant differences in baseline utility values between the EQ-5D and SF-6D instruments for all lumbar diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled HRQoL values presented in this study may be used by practitioners who would otherwise be precluded from quantifying their surgical outcomes due to a lack of baseline data. The results highlight differences in HRQoL between different degenerative spinal diagnoses, as well as the discrepancy between 2 common utility-based instruments. These findings emphasize the need to be cognizant of the specific instruments used when comparing the results of outcome studies.

Comparative Effectiveness Research in Pediatric Respiratory Disease: Promise and Pitfalls

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has become increasing central to clinical research in medicine. CER seeks to conduct clinical trials that compare different commonly used interventions in real-world settings (pragmatic clinical trials) and use a multitude of sources of evidence (including registries and cohort studies) to inform clinical decision making. CER also ensures that stakeholders (patients, families, care providers, insurers) have a voice in the research process by integrating formal stakeholder engagement as part of the research. This innovative approach to clinical research has distinct benefits and pitfalls. This review first defines what CER is and then describes some of its benefits and then pitfalls. The focus is on the role of CER in pediatrics.

The impact of asthma on the cost effectiveness of surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

BACKGROUND

The objective of this work was to evaluate the impact of asthma on the cost-effectiveness profile of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) compared to medical therapy for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP).

METHODS

The study design consisted of a cohort-style Markov decision-tree cost utility analysis with a 35-year time horizon. Matched cohorts of CRSwNP patients with (n = 95) and without (n = 95) asthma who underwent ESS were compared with cohorts of patients from the national Medical Expenditures Survey Panel (MEPS) database who underwent medical management for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Baseline, 1-year, and 2-year health utility values were calculated from responses to the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) instrument in both cohorts. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each cohort.

RESULTS

The reference cases for CRSwNP patients with and without asthma yielded ICERs for ESS vs medical therapy alone of $12,066 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $7,369 per QALY, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, the ICER scatter plots demonstrated 86% and 99% certainty that the ESS strategy was the most cost-effective option for CRSwNP patients with and without asthma, respectively. ESS was not significantly more cost effective for CRSwNP patients without asthma (p = 0.494).

CONCLUSION

ESS remains cost effective compared to medical therapy for patients both with and without asthma. While the comorbidity of asthma results in an inferior ICER result, it does not result in a statistically significant negative impact on the overall cost effectiveness of ESS.

The value of frontal sinusotomy for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps-A cost utility analysis

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

The number of surgical procedures performed for frontal sinusitis and the associated costs have increased dramatically over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic frontal sinusotomy (EFS) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP).

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort-style Markov decision-tree economic model with a 36-year time horizon.

METHODS

Matched cohorts of CRSwNP patients who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) with (n = 139) and without (n = 49) EFS were compared to each other and to patients (n = 139) from the Medical Expenditures Survey Panel database who underwent medical management for chronic rhinosinusitis. Multi-year health utility values were calculated from responses to the EuroQol 5-Dimension instrument. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Decision analysis showed that ESS without EFS proved more cost-effective than ESS with EFS or medical management. ESS without EFS compared to medical management yielded an ICER of $9,004/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). ESS with EFS compared to ESS without EFS yielded an ICER of $62,310/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY, ESS without EFS was more cost-effective than ESS with EFS with 52.1% certainty. These results were robust to one-way analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

ESS remains a cost-effective intervention compared to medical therapy alone for patients with CRSwNP. In this study, the addition of frontal sinusotomy during ESS for patients with CRSwNP was not found to be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY, but may be cost effective at a higher threshold of $100,000/QALY.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2c. Laryngoscope, 128:43-51, 2018.

Cost-effectiveness of precision medicine in gastrointestinal stromal tumor and gastric adenocarcinoma

Over the past 20 years, with the incorporation of genetic sequencing and improved understanding regarding the mechanisms of cancer growth/metastasis, novel targets and their associated treatments have emerged in oncology and are now regularly incorporated into the clinical care of patients in the US. Novel, more tumor-specific, non-chemotherapy agents, including agents that are commonly used in the treatment of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (GA) and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), fall under a broader treatment strategy, termed "precision medicine". While diagnostic testing and associated treatments in metastatic GA (mGA) are costly and may produce marginal benefit, those associated with GIST, despite being costly, produce significant improvements in patient outcomes. Despite the significant difference in impact, the agents associated with these cancers have similar acquisition costs. In this paper, we will review the current literature regarding cost and cost-effectiveness associated with precision medicine diagnosis and treatment strategies for GA and GIST.

Challenges in the health economics of familial hypercholesterolemia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Implementation of effective interventions often requires evidence regarding value, that is, whether they are worth what we pay for them. This review explores recent evidence concerning cost-effectiveness in familial hypercholesterolemia, and discusses the cause of, and likelihood of solutions to, the paucity of such evidence.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cost-effectiveness analysis in familial hypercholesterolemia has been limited almost exclusively to adult populations. However, there is growing evidence that childhood intervention offers substantial benefit in terms of downstream health gains. Statin therapy in adults has been demonstrated to be cost-effective, but the range of novel agents that might be used will require de novo economic evaluation alongside exploration of their effect and safety profile.

SUMMARY

The familial hypercholesterolemia field has limited evidence regarding cost-effectiveness, which limits optimum allocation of resources. Economic evaluations are necessary to appraise new agents and optimal timing of management approaches. Evaluations often have substantial data demands; consequentially, their applicability to medical decision-making or policy will be partly determined by the availability of data, particularly those providing information about the long-term trajectory of health benefit from familial hypercholesterolemia treatment.

Cost utility analysis of endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyposis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) compared to medical therapy for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with and without nasal polyposis (NP).

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort-style Markov decision-tree economic model with a 36-year time horizon.

METHODS

Two cohorts of 229 CRS patients with and without NP who underwent ESS were compared with a matched cohort of 229 CRS patients from the Medical Expenditures Survey Panel database (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD) who underwent medical management. Utility scores were calculated from sequential patient responses to the EuroQol five-dimensions questionnaire. Decision-tree analysis and a 10-state Markov model utilized published event probabilities and primary data to calculate long-term costs and utility. The primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Thorough sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The reference case for CRS with NP yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ESS versus medical therapy of $5,687.41/QALY. The reference case for CRS without NP yielded an ICER of $5,405.44/QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve in both cases demonstrated 95% certainty that the ESS strategy was the most cost-effective option at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20,000/QALY or higher. These results were robust to one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of ESS compared to medical therapy alone for the management of CRS patients both with and without NP. The presence of nasal polyps was not found to affect the overall cost-effectiveness of ESS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2C. Laryngoscope, 127:29-37, 2017.

Reconsidering adjuvant versus salvage radiation therapy for prostate cancer in the genomics era

Aim: We developed a decision analysis framework to simulate the clinical choice of early adjuvant versus delayed salvage radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy. Materials & methods: We designed a Markov decision analysis model to represent two alternative treatment approaches for prostate cancer after prostatectomy over a 10-year time horizon. The model contained individualized inputs including genomic classifier score. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate model results. Results: Observation with delayed salvage radiation is preferred according to the base case, with greater average length and quality of life. However, adjuvant therapy is preferred over observation with salvage when genomics-based estimates of recurrence are high. Conclusion: Model results were sensitive to genomics-based estimates of cancer recurrence and to nonprostate cancer mortality.

Comparative Cost Analysis of Sequential, Adaptive, Behavioral, Pharmacological, and Combined Treatments for Childhood ADHD

We conducted a cost analysis of the behavioral, pharmacological, and combined interventions employed in a sequential, multiple assignment, randomized, and adaptive trial investigating the sequencing and enhancement of treatment for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Pelham et al., 201X; N = 146, 76% male, 80% Caucasian). The quantity of resources expended on each child's treatment was determined from records that listed the type, date, location, persons present, and duration of all services provided. The inputs considered were the amount of physician time, clinician time, paraprofessional time, teacher time, parent time, medication, and gasoline. Quantities of these inputs were converted into costs in 2013 USD using national wage estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the prices of 30-day supplies of prescription drugs from the national Express Scripts service, and mean fuel prices from the Energy Information Administration. Beginning treatment with a low-dose/intensity regimen of behavior modification (large-group parent training) was less costly for a school year of treatment ($961) than beginning treatment with a low dose of stimulant medication ($1,669), regardless of whether the initial treatment was intensified with a higher "dose" or if the other modality was added. Outcome data from the parent study (Pelham et al., 201X) found equivalent or superior outcomes for treatments beginning with low-intensity behavior modification compared to intervention beginning with medication. Combined with the present analyses, these findings suggest that initiating treatment with behavior modification rather than medication is the more cost-effective option for children with ADHD.

Cost-Effectiveness of Different Cervical Screening Strategies in Islamic Republic of Iran: A Middle-Income Country with a Low Incidence Rate of Cervical Cancer

OBJECTIVE

Invasive cervical cancer (ICC) is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide. Cervical screening programs have reduced the incidence and mortality rates of ICC. We studied the cost-effectiveness of different cervical screening strategies in the Islamic Republic of Iran, a Muslim country with a low incidence rate of ICC.

METHODS

We constructed an 11-state Markov model, in which the parameters included regression and progression probabilities, test characteristics, costs, and utilities; these were extracted from primary data and the literature. Our strategies included Pap smear screening and human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing plus Pap smear triaging with different starting ages and screening intervals. Model outcomes included lifetime costs, life years gained, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the stability of the results.

RESULTS

We found that the prevented mortalities for the 11 strategies compared with no screening varied from 26% to 64%. The most cost-effective strategy was HPV screening, starting at age 35 years and repeated every 10 years. The ICER of this strategy was $8,875 per QALY compared with no screening. We found that screening at 5-year intervals was also cost-effective based on GDP per capita in Iran.

CONCLUSION

We recommend organized cervical screening with HPV DNA testing for women in Iran, beginning at age 35 and repeated every 10 or 5 years. The results of this study could be generalized to other countries with low incidence rates of cervical cancer.

UNDERSTANDING VARIATIONS IN RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS: A HEALTH PRODUCTION APPROACH

Background: Relative effectiveness has become a key concern of health policy. In Europe, this is because of the need for early information to guide reimbursement and funding decisions about new medical technologies. However, ways that effectiveness (does it work?) and efficacy (can it work?) might differ across health systems are poorly understood.

Methods: This study proposes an analytical framework, drawing on production function theory, to systematically identify and quantify the determinants of relative effectiveness and sources of variation between populations and healthcare systems. We consider how methods such as stochastic frontier analysis and data envelopment analysis using a Malmquist productivity index could in principle be used to generate evidence on, and improve understanding about, the sources of variation in relative effectiveness between countries and over time.

Results: Better evidence on factors driving relative effectiveness could: inform decisions on how to best use a new technology to maximum effectiveness; establish the need if any for follow-up post-launch studies, and provide evidence of the impact of new health technologies on outcomes in different healthcare systems.

Conclusions: The health production function approach for assessment of relative effectiveness is complementary to traditional experimental and observational studies, focusing on identifying, collecting, and analyzing data at the national level, enabling comparisons to take place. There is a strong case for exploring the use of this approach to better understand the impact of new medicines and devices for improvements in health outcomes.

What Are the Strength of Recommendations and Methodologic Reporting in Health Economic Studies in Orthopaedic Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness research is an increasingly used tool in evaluating treatments in orthopaedic surgery. Without high-quality primary-source data, the results of a cost-effectiveness study are either unreliable or heavily dependent on sensitivity analyses of the findings from the source studies. However, to our knowledge, the strength of recommendations provided by these studies in orthopaedics has not been studied.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked: (1) What are the strengths of recommendations in recent orthopaedic cost-effectiveness studies? (2) What are the reasons authors cite for weak recommendations? (3) What are the methodologic reporting practices used by these studies?

METHODS

The titles of all articles published in six different orthopaedic journals from January 1, 2004, through April 1, 2014, were scanned for original health economics studies comparing two different types of treatment or intervention. The full texts of included studies were reviewed to determine the strength of recommendations determined subjectively by our study team, with studies providing equivocal conclusions stemming from a lack or uncertainty surrounding key primary data classified as weak and those with definitive conclusions not lacking in high-quality primary data classified as strong. The reasons underlying a weak designation were noted, and methodologic practices reported in each of the studies were examined using a validated instrument. A total of 79 articles met our prespecified inclusion criteria and were evaluated in depth.

RESULTS

Of the articles included, 50 (63%) provided strong recommendations, whereas 29 (37%) provided weak recommendations. Of the 29 studies, clinical outcomes data were cited in 26 references as being insufficient to provide definitive conclusions, whereas cost and utility data were cited in 13 and seven articles, respectively. Methodologic reporting practices varied greatly, with mixed adherence to framing, costs, and results reporting. The framing variables included clearly defined intervention, adequate description of a comparator, study perspective clearly stated, and reported discount rate for future costs and quality-adjusted life years. Reporting costs variables included economic data collected alongside a clinical trial or another primary source and clear statement of the year of monetary units. Finally, results reporting included whether a sensitivity analysis was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that a considerable portion of orthopaedic cost-effectiveness studies provide weak recommendations and that methodologic reporting practices varied greatly among strong and weak studies, we believe that clinicians should exercise great caution when considering the conclusions of cost-effectiveness studies. Future research could assess the effect of such cost-effectiveness studies in clinical practice, and whether the strength of recommendations of a study's conclusions has any effect on practice patterns.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Given the increasing use of cost-effectiveness studies in orthopaedic surgery, understanding the quality of these studies and the reasons that limit the ability of studies to provide more definitive recommendations is critical. Highlighting the heterogeneity of methodologic reporting practices will aid clinicians in interpreting the conclusions of cost-effectiveness studies and improve future research efforts.

Cost-effectiveness analyses in orthopaedic sports medicine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

As increasing attention is paid to the cost of health care delivered in the United States (US), cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are gaining in popularity. Reviews of the CEA literature have been performed in other areas of medicine, including some subspecialties within orthopaedics. Demonstrating the value of medical procedures is of utmost importance, yet very little is known about the overall quality and findings of CEAs in sports medicine.

PURPOSE

To identify and summarize CEA studies in orthopaedic sports medicine and to grade the quality of the available literature.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed to compile findings and grade the methodological quality of US-based CEA studies in sports medicine. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument and the checklist by the US Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine were used to assess study quality. One-sided Fisher exact testing was performed to analyze the predictors of high-quality CEAs.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met inclusion criteria. Five studies examined anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, 3 studies examined rotator cuff repair, 2 examined autologous chondrocyte implantation, 1 study examined hip arthroscopic surgery, and 1 study examined the operative management of shoulder dislocations. Based on study findings, operative intervention in sports medicine is highly cost-effective. The quality of published evidence is good, with a mean quality score of 81.8 (range, 70-94). There is a trend toward higher quality in more recent publications. No significant predictor of high-quality evidence was found.

CONCLUSION

The CEA literature in sports medicine is good; however, there is a paucity of studies, and the available evidence is focused on a few procedures. More work needs to be conducted to quantify the cost-effectiveness of different techniques and procedures within sports medicine. The QHES tool may be useful for the evaluation of future CEAs.

Potential Medicaid cost savings from maternity care based at a freestanding birth center

OBJECTIVES

Medicaid pays for about half the births in the United States, at very high cost. Compared to usual obstetrical care, care by midwives at a birth center could reduce costs to the Medicaid program. This study draws on information from a previous study of the outcomes of birth center care to determine whether such care reduces Medicaid costs for low income women.

METHODS

The study uses results from a study of maternal and infant outcomes at the Family Health and Birth Center in Washington, D.C. Costs to Medicaid are derived from birth center data and from other national sources of the cost of obstetrical care.

RESULTS

We estimate that birth center care could save an average of $1,163 per birth (2008 constant dollars), or $11.6 million per 10,000 births per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicaid is the leading payer for maternity services. As Medicaid faces continuing cost increases and budget constraints, policy makers should consider a larger role for midwives and birth centers in maternity care for low-risk Medicaid pregnant women.

Economics of robotic surgery: does it make sense and for whom?

The authors performed a literature review to identify cost-effectiveness research as it pertains to robotic surgery. There is increased utilization of robotic surgery in urology with limited comparative effectiveness research demonstrating superiority over conventional, less costly treatment options. Further research into identifying determinants for optimal utilization of robotics and newer technology is needed.

Comparative effectiveness research in hand surgery

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is a concept initiated by the Institute of Medicine and financially supported by the federal government. The primary objective of CER is to improve decision making in medicine. This research is intended to evaluate the effectiveness, benefits, and harmful effects of alternative interventions. CER studies are commonly large, simple, observational, and conducted using electronic databases. To date, there is little comparative effectiveness evidence within hand surgery to guide therapeutic decisions. To draw conclusions on effectiveness through electronic health records, databases must contain clinical information and outcomes relevant to hand surgery interventions, such as patient-related outcomes.

Quality improvement and comparative effectiveness: a review for the pediatric hospitalist

Quality improvement (QI) and comparative effectiveness research (CER) are increasingly important areas of study for the pediatric hospitalist. The focus of this article is to provide the relevant background, definitions, framework, infrastructure, and resources needed to both inform and engage the pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) community on QI and CER. In mastering these activities, PHM physicians will have a key role in shaping the health care transformation expected over the next decade and beyond.

Economic analysis of revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis to compare revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries across a spectrum of injury scenarios.

METHODS

The study was conducted from the societal perspective. Decision tree models were created for the reference case (two-finger amputation injury) and seven additional injury scenarios for comparison. Inputs included cost, quality of life, and probability of each health state. A Web-based time trade-off survey was created to determine quality-adjusted life-years for health states; 685 nationally representative adult community members were invited to participate in the survey. Overall cost and quality-adjusted life-years for revision amputation and replantation were calculated for each decision tree. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated if a treatment was more costly but more effective.

RESULTS

The authors had a 64 percent response rate (n = 437). Replantation treatment had greater costs and quality-adjusted life-years compared with revision amputation in all injury scenarios. Replantation of single-digit injuries had the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($136,400 per quality-adjusted life-year gained). Replantation of three- and four-digit amputation injuries had relatively low cost-to-benefit ratios ($27,100 and $23,800 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). Replantation for distal thumb amputation had a relatively low incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($26,300 per quality-adjusted life-year) compared with replantation of nonthumb distal amputations ($60,200 per quality-adjusted life-year).

CONCLUSIONS

The relative cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained with replantation treatment varied greatly among the injury scenarios. Situations in which indications for replantation are debated had higher cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. This study highlights variability in value for replantation among different injury scenarios.

Relative value health insurance

Increases in health costs continue to outpace general inflation, and implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will exacerbate the problem by adding more Americans to the ranks of the insured. The most commonly proposed solutions--bureaucratic controls, greater patient cost sharing, and changes to physician incentives--all have substantial weaknesses. This article proposes a new paradigm for rationalizing health care expenditures called "relative value health insurance," a product that would enable consumers to purchase health insurance that covers cost-effective treatments but excludes cost-ineffective treatments. A combination of legal and informational impediments prevents private insurers from marketing this type of product today, but creative use of comparative effectiveness research, funded as a part of health care reform, could make relative value health insurance possible. Data deficits, adverse selection risks, and heterogeneous values among consumers create obstacles to shifting the health insurance system to this paradigm, but they could be overcome.

Health technology assessment and comparative effectiveness research: a pharmaceutical industry perspective

We briefly review the characteristics of several established health technology assessment (HTA) programs in industrialized societies including Germany, the UK and France. Special attention is paid on two issues: the position of HTA in coverage decision making and the role of economic assessment in evaluation processes. Although law makers in the USA have barred the use of NICE's cost/quality-adjusted life year or similar health economics approaches by public payers for coverage decision making, there are suggestions of prioritizing relative efficacy evaluation over economic assessment under a comparative effectiveness research (CER) framework to inform payment rates of public payers (an approach similar to German and French HTA processes). However, such an approach is unlikely to prove viable. It should also be noted that, if cost considerations are made explicit in US CER policy decisions, CER may become an unsustainable approach undermined by a conflicting emphasis on both cost containment and a demand for costly comparative evidence. On the other hand, properly designed CER initiatives can serve as a facilitator of more efficient research activities and drug development models. With these points in mind, the likely pathway of US CER is explored and the plausible impact on industry innovation is discussed.

An official American Thoracic Society research statement: comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine

BACKGROUND

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR).

PURPOSE

To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.

METHODS

An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine was convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a review by American Thoracic Society committees and assemblies.

RESULTS

The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, "Can it work in optimal conditions?" The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, "Does it work in practice?" The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others).

CONCLUSIONS

CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER.

Cost-effectiveness analysis: a proposal of new reporting standards in statistical analysis

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a method for evaluating the outcomes and costs of competing strategies designed to improve health, and has been applied to a variety of different scientific fields. Yet there are inherent complexities in cost estimation and CEA from statistical perspectives (e.g., skewness, bidimensionality, and censoring). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio that represents the additional cost per unit of outcome gained by a new strategy has served as the most widely accepted methodology in the CEA. In this article, we call for expanded perspectives and reporting standards reflecting a more comprehensive analysis that can elucidate different aspects of available data. Specifically, we propose that mean- and median-based incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and average cost-effectiveness ratios be reported together, along with relevant summary and inferential statistics, as complementary measures for informed decision making.

Making the case for cost-effectiveness research

Cost-effectiveness research is a component of clinical outcomes that addresses both cost and outcomes simultaneously, providing an understanding of what incremental costs, if any, are required for better clinical outcomes. In the current health care climate, these analyses are increasingly performed, and critical, as practitioners must optimize patient care at lower costs. This review discusses cost effectiveness research, its utilization in surgical oncology, and future opportunities provided by its methodologies.

Through the looking glass: making the design and output of economic models useful for setting medical policy

Economic modeling has rarely been considered to be an essential component of healthcare policy-making in the USA, due to a lack of transparency in model design and assumptions, as well as political interests that equate examination of cost with unfair rationing. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review has been involved in several efforts to bring economic modeling into public discussion of the comparative value of healthcare interventions, efforts that have evolved over time to suit the needs of multiple public forums. In this article, we review these initiatives and present a template that attempts to 'unpack' model output and present the major drivers of outcomes and cost. We conclude with a series of recommendations for effective presentation of economic models to US policy-makers.

Physician Perspectives on Comparative Effectiveness Research: Implications for Practice-based Evidence

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is defined by the Institute of Medicine as “the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care.” The goal of CER is to provide timely, useful evidence to healthcare decision makers including physicians, patients, policymakers, and payers. A prime focus for the use of CER evidence is the interaction between physician and patient. Physicians in primary practice are critical to the success of the CER enterprise. A 2009 survey suggests, however, that physician attitudes toward CER may be mixed—somewhat positive toward the potential for patient care improvement, yet negative toward potential restriction on physician freedom of practice. CER methods and goals closely parallel those of practice-based research, an important movement in family medicine in the United States since the 1970s. This article addresses apparent physician ambivalence toward CER and makes a case for family medicine engagement in CER to produce useful practice-based evidence. Such an effort has potential to expand care options through personalized medicine, individualized guidelines, focus on patient preferences and patient-reported outcomes, and study of complex therapeutic interventions, such as integrative care. Academic medical researchers will need to collaborate with experienced family physicians to identify significant practice-based research questions and design meaningful studies. Such collaborations would shape CER to produce high-quality practice-based evidence to inform family and community medicine.

Applications of propensity score methods in observational comparative effectiveness and safety research: where have we come and where should we go?

Propensity score (PS) methods have proliferated in recent years in observational studies in general and in observational comparative effectiveness research (CER) in particular. PS methods are an important set of tools for estimating treatment effects in observational studies, enabling adjustment for measured confounders in an easy-to-understand and transparent way. This article demonstrates how PS methods have been used to address specific CER questions from 2001 through to 2012 by identifying six impactful studies from this period. This article also discusses areas for improvement, including data infrastructure, and a unified set of guidelines in terms of PS implementation and reporting, which will boost confidence in evidence generated through observational CER using PS methods.

The moral psychology of rationing among physicians: the role of harm and fairness intuitions in physician objections to cost-effectiveness and cost-containment

INTRODUCTION

Physicians vary in their moral judgments about health care costs. Social intuitionism posits that moral judgments arise from gut instincts, called "moral foundations." The objective of this study was to determine if "harm" and "fairness" intuitions can explain physicians' judgments about cost-containment in U.S. health care and using cost-effectiveness data in practice, as well as the relative importance of those intuitions compared to "purity", "authority" and "ingroup" in cost-related judgments.

METHODS

We mailed an 8-page survey to a random sample of 2000 practicing U.S. physicians. The survey included the MFQ30 and items assessing agreement/disagreement with cost-containment and degree of objection to using cost-effectiveness data to guide care. We used t-tests for pairwise subscale mean comparisons and logistic regression to assess associations with agreement with cost-containment and objection to using cost-effectiveness analysis to guide care.

RESULTS

1032 of 1895 physicians (54%) responded. Most (67%) supported cost-containment, while 54% expressed a strong or moderate objection to the use of cost-effectiveness data in clinical decisions. Physicians who strongly objected to the use of cost-effectiveness data had similar scores in all five of the foundations (all p-values > 0.05). Agreement with cost-containment was associated with higher mean "harm" (3.6) and "fairness" (3.5) intuitions compared to "in-group" (2.8), "authority" (3.0), and "purity" (2.4) (p < 0.05). In multivariate models adjusted for age, sex, region, and specialty, both "harm" and "fairness" were significantly associated with judgments about cost-containment (OR = 1.2 [1.0-1.5]; OR = 1.7 [1.4-2.1], respectively) but were not associated with degree of objection to cost-effectiveness (OR = 1.2 [1.0-1.4]; OR = 0.9 [0.7-1.0]).

CONCLUSIONS

Moral intuitions shed light on variation in physician judgments about cost issues in health care.

Comparative effectiveness research - what is it and how does one do it?

Recent initiatives have increased focus on medical research that explores robust comparisons of clinical approaches broadly defined as comparative effectiveness research (CER). Federal mandates have generated definitions, established priorities, and offered organizational approaches for coordinating and conducting CER. This review will summarize the various definitions of CER, the role of cost assessment, and key study components of CER including study populations, study design, the use of secondary data, comparators employed in studies, outcome measures, and how results of CER should be disseminated.

A practical approach for calculating reliable cost estimates from observational data: application to cost analyses in maternal and child health

BACKGROUND

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) and cost-effectiveness analysis are valuable tools for informing health policy and clinical care decisions. Despite the increased availability of rich observational databases with economic measures, few researchers have the skills needed to conduct valid and reliable cost analyses for CER.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this paper are to (i) describe a practical approach for calculating cost estimates from hospital charges in discharge data using publicly available hospital cost reports, and (ii) assess the impact of using different methods for cost estimation in maternal and child health (MCH) studies by conducting economic analyses on gestational diabetes (GDM) and pre-pregnancy overweight/obesity.

METHODS

In Florida, we have constructed a clinically enhanced, longitudinal, encounter-level MCH database covering over 2.3 million infants (and their mothers) born alive from 1998 to 2009. Using this as a template, we describe a detailed methodology to use publicly available data to calculate hospital-wide and department-specific cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs), link them to the master database, and convert reported hospital charges to refined cost estimates. We then conduct an economic analysis as a case study on women by GDM and pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) status to compare the impact of using different methods on cost estimation.

RESULTS

Over 60 % of inpatient charges for birth hospitalizations came from the nursery/labor/delivery units, which have very different cost-to-charge markups (CCR = 0.70) than the commonly substituted hospital average (CCR = 0.29). Using estimated mean, per-person maternal hospitalization costs for women with GDM as an example, unadjusted charges ($US14,696) grossly overestimated actual cost, compared with hospital-wide ($US3,498) and department-level ($US4,986) CCR adjustments. However, the refined cost estimation method, although more accurate, did not alter our conclusions that infant/maternal hospitalization costs were significantly higher for women with GDM than without, and for overweight/obese women than for those in a normal BMI range.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost estimates, particularly among MCH-related services, vary considerably depending on the adjustment method. Our refined approach will be valuable to researchers interested in incorporating more valid estimates of cost into databases with linked hospital discharge files.

Basic Principles of Health Economics Applied - How to Assess if Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation is Worth the Investment

This article attempts to present some highlights from the rich economic literature pertaining to interventional cardiology and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). There are currently more questions than answers, not surprisingly given the pace of technological change in interventional cardiology. For clinicians who work in a strictly regulated environment and have limited control over their use of medical technologies, this article will hopefully shed some light on the motives for policy decisions. For clinicians who make decisions on the resources used to treat their patients, it aims to provide the means of looking for evidence that will allow for informed decisions from both clinical and economic perspectives.

From comparative effectiveness research to patient-centered outcomes research: policy history and future directions

Containing growth in health care expenditures is considered to be essential to improving both the long-term fiscal outlook of the federal government and the future affordability of health care in the US. As health care expenditures have increased, so too have concerns about the quality of health care. Better information on the clinical effectiveness of alternative treatments and other interventions is needed to improve the quality of care and restrain growth in expenditures. This article explains the key role played by the federal government in defining the context and process of comparative effectiveness research as well as its funding. Subsequently, the article explores the mission, priorities, and research agenda of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which is an independent, nonprofit corporation established in 2010 by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Resource use trajectories for aged medicare beneficiaries with complex coronary conditions

OBJECTIVE

To use coronary revascularization choice to illustrate the application of a method simulating a treatment's effect on subsequent resource use.

DATA SOURCES

Medicare inpatient and outpatient claims from 2002 to 2008 for patients receiving multivessel revascularization for symptomatic coronary disease in 2003-2004.

STUDY DESIGN

This retrospective cohort study of 102,877 beneficiaries assessed survival, days in institutional settings, and Medicare payments for up to 6 years following receipt of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

A three-part estimator designed to provide robust estimates of a treatment's effect in the setting of mortality and censored follow-up was used. The estimator decomposes the treatment effect into effects attributable to survival differences versus treatment-related intensity of resource use.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

After adjustment, on average CABG recipients survived 23 days longer, spent an 11 additional days in institutional settings, and had cumulative Medicare payments that were $12,834 higher than PCI recipients. The majority of the differences in institutional days and payments were due to intensity rather than survival effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In this example, the survival benefit from CABG was modest and the resource implications were substantial, although further adjustments for treatment selection are needed.

Comparative Effectiveness Research: The Experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Purpose

To assess the relevance of the experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom to the comparative effectiveness research (CER) initiative in the United States.

Methods

The activities of NICE were reviewed to assess its experience in analytic methods, engagement with stakeholders, communication of findings, and implementation of recommendations.

Results

The main lessons for the United States from the experience of NICE relate to how the institute has gathered, synthesized, and used information on the clinical and cost effectiveness of health care interventions. The experience of NICE suggests that ways will have to be found to reconcile the differing stakeholder perspectives on the value of health care. Given the emphasis in the United States on being patient centered, there will be situations where patients' expectations for the provision of care far exceed that which payers feel should be made available on grounds of value for money. Explicit restrictions on access to care based on CER like those found in the United Kingdom are unlikely, but alternative solutions, such as value-based reimbursement, will need to be pursued if unnecessary expenditures are to be avoided. It will also be important that the CER initiative show some impact on the use of health care resources. The longer that NICE has been in existence in the United Kingdom, questions about its impact have been more frequently asked, given the resources devoted to its activities.

Conclusion

Although there are distinct differences between the health systems of the United Kingdom and United States, lessons can be learned from examining the successes and challenges experienced by NICE.

Valuing end-of-life care in the United States: the case of new cancer drugs

New cancer therapies offer the hope of improved diagnosis to patients with life-threatening disease. Over the past 5–10 years, a number of specialty drugs have entered clinical practice to provide better systemic therapy for advanced cancers that respond to few therapeutic alternatives. To date, however, such advances have been only modestly effective in extending life and come with a high price tag, raising questions about their value for money, patient access and implications for health care costs. This article explores some of the key issues present in valuing end-of-life care in the United States in the case of advanced cancer drugs, from the difficult trade-offs between their limited health benefits and high costs to the technical, political and social challenges in assessing their value and applying such evidence to inform policy and practice. A number of initial steps are discussed that could be pursued to improve the value of advanced cancer care.