Information created to evade reality (ICER): things we should not look to for answers

Research trends in contemporary health economics: a scientometric analysis on collective content of specialty journals

INTRODUCTION

Health economics is a thriving sub-discipline of economics. Applied health economics research is considered essential in the health care sector and is used extensively by public policy makers. For scholars, it is important to understand the history and status of health economics-when it emerged, the rate of research output, trending topics, and its temporal evolution-to ensure clarity and direction when formulating research questions.

METHODS

Nearly 13,000 articles were analysed, which were found in the collective publications of the ten most specialised health economic journals. We explored this literature using patterns of term co-occurrence and document co-citation.

RESULTS

The research output in this field is growing exponentially. Five main research divisions were identified: (i) macroeconomic evaluation, (ii) microeconomic evaluation, (iii) measurement and valuation of outcomes, (iv) monitoring mechanisms (evaluation), and (v) guidance and appraisal. Document co-citation analysis revealed eighteen major research streams and identified variation in the magnitude of activities in each of the streams. A recent emergence of research activities in health economics was seen in the Medicaid Expansion stream. Established research streams that continue to show high levels of activity include Child Health, Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and Cost-effectiveness. Conversely, Patient Preference, Health Care Expenditure and Economic Evaluation are now past their peak of activity in specialised health economic journals. Analysis also identified several streams that emerged in the past but are no longer active.

CONCLUSIONS

Health economics is a growing field, yet there is minimal evidence of creation of new research trends. Over the past 10 years, the average rate of annual increase in internationally collaborated publications is almost double that of domestic collaborations (8.4% vs 4.9%), but most of the top scholarly collaborations remain between six countries only.

The cost-effectiveness of sexual and reproductive health and rights interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

Sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) are an essential component of universal health coverage (UHC). In determining which SRHR interventions to include in their UHC benefits package, countries are advised to evaluate each service based on robust and reliable data, including cost-effectiveness data. We conducted a scoping review of full economic evaluations of the essential SRHR interventions included in the comprehensive package presented by the Guttmacher-Lancet Commission on SRHR. Of the 462 economic evaluations that met the inclusion criteria, the quantity of publications varied across regions, countries, and the components of the SRHR package, with the majority of publications reporting on HIV/AIDS, reproductive cancer, as well as antenatal care, childbirth, and postnatal care. Systematic reviews are needed for these components in support of more conclusive findings and actionable recommendations for programmes and policy. Further evaluations for interventions included in the remaining components are needed to provide a stronger evidence base for decision-making. The economic evaluations reviewed for this article were inherently varied in their applied methodologies, SRHR interventions and comparators, cost and effectiveness data, and cost-effectiveness thresholds, among others. Despite these differences, the vast majority of publications reported the evaluated SRHR interventions to be cost-effective.

Incorporating Portfolio Uncertainty in Decision Rules for Healthcare Resource Allocation

Cost-effectiveness analysis is widely adopted as a means to inform policy and decision makers in setting priorities for healthcare resource allocation. In resource-constrained settings, decision makers are confronted with healthcare resource reallocation decisions, e.g., moving funds from one or more existing healthcare programs to fund new healthcare programs. The decision-making plane (DMP) has been developed as a means to graphically present the results of reallocating available healthcare resources when healthcare program costs and effects are uncertain. Mapping a value function over the DMP allows the analyst to value all possible combinations of net costs and net effects that may result from reallocating available healthcare resources under conditions of uncertainty. In this paper, we extend this approach to include a change in portfolio risk, stemming from a change in the portfolios of funded healthcare programs, as an additional source of uncertainty, and demonstrate how this can be incorporated into the value function over net costs and net effects for a risk-averse decision maker. The methodology presented in this paper is of particular interest to decision makers who are risk averse, as it will help to better incorporate their preferences in the process of deciding how to best allocate scarce healthcare resources.

Economic evaluations of psychological treatments for common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Common mental disorders (CMDs) are highly prevalent conditions that constitute a major public health and economic burden on society in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite the increased demand for economic evidence to support resource allocation for scaled-up implementation of mental health services in these contexts, economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs remain scarce.

OBJECTIVE

The proposed systematic review aims to synthesize findings on methods and outcomes of economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs in LMICs and appraise quality.

METHODS

We will identify, select, and extract data from published economic evaluations of psychological interventions for CMDs conducted in LMICs. We will search bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, EconLit, PsycINFO, Africa-Wide Information, Cochrane library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry), and the African Journals Online (AJOL) and Google Scholar platforms. Only full economic evaluations (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA), Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA), Cost-Consequence Analysis (CCA), or Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)) of psychological treatments for CMDs (defined as depressive, anxiety, and substance use disorders) conducted in LMICs will be included. There will be no restrictions based on date of publication, perspective, follow-up duration or sample size. Data extraction will be guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

The results presented will be examined using a narrative synthesis approach. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the Drummond & Jefferson checklist.

CONCLUSION

The fledgling evidence base in this area provides an opportunity to promote improved economic evaluation methods in line with repeated calls for economic evidence alongside effectiveness evidence in these settings. A rigorously developed economic evaluation evidence base will support resource allocation decisions for scaled up implementation of psychological interventions in LMIC settings.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020185277.

Can multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) be implemented into real-world drug decision-making processes? A Canadian provincial experience

OBJECTIVE

To describe the implementation of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) into a Canadian public drug reimbursement decision-making process, identifying the aspects of the MCDA approach, and the context that promoted uptake.

METHODS

Narrative summary of case study describing the how, when, and why of implementing MCDA.

RESULTS

Faced with a fixed budget, a pipeline of expensive but potentially valuable drugs, and potential delays to drug decision making, the Ministry of Health (i.e., decision makers) and its independent expert advisory committee (IAB) sought alternative values-based decision processes. MCDA was considered highly compatible with current processes, but the ability as a stand-alone intervention to address issues of opportunity cost was unclear. The IAB nevertheless collaboratively voted to implement an externally developed MCDA with support from decision makers. After several months of engagement and piloting, implementation was rapid and leveraged strong pre-existing formal and informal communication networks. The IAB as a whole rates new submissions which serves as an input into the deliberative process.

CONCLUSIONS

MCDA can be a highly adaptable approach that can be implemented into a functioning drug reimbursement setting when facilitated by (i) a truly limited budget; (ii) a shared vision for change by end-users and decision makers; (iii) using pre-existing deliberative processes; and (iv) viewing the approach as a decision framework rather than the decision (when appropriate). Given the current limitations of MCDA, implementing an academically imperfect tool first and evaluating later reflects a practical solution to real-time fiscal constraints and impending delays to drug approvals that may be faced by decision makers.

Determining Value in Health Technology Assessment: Stay the Course or Tack Away?

The economic evaluation of new health technologies to assess whether the value of the expected health benefits warrants the proposed additional costs has become an essential step in making novel interventions available to patients. This assessment of value is problematic because there exists no natural means to measure it. One approach is to assume that society wishes to maximize aggregate health, measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Commonly, a single 'cost-effectiveness' threshold is used to gauge whether the intervention is sufficiently efficient in doing so. This approach has come under fire for failing to account for societal values that favor treating more severe illness and ensuring equal access to resources, regardless of pre-existing conditions or capacity to benefit. Alternatives involving expansion of the measure of benefit or adjusting the threshold have been proposed and some have advocated tacking away from the cost per QALY entirely to implement therapeutic area-specific efficiency frontiers, multicriteria decision analysis or other approaches that keep the dimensions of benefit distinct and value them separately. In this paper, each of these alternative courses is considered, based on the experiences of the authors, with a view to clarifying their implications.

Efficacy and effectiveness of omalizumab in the treatment of childhood asthma

INTRODUCTION

Omalizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits free serum immunoglobulin E, a mediator involved in the clinical manifestations of allergic asthma. Evidence for its efficacy and safety in the treatment of moderate-to-severe allergic asthma is based primarily on studies in adolescents and adults. However, there is increasing evidence of its utility in children with allergic asthma aged 6-12 years. Areas covered: This article reviews efficacy, safety, and effectiveness of omalizumab in the treatment of moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in children aged 6-12 years in clinical trials and in studies in clinical practice. Pharmacoeconomic aspects of its use among this population and the positioning of omalizumab in pediatric asthma management guidelines are also discussed. Additionally, an algorithm for the management of poorly controlled severe pediatric asthma in children older than 6 years is proposed. Electronic databases, such as PubMed, were searched for terms Asthma and Omalizumab and for asthma management guidelines. Expert commentary: Add-on omalizumab is an effective maintenance therapy in children aged 6-12 years with poorly controlled moderate-to-severe allergic asthma treated with medium-high inhaled corticosteroids doses and inhaled long-acting β2-agonists. Omalizumab appears safe in children in both clinical trials and real-life setting and may be cost-effective.

Brief interventions to address substance use among patients presenting to emergency departments in resource poor settings: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

There are limited data describing the cost-effectiveness of brief interventions for substance use in resource-poor settings. Using a patient and provider perspective, this study investigates the cost-effectiveness of a brief motivational interviewing (MI) intervention versus a combined intervention of MI and problem solving therapy (MI-PST) for reducing substance use among patients presenting to emergency departments, in comparison to a control group.

Methods

Effectiveness data were extracted from Project STRIVE (Substance use and Trauma InterVention) conducted in South Africa. Patients were randomised to either receive 1 session of MI (n = 113) or MI in addition to four sessions of PST (n = 109) or no intervention [control (n = 110)]. Costs included the direct health care costs associated with the interventions. Patient costs included out of pocket payments incurred accessing the MI-PST intervention. Outcome measures were patients’ scores on the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Use Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D).

Results

Cost per patient was low in all three groups; US$16, US$33 and US$11, and for MI, MI-PST and control respectively. Outcomes were 0.92 (MI), 1.06 (MI-PST) and 0.88 (control) for ASSIST scores; and 0.74 (MI), 1.27 (MI-PST) and 0.53 (control) for CES-D scores. In comparison to the control group, the MI intervention costs an additional US$119 per unit reduction in ASSIST score, (US$20 for CES-D); MI-PST in comparison to MI costs US$131 or US$33 per unit reduction in ASSIST or CES-D scores respectively. The sensitivity analyses showed that increasing the number of patients who screened positive and thus received the intervention could improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions.

Conclusion

MI or MI-PST interventions delivered by lay counsellors have the potential to be cost-effective strategies for the reduction of substance use disorder and depressive symptoms among patients presenting at emergency departments in resource poor settings. Given the high economic, social and health care cost of substance use disorders in South Africa, these results suggest that these interventions should be carefully considered for future implementation.

Trial registration This study is part of a trial registered with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR201308000591418)

The ICER Value Framework: Integrating Cost Effectiveness and Affordability in the Assessment of Health Care Value

What should be the relationship between the concepts of cost effectiveness and affordability in value assessments for health care interventions? This question has received greater attention in recent years given increasing financial pressures on health systems, leading to different views on how assessment reports and decision-making processes can provide the best structure for considering both elements. In the United States, the advent of explicit value frameworks to guide drug assessments has also focused attention on this issue, driven in part by the prominent inclusion of affordability within the value framework used to guide reports from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. After providing a formal definition of affordability for health care systems, this article argues that, even after using empirical estimates of true health system opportunity cost, cost-effectiveness thresholds cannot by themselves be set in a way that subsumes questions about short-term affordability. The article then presents an analysis of different approaches to integrating cost effectiveness and budget impact assessments within information to guide decision making. The evolution and experience with the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review value framework are highlighted, providing lessons learned and guiding principles for future efforts to bring measures of affordability within the scope of value assessment.

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): testing a proposed MCDA framework for orphan drugs

Background

Since the introduction of the orphan drugs legislation in Europe, it has been suggested that the general method of assessing drugs for reimbursement is not necessarily suitable for orphan drugs. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence indicated that several criteria other than cost and efficacy could be considered in reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs. This study sought to explore the multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework proposed by (Orphanet J Rare Dis 7:74, 2012) to a range of orphan drugs, with a view to comparing the aggregate scores to the average annual cost per patient for each product, and thus establishing the merit of MCDA as a tool for assessing the value of orphan drugs in relation to their pricings.

Methods

An MCDA framework was developed using the nine criteria proposed by (Orphanet J Rare Dis 7:74, 2012) for the evaluation of orphan drugs, using the suggested numerical scoring system on a scale of 1 to 3 for each criterion. Correlations between the average annual cost of the drugs and aggregate MCDA scores were tested and plotted graphically. Different weightings for each of the attributes were also tested. A further analysis was conducted to test the impact of including the drug cost as an attribute in the aggregate index scores.

Results

In the drugs studied, the R², that statistically measures how close the data are to the fitted regression line was 0.79 suggesting a strong correlation between the drug scores and the average annual cost per patient.

Conclusion

Despite several limitations of the proposed model, this quantitative study provided insight into using MCDA and its relationship to the average annual costs of the products.

Assessing the Quality of Economic Evaluations of FDA Novel Drug Approvals: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and assess the quality of the novel drugs' economic evaluation literature in print during the drugs' early commercial availability following US regulatory approval.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and the United Kingdom National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database were searched from 1946 through December 2011 for economic evaluations of the 50 novel drugs approved by the FDA in 2008 and 2009.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

The inclusion criteria were English-language, peer-reviewed, original economic evaluations (cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, cost-minimization, and cost-benefit analyses). We extracted and analyzed data from 36 articles considering 19 of the 50 drugs. Two reviewers assessed each publication's quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument and summarized study quality on a 100-point scale.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Study quality had a mean of 70.0 ± 16.2 QHES points. The only study characteristics associated with QHES score (with P < 0.05) were having used modeling or advanced statistics, 75.1 versus 61.9 without; using quality-adjusted life years as an outcome, 75.9 versus 64.7 without; and cost-utility versus cost-minimization analysis, 75.9 versus 58.7. Studies most often satisfied quality aspects about stating study design choices and least often satisfied aspects about justifying design choices.

CONCLUSION

The reviewed literature considered a minority of the 2008-2009 novel drugs and had mixed study quality. Cost-effectiveness stakeholders might benefit from efforts to improve the quality and quantity of literature examining novel drugs. Editors and reviewers may support quality improvement by stringently imposing economic evaluation guidelines about justifying study design choices.

Rethinking cost-effectiveness in the era of zero healthcare spending growth

Background

The global economic crisis imposes severe restrictions on healthcare budgets, limiting the coverage of new interventions, even when they are cost-effective. Our objective was to develop a tool that can assist decision-makers in comparing the impact of medical intervention alternatives on the entire target population, under a pre-specified budget constraint.

Methods

We illustrated the tool by using a target population of 1,000 patients, and a budget constraint of $1,000,000. We compared two intervention alternatives: the current practice that costs $1,000 and adds 0.5 quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) per patient and a new technology that costs 100 % more, and provides 20 % more QALYs per patient. We also developed a formula for defining the maximum premium price for a higher-cost/higher-effectiveness intervention that can justify its adoption under a constrained budget.

Results

Using the new therapy will add 300 QALYs, compared to 500 QALYS when using the lower-cost, lower-effective intervention, despite a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $10,000. The maximum price for the higher-efficacy therapy that will preserve the target population outcomes is 20 % higher than the lower-cost therapy.

Conclusions

Although an intervention associated with higher costs and higher efficacy may have an acceptable ICER, it could provide inferior outcomes in the target population under budget constraints, depending on the relative effectiveness and costs of the interventions. The cost premium that can be justified for a higher-efficacy intervention is directly correlated to its effectiveness premium. Using the proposed tool may assist decision-makers in improving overall healthcare outcomes, especially in times of economic downturn.

Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained? The need for alternative methods to evaluate medical interventions for ultra-rare disorders

Drugs for ultra-rare disorders (URDs) rank prominently among the most expensive medicines on a cost-per-patient basis. Many of them do not meet conventional standards for cost-effectiveness. In light of the high fixed cost of R&D, this challenge is inversely related to the prevalence of URDs. The present paper sets out to explain the rationale underlying a recent expert consensus on these issues, recommending a more rigorous assessment of the clinical effectiveness of URDs, applying established standards of evidence-based medicine. This may include conditional approval and reimbursement policies, which should be combined with a firm expectation of proof of a minimum significant clinical benefit within a reasonable time. In contrast, current health economic evaluation paradigms fail to adequately reflect normative and empirical concerns (i.e., morally defensible 'social preferences') regarding healthcare resource allocation. Hence there is a strong need for alternative economic evaluation models for URDs.

Health technology assessment in the Balkans: opportunities for a balanced drug assessment system

Countries in the Balkan region use pharmaco-economic data for decisions about the inclusion of new pharmaceuticals into their positive drug lists, but no predefined frameworks are used and resources for health technology assessment (HTA) are limited. The goal of this analysis is to investigate into possible development directions for the HTA system in the region, and provide some practical recommendations for a sustainable model. For this purpose, the main factors currently influencing HTA in Balkan countries are briefly presented, and possible development strategies are compared. A resource-saving balanced assessment approach is proposed. It is aligned with available resources and capabilities, and helps access to new pharmaceuticals while ensuring the transparency of decision-making processes and the stability of the pharmaceutical budget.

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.

Implementation of EUnetHTA core Model® in Lombardia: the VTS framework

OBJECTIVES

This study describes the health technology assessment (HTA) framework introduced by Regione Lombardia to regulate the introduction of new technologies. The study outlines the process and dimensions adopted to prioritize, assess and appraise the requests of new technologies.

METHODS

The HTA framework incorporates and adapts elements from the EUnetHTA Core Model and the EVIDEM framework. It includes dimensions, topics, and issues provided by EUnetHTA Core Model to collect data and process the assessment. Decision making is instead supported by the criteria and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis technique from the EVIDEM consortium.

RESULTS

The HTA framework moves along three process stages: (i) prioritization of requests, (ii) assessment of prioritized technology, (iii) appraisal of technology in support of decision making. Requests received by Regione Lombardia are first prioritized according to their relevance along eight dimensions (e.g., costs, efficiency and efficacy, organizational impact, safety). Evidence about the impacts of the prioritized technologies is then collected following the issues and topics provided by EUnetHTA Core Model. Finally, the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis technique is used to appraise the novel technology and support Regione Lombardia decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

The VTS (Valutazione delle Tecnologie Sanitarie) framework has been successfully implemented at the end of 2011. From its inception, twenty-six technologies have been processed.

Program-specific cost-effectiveness analysis: breast cancer screening policies for a safety-net program

BACKGROUND

Every Woman Counts (EWC), a California breast cancer screening program, faced challenging budget cutbacks and policy choices.

METHODS

A microsimulation model evaluated costs, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of EWC program mammography policy options on coverage for digital mammography (which has a higher cost than film mammography but recent legislation allowed reimbursement at the lower film rate); screening eligibility age; and screening frequency. Model inputs were based on analyses of program claims data linked to California Cancer Registry data, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, and the Medi-Cal literature. Outcomes included number of procedures, cancers, cancer deaths, costs, and incremental cost per life-year.

RESULTS

Projected model outcomes matched program data closely. With restrictions on the number of clients screened, strategies starting screening at age 40 years were dominated (not cost-effective). This finding was highly robust in sensitivity analyses. Compared with no screening, biennial film mammography for women aged 50 to 64 years was projected to reduce 15-year breast cancer mortality by nearly 7.8% at $18,999 per additional life-year, annual film mammography was $106,428 per additional life-year, and digital mammography $180,333 per additional life-year. This more effective, more expensive strategy was projected to reduce breast cancer mortality by 8.6%. Under equal mammography reimbursement, biennial digital mammography beginning at age 50 years was projected to decrease 15-year breast cancer mortality by 8.6% at an incremental cost per additional life-year of $17,050.

CONCLUSIONS

For the EWC program, biennial screening mammography starting at age 50 years was the most cost-effective strategy. The impact of digital mammography on life expectancy was small. Program-specific cost-effectiveness analysis can be completed in a policy-relevant time frame to assist policymakers faced with difficult program choices.

Stepping down from high dose fluticasone/salmeterol to extrafine BDP/F in asthma is cost-effective

BACKGROUND

GINA guideline recommends stepping down treatment of asthma patients where control is achieved. The aim of this analysis was to estimate the costs and health outcomes associated with step down of controlled patients on high dose fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/S 1000/100 μg daily) to either medium dose FP/S (500/100 μg) dry powder or extrafine beclometasone/formoterol (BDP/F 400/24 μg) pMDI in three European countries.

METHODS

A patient-level simulation Markov model was constructed to enable the simulation of three comparative arms (FP/S 1000/100, FP/S 500/100, BDP/F 400/24). Transition probabilities and healthcare resources consumption were derived from a multinational clinical trial comparing BDP/F 400/24 μg vs. FP/S 500/100 μg as step down therapy in asthma. Direct costs and health state utilities were sourced from public source and published literature. The analysis was conducted from a health system perspective, based on six months horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) associated with high dose dry powder FP/S 1000/100 μg vs. extrafine BDP/F 400/24 μg was above 70,000 GBP and 200,000 €/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years). An ICER of 29,000 GBP/QALY and above 30,000 €/QALY was associated with medium dose dry powder FP/S 500/100 μg vs. BDP/F 400/24 μg.

CONCLUSIONS

It was found that maintaining controlled patients on high dose FP/S is not cost-effective. Extrafine BDP/F 400/24 μg daily can be considered to be a cost-effective option in the countries analyzed to maintain control of asthmatic patients stepped down from high dose FP/S 1000/100 μg daily dry powder or suspension formulations.

Cost-effectiveness of a novel e-health depression service

OBJECTIVES

A recent trial assessed feasibility of an e-health service (" Improvehealth.eu ") to support depression care and reported positive outcomes. Our objective was to examine cost-effectiveness of the Improvehealth.eu service. A baseline model was used to evaluate cost and effects of the intervention. Given the high uncertainty in the input space, a series of alternative scenarios were evaluated to challenge the result. The aim was to find if conservative or even pessimistic estimates and assumptions could result in a change of the cost-effectiveness from the baseline model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A probabilistic depression model combined with bootstrapping was built and populated with data from the literature and from the pilot efficacy trial of the e-health service. The core of the model was a stochastic mapping function that translated depression-specific outcomes to quality-adjusted life years. Correlated sampling was used to obtain unbiased and consistent piecewise linear transformation of Beck Depression Inventory scores to utilities. The results are shown as cost-effectiveness acceptability curves with value of information data. An extreme scenario analysis was then performed to deal with parameter, structural, and modeling uncertainty.

RESULTS

Cost-effectiveness of the e-health service was favorable because of low cost and high efficacy of the intervention. Apart from the most pessimistic one, none of the 13 alternative scenarios changed the preferred alternative.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvehealth.eu is cost-effective relative to usual care, given the available efficacy data. Results of the health economic evaluation were robust to alternative assumptions, despite considerable uncertainty in input data.

Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine: review of cost-effectiveness studies in Australia, North America and Europe

The pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) is the first vaccine proven to be effective in reducing the incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease, pneumonia and acute otitis media in children, and has been recommended for universal use in children in a number of high-income countries. The high cost of the vaccine relative to previous vaccines has generated interest in assessing its cost-effectiveness and numerous cost-effectiveness analyses of PCV have been performed in Australia, North America and Europe. The primary objectives of this review are to enhance the ability to make direct comparisons between these analyses, to aid in the identification and interpretation of methodological differences and to summarize the findings. Although these studies varied greatly in terms of methodology and assumptions, if and when indirect effects and quality-of-life improvements are taken into account, the cost-effectiveness ratios of PCV in these countries are likely to be within the ranges generally considered favorable vis-à-vis other health interventions.

Average cost-effectiveness ratio with censored data

In cost-effectiveness analysis, interest could lie foremost in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is the ratio of the incremental cost to the incremental benefit of two competing interventions. The average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) is the ratio of the cost to benefit of an intervention without reference to a comparator. A vast literature is available for statistical inference of the ICERs, but limited methods have been developed for the ACERs, particularly in the presence of censoring. Censoring is a common feature in prospective studies, and valid analyses should properly adjust for censoring in cost as well as in effectiveness. In this article, we propose statistical methods for constructing a confidence interval for the ACER from censored data. Different methods-Fieller, Taylor, bootstrap-are proposed, and through simulation studies and data analysis, we address the performance characteristics of these methods.

Treatment of cancer in adolescents and young adults: is affordability a concern?

Progress in the treatment of cancers in young people has resulted in an increasing success rate in curing the different forms of malignant diseases. The mission of the CPAC/C(17) Task Force on Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA) with cancer is to ensure prompt, equitable access to the best care; establish research priorities to optimize health outcomes and health-related quality of life; and mitigate current disparities of care through advances in treatment, education, and research. Although these goals are important, the mission statement seems to ignore an important factor: "affordability," or the ability to achieve these goals due to scarcity of resources. In this article, the role of economics in helping decision makers decide on resource allocation is discussed. Also described is the economic basis for the healthcare problem; the inability of the current methodology of cost-effectiveness to provide information that can help improve resource allocation in health; and how economics should be used to promote efficient use of healthcare resources. The author argued that "affordability" should be recognized in the mission statement. Recognizing "affordability" means recognizing the need to justify the transfer (or allocation) of additional resources to AYA cancer, which requires demonstration that the value of what is gained from the use of these resources in AYA cancer exceeds the value of what is forgone by using them elsewhere. This will also require making explicit the values or equity criteria to which society subscribes.

Cost effectiveness of outpatient treatment for febrile neutropaenia in adult cancer patients

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty whether low-risk episodes of febrile neutropaenia (FN) in adult cancer patients are best managed in the in- or outpatient setting.

METHODS

A Monte Carlo cost-utility model was created to compare four treatment strategies for low-risk FN: (1) treatment in hospital with intravenous antibiotics (HospIV); (2) early discharge after 48 h in-patient observation, followed by oral outpatient treatment (EarlyDC); (3) outpatient management with IV antibiotics (HomeIV); and (4) outpatient management with oral antibiotics (HomePO). The model used a health-care payer perspective and a time horizon of one FN episode. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted FN episodes (QAFNE), costs (Canadian dollars) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Parameter uncertainty was assessed with probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

HomePO was cost saving ($3470 vs $4183), but less effective (0.65 QAFNE vs 0.72 QAFNE) than HomeIV. The corresponding ICER was $10,186 per QAFNE. Both EarlyDC ($6115; 0.66 QAFNE) and HospIV ($13,557; 0.62 QAFNE) were dominated strategies. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $4,000 per QAFNE, HomePO and HomeIV were cost effective in 54 and 38% of simulations, respectively.

INTERPRETATION

For adult cancer patients with an episode of low-risk FN, treatment in hospital is more expensive and less effective than outpatient strategies.

Cost-effectiveness of outpatient management for febrile neutropenia in children with cancer

OBJECTIVE

Inpatient management remains the standard of care for treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN) in children with cancer. Clinical data suggest, however, that outpatient management might be a safe and efficacious alternative for patients with low-risk FN episodes.

METHODS

A cost-utility model was created to compare 4 treatment strategies for low-risk FN. The base case considered pediatric cancer patients with low-risk FN. The model used a health care payer's perspective and a time horizon of 1 FN episode. Four treatment strategies were evaluated: (1) entire treatment in hospital with intravenous antibiotics (HospIV); (2) early discharge consisting of 48 hours of inpatient observation with intravenous antibiotics followed by oral outpatient treatment (EarlyDC); (3) entirely outpatient management with intravenous antibiotics (HomeIV); and (4) entirely outpatient management with oral antibiotics (HomePO). Outcome measures were quality-adjusted FN episodes (QAFNEs), costs (Canadian dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Parameter uncertainty was assessed with probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The most cost-effective strategy was HomeIV. It was cost-saving ($2732 vs $2757) and more effective (0.66 vs 0.55 QAFNE) as compared with HomePO. EarlyDC was slightly more effective (0.68 QAFNE) but significantly more expensive ($5579) than HomeIV, which resulted in an unacceptably high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of more than $130 000 per QAFNE. HospIV was the least cost-effective strategy because it was more expensive ($14 493) and less effective (0.65 QAFNE) than EarlyDC.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this decision-analytic model indicate that the substantially higher costs of inpatient management cannot be justified on the basis of safety and efficacy considerations or patient/parent preferences.

Cost-effectiveness of novel relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma therapies in Norway: lenalidomide plus dexamethasone vs bortezomib

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness (cost per additional life-year [LY] and quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX) compared with bortezomib for the treatment of relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) in Norway.

METHODS

A discrete-event simulation model was developed to predict patients? disease course using patient data, best response, and efficacy levels obtained from LEN/DEX MM-009/-010 trials and the bortezomib (APEX) published clinical trial. Predictive equations for time-to-progression (TTP) and post-progression survival (PPS) were developed by identifying the best fitting parametric survival distributions and selecting the most significant predictors. Disease and adverse event management was obtained via survey from Norwegian experts. Costs, derived from official Norwegian pricing data bases, included drug, administration, monitoring, and adverse event management costs.

RESULTS

Complete or partial responders were 65% for LEN/DEX compared to 43% for bortezomib. Derived median TTP was 11.45 months for LEN/DEX compared to 5.15 months for bortezomib. LYs and QALYs were higher for LEN/DEX (4.06 and 2.95, respectively) than for bortezomib (3.11 and 2.19, respectively). The incremental costs per QALY and LY gained from LEN/DEX were NOK 247,978 and NOK 198,714, respectively, compared to bortezomib. Multiple sensitivity analyses indicated the findings were stable. The parameters with the greatest impact were 4-year time horizon (NOK 441,457/QALY) and higher bound confidence intervals for PPS (NOK 118,392).

LIMITATIONS

The model analyzed two therapies not compared in head-to-head trials, and predicted results using an equation incorporating patient-level characteristics. It is a limited estimation of the costs and outcomes in a Norwegian setting.

CONCLUSIONS

The simulation model showed that treatment with LEN/DEX leads to greater LYs and QALYs when compared to bortezomib in the treatment of rrMM patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated treatment with LEN/DEX to be cost-effective and was the basis of the reimbursement approval of LEN/DEX in Norway.

How to assess the value of medicines?

This study aims to discuss approaches to assessing the value of medicines. Economic evaluation assesses value by means of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Health is maximized by selecting medicines with increasing ICERs until the budget is exhausted. The budget size determines the value of the threshold ICER and vice versa. Alternatively, the threshold value can be inferred from pricing/reimbursement decisions, although such values vary between countries. Threshold values derived from the value-of-life literature depend on the technique used. The World Health Organization has proposed a threshold value tied to the national GDP. As decision makers may wish to consider multiple criteria, variable threshold values and weighted ICERs have been suggested. Other approaches (i.e., replacement approach, program budgeting and marginal analysis) have focused on improving resource allocation, rather than maximizing health subject to a budget constraint. Alternatively, the generalized optimization framework and multi-criteria decision analysis make it possible to consider other criteria in addition to value.

Recommendations for increasing the use of HIV/AIDS resource allocation models

BACKGROUND

Resource allocation models have not had a substantial impact on HIV/AIDS resource allocation decisions in spite of the important, additional insights they may provide. In this paper, we highlight six difficulties often encountered in attempts to implement such models in policy settings; these are: model complexity, data requirements, multiple stakeholders, funding issues, and political and ethical considerations. We then make recommendations as to how each of these difficulties may be overcome.

RESULTS

To ensure that models can inform the actual decision, modellers should understand the environment in which decision-makers operate, including full knowledge of the stakeholders' key issues and requirements. HIV/AIDS resource allocation model formulations should be contextualized and sensitive to societal concerns and decision-makers' realities. Modellers should provide the required education and training materials in order for decision-makers to be reasonably well versed in understanding the capabilities, power and limitations of the model.

CONCLUSION

This paper addresses the issue of knowledge translation from the established resource allocation modelling expertise in the academic realm to that of policymaking.

Avaliação econômica em Saúde na esfera de atenção local à saúde

O estudo tem por finalidade contribuir com a reflexão sobre a possibilidade de se operacionalizar avaliações econômicas em saúde nas esferas de atenção local à saúde e a consequente apreensão dos resultados de estudos para efeito de decisão pelos gestores. Para subsidiar essa reflexão, se utilizou como objeto de análise a avaliação realizada sobre o custo do Programa SAMU/192 no município de Belo Horizonte (MG), dados relativos à efetividade do programa e uma revisão nas bases eletrônicas de dados (SciELO e Medline) sobre o uso de estudos para efeito de decisão. A análise apontou que, mesmo para uma simples avaliação de gastos, ainda existem problemas relativos à disponibilidade de dados, como também no que concerne aos dados para subsidiar a avaliação sobre sua efetividade, e em relação à definição de sistemas e o relacionamento entre sistemas de informação. Assim como mostrou que os estudos são pouco utilizados pelos gestores, levando à conclusão de que a condução e a utilização, para efeito de gestão, de estudos deste porte ainda são pouco factíveis nesta esfera de governo.

Applying Programme Budgeting Marginal Analysis in the health sector: 12 years of experience

The Pharmaceutical Management Agency in New Zealand, PHARMAC, was established in 1993 at a time when growth in pharmaceutical expenditure was very high and arguably unsustainable. PHARMAC was charged with finding new and effective ways to manage expenditure growth, while also obtaining the best health outcomes for the New Zealand population. In order to help achieve this goal, PHARMAC has used Programme Budgeting Marginal Analysis. The use of Programme Budgeting Marginal Analysis, together with a capped budget and tools to generate savings, has significantly contributed to PHARMAC achieving its objective. However, there are implications of using Programme Budgeting Marginal Analysis with a capped budget. In particular, a different approach is required when undertaking and using cost-utility analysis (focused strongly on relative cost-effectiveness), and the opportunity cost of poor decisions is magnified significantly. As the demand on pharmaceutical expenditure continues to rise, the opportunity cost of not having a capped budget and tools for controlling pharmaceutical subsidies will only increase.

Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with pegaptanib in neovascular age-related macular degeneration

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with pegaptanib in the treatment of patients with minimally classic/occult neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), from a societal perspective in Spain.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov model with five states defined by visual acuity (VA) in the better-seeing eye (Snellen scale): VA >20/40, < or =20/40 to >20/80, < or =20/80 to >20/200, < or =20/200 to >20/400, < or =20/400, and an additional death state. Two cohorts of patients were distributed along the VA states, and treated with either ranibizumab or pegaptanib. Transition probabilities assigned for movement between these states with both drugs were obtained from published randomized clinical trials. Medical costs related to AMD treatment and follow-up, medical costs related to AMD comorbidities, and non-medical-related costs were taken into account. Costs (2008 Euro), health outcomes (Quality-adjusted life years--QALYs), both discounted at a 3.5% annual rate, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER: euro/QALY), were determined for a lifetime horizon in the base case analysis. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore different scenarios and assumptions in the model.

RESULTS

Treating patients with varying degrees of visual impairment with monthly ranibizumab instead of pegaptanib was 71,206 euro more costly and provided 2.437 additional QALYs (29,224 euro/QALY). When administered on an as-needed basis, as in the Prospective Optical Coherence Tomography Imaging of Patients with Neovascular AMD Treated with Intraocular Ranibizumab (PrONTO) trial, the cost per QALY gained with ranibizumab was reduced to 4,623 euro.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost per QALY gained with monthly ranibizumab compared with pegaptanib in the minimally classic/occult neovascular AMD population is just below the 30,000 euro threshold below which new drugs are sometimes regarded as cost-effective strategies in Spain. In this model, the key variables with greater impact on the cost-effectiveness results were the selected time horizon and the chosen extrapolation method, the source for data on pegaptanib efficacy and the number of ranibizumab injections. When administered on an as-needed basis, ranibizumab was a cost-effective strategy compared to pegaptanib in this population.

Is there anything nicer than NICE? A question the Conservative shadow health team is right to ask

Access to life-saving treatments, and the role played by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in reaching decisions, continues to represent an important part of modern health policy. High profile cases and critical media coverage have sharpened public interest in this issue. In November 2008, the Conservative Party published detailed proposals on NICE outlining policies for improving the systems and processes for making decisions about NHS drug availability. The Conservatives clearly state their support for NICE, but highlight six areas to improve its configuration, structure and efficiency. These areas are consistent with the Conservative commitment to focus on health outcomes rather than central targets. A "NICE Charter" to codify the Institute's roles and responsibilities; scrapping the current system of Ministerial referral; allowing appraisals to commence at the time of drug licensing; and increasing the use of risk-sharing schemes are among the headline pledges. The policy document also makes clear the need for pharmaceutical companies to better demonstrate product clinical value by shifting the burden of proof from NICE to the manufacturer. Improved cooperation between industry and NICE is promised through the creation of a steering committee. Furthermore, a clear commitment to evaluate wider social costs and benefits is provided. The Conservative proposals make clear that there are no easy solutions to tackle the basic health economic problem of how to best allocate finite NHS resources to satisfy all healthcare needs. However, the proposals offer a solid blueprint for focused reform moving forward.

Expensive drugs for rare disorders: to treat or not to treat? The case of enzyme replacement therapy for mucopolysaccharidosis VI

BACKGROUND

Mucopolysaccharidosis VI (MPS VI) is a very rare, chronically debilitating lysosomal storage disorder that develops in people with an enzyme deficiency. Clinical characteristics and progression rates vary widely between patients. The recent introduction of enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) has improved considerably the lives of patients with MPS VI, at an annual cost of treatment between euro 150,000 and euro 450,000 per patient.

SCOPE

This Commentary article addresses the controversial topic of granting reimbursement for expensive treatment options for orphan diseases, such as MPS VI. The discussion reflects clinical, economic and ethical aspects and incorporates insights from the relevant literature (based on a Medline search to September 2008) on MPS VI, efficacy of ERT, orphan drugs, and the economics and ethics of health-care prioritisation.

FINDINGS

Although ERT for MPS VI received marketing authorisation in the European Union in January 2006, patients' access to this therapy varies geographically due to differences between national reimbursement schemes for orphan drugs. Some inclusion and exclusion criteria for treatment of MPS VI patients with ERT appear arbitrary and may contribute to the exclusion from treatment of patients who could benefit in the long term. Reimbursement schemes which rely on proof of short-term treatment effectiveness may discriminate against slowly progressive patients, as health gain can often not be confirmed over a short period of time in these patients. Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis remains silent on crucial issues related to budgetary impact, i.e. opportunity cost from a system perspective, and fair access to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

To prevent patients from being deprived of effective treatment, it is suggested that inclusion and exclusion criteria for treatment should be primarily based on a careful individual assessment of expected long-term clinical benefits. Once treatment has been agreed to as the correct option on clinical grounds, it is further argued that the conventional cost-effectiveness criterion currently in widespread use does not offer a sufficient basis for rejecting reimbursement of expensive treatments for exceptionally rare disorders, providing that decisions on reimbursement are intended to reflect public preferences.

Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with photodynamic treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab with that of photodynamic therapy (PDT) in the treatment of predominantly classic choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) from the perspective of a third-party payer in a Spanish setting.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov model with 5 states defined by visual acuity (VA) in the better-seeing eye (Snellen scale), as follows: VA >20/40, <or=20/40 to >20/80, </or20/80 to >20/200, <or=20/200 to >20/400, and <or=20/400. A death state was also included. We took transition probabilities, number of ranibizumab injections, and number of PDT treatments from the ANCHOR (Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Antibody for the Treatment of Predominantly Classic Choroidal Neovascularization in Age-Related Macular Degeneration) trial. Utilities were taken from a published study of patients' preferences. We used unit costs from our hospital and drug costs from a national database. Resource utilization was determined by an ophthalmologist according to current clinical practice. We performed univariate, threshold, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Incremental costs (2007 euro) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), both discounted at a 3% annual rate, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; euro/QALY) were determined for the 2-year and life-expectancy time horizons.

RESULTS

Treating patients with varying degrees of visual impairment with ranibizumab instead of PDT, with a 2-year time horizon, was found to be euro18,328 more costly and to confer 0.140 additional QALY (euro131,275/QALY). This ICER was reduced to euro39,398/ QALY for the longer life-expectancy time horizon. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, PDT is the therapy of choice in all cases below the threshold of euro30,000/QALY for the 2-year time horizon. Ranibizumab was the optimal intervention in 26% of cases in the longer lifetime horizon. When the initial VA was <or=20/400, the ICER increased to euro255,477 over 2 years. When ranibizumab was administered on an as-needed basis, as in the PrONTO (Prospective Optical coherence tomography imaging of patients with Neovascular AMD Treated with intra-Ocular ranibizumab) trial, the ICERs were reduced to euro29,566/QALY and euro11,469/QALY in the 2-year and life-expectancy horizons, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these results, ranibizumab was not cost-effective when administered on a monthly basis. When administered as needed, ranibizumab was cost-effective compared with PDT for the treatment of AMD.

Finding legitimacy for the role of budget impact in drug reimbursement decisions

OBJECTIVES

Research has shown that effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and severity of illness each play a role in drug reimbursement decisions. However, the role of budget impact in such decisions is less obvious. Policy makers almost always demand a budget impact estimate yet seem reluctant to formally include budget impact as a rationing criterion. Health economists even reject budget impact as a legitimate criterion. For these reasons, it is important to examine its use in rationing decisions, and rationales underlying its use.

METHODS

We trace several rationales supporting the use of budget impact through a literature review, supplemented by semistructured interviews with eleven key stakeholders involved in drug reimbursement decisions in the Netherlands.

RESULTS

Budget impact arguments are used in certain instances, although policy makers appear uncomfortable with its use because well described rationales still are lacking. In addition, we identify the following rationales to support budget impact as a rationing criterion: opportunity costs, loss aversion, uncertainty and equal opportunity.

CONCLUSIONS

Budget impact plays a role in drug reimbursement decisions and has rationales to support its use. However, policy makers do not easily admit that they consider budget impact and are even reluctant to explicitly use budget impact as a formal criterion. A debate would strengthen the theoretical foundation of budget impact as a legitimate criterion in the context of drug reimbursement decisions. Such discussion of budget impact's role will also enhance policy-makers' accountability.

Willingness to pay for cancer prevention

Cancer inflicts great pain, burden and cost upon American society, and preventing cancer is important but not costless. The aim of this review was to explore the upper limits that American society is paying and appears willing to pay to prevent cancer, by enforced environmental regulations and implemented clinical practice guidelines. Cost-effectiveness studies of clinical and environmental cancer-prevention policies and programmes were identified through a comprehensive literature review and confirmed to be officially sanctioned and implemented, enforced or funded. Data were collected in 2005-6 and analysed in 2007. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for clinical prevention policies ranged from under $US2000 to over $US6 000 000 per life-year saved (LYS), exceeding $US100 000 per LYS for only 11 of 101 guidelines. Median ICERs for tobacco-related ($US3978/LYS), colorectal ($US22 694/LYS) and breast ($US25 687/LYS) cancer prevention were within generally accepted ranges and tended not to vary greatly, whereas those for prostate ($US73 603/LYS) and cervical ($US125 157/LYS) cancer-prevention policies were considerably higher and varied substantially more. In contrast, both the median and range of the environmental policies were enormous, with 90% exceeding $US100 000 per LYS, and ICERs ranging from $US61 004 to over $US24 billion per LYS. Notwithstanding a relatively large and accessible literature evaluating the cost effectiveness of clinical and environmental cancer-prevention policies as well as the availability of ICERs for the policies identified in this study, the apparent willingness to pay to prevent cancer in the US still varies greatly and can be extremely high, particularly for many of the environmental cancer-prevention policies.

Cost effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries: a review of the debates surrounding decision rules

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is increasingly important in public health decision making, including in low- and middle-income countries. The decision makers' valuation of a unit of health gain, or ceiling ratio (lambda), is important in CEA as the relative value against which acceptability is defined, although values are usually chosen arbitrarily in practice. Reference case estimates for lambda are useful to promote consistency, facilitate new developments in decision analysis, compare estimates against benefit-cost ratios from other economic sectors, and explicitly inform decisions about equity in global health budgets. The aim of this article is to discuss values for lambda used in practice, including derivation based on affordability expectations (such as $US150 per disability-adjusted life-year [DALY]), some multiple of gross national income or gross domestic product, and preference-elicitation methods, and explore the implications associated with each approach. The background to the debate is introduced, the theoretical bases of current values are reviewed, and examples are given of their application in practice. Advantages and disadvantages of each method for defining lambda are outlined, followed by an exploration of methodological and policy implications.

[Reviewing the literature of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis in health]

This study aims to contribute to the dissemination of the theoretical foundations for cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. It also provides backing for reflections on the implementation of studies leading to real benefits for both the population and health system management. Taking a historical perspective, and drawing on the work of renowned authors, the study provides an extensive literature review on cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis, from the theoretical formulation to the definition of methodological guidelines. The study also highlights the methodological controversies resulting from the diversity of theoretical approaches. As a result, it recommends conducting research on the theoretical foundations, and particularly the position of the extra-welfarists.

Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions

Health technology assessment (HTA) is a dynamic, rapidly evolving process, embracing different types of assessments that inform real-world decisions about the value (i.e., benefits, risks, and costs) of new and existing technologies. Historically, most HTA agencies have focused on producing high quality assessment reports that can be used by a range of decision makers. However, increasingly organizations are undertaking or commissioning HTAs to inform a particular resource allocation decision, such as listing a drug on a national or local formulary, defining the range of coverage under insurance plans, or issuing mandatory guidance on the use of health technologies in a particular healthcare system. A set of fifteen principles that can be used in assessing existing or establishing new HTA activities is proposed, providing examples from existing HTA programs. The principal focus is on those HTA activities that are linked to, or include, a particular resource allocation decision. In these HTAs, the consideration of both costs and benefits, in an economic evaluation, is critical. It is also important to consider the link between the HTA and the decision that will follow. The principles are organized into four sections: (i) “Structure” of HTA programs; (ii) “Methods” of HTA; (iii) “Processes for Conduct” of HTA; and (iv) “Use of HTAs in Decision Making.”