Cost-effectiveness analysis: developing nations left behind

Health Technology Assessment capacity development in low- and middle-income countries: Experiences from the international units of HITAP and NICE

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is policy research that aims to inform priority setting and resource allocation. HTA is increasingly recognized as a useful policy tool in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where there is a substantial need for evidence to guide Universal Health Coverage policies, such as benefit coverage, quality improvement interventions and quality standards, all of which aim at improving the efficiency and equity of the healthcare system. The Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Thailand, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), UK, are national HTA organizations providing technical support to governments in LMICs to build up their priority setting capacity. This paper draws lessons from their capacity building programs in India, Colombia, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Such experiences suggest that it is not only technical capacity, for example analytical techniques for conducting economic evaluation, but also management, coordination and communication capacity that support the generation and use of HTA evidence in the respective settings. The learned lessons may help guide the development of HTA capacity in other LMICs.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Methodologies Between Resource-Limited and Resource-Rich Countries: A Case of Rotavirus Vaccines

BACKGROUND

For more than three decades, the number and influence of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions have been increasing and gaining attention from a policy level. However, concerns about the credibility of these studies exist, particularly in studies from low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). This analysis was performed to explore economic evaluations conducted in LMICs in terms of methodological variations, quality of reporting and evidence used for the analyses. These results were compared with those studies conducted in high-income countries (HICs).

METHODS

Rotavirus vaccine was selected as a case study, as it is one of the interventions that many studies in both settings have explored. The search to identify individual studies on rotavirus vaccines was performed in March 2014 using MEDLINE and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. Only full economic evaluations, comparing cost and outcomes of at least two alternatives, were included for review. Selected criteria were applied to assess methodological variation, quality of reporting and quality of evidence used.

RESULTS

Eighty-five studies were included, consisting of 45 studies in HICs and 40 studies in LMICs. Seventy-five percent of the studies in LMICs were published by researchers from HICs. Compared with studies in HICs, the LMIC studies showed less methodological variety. In terms of the quality of reporting, LMICs had a high adherence to technical criteria, but HICs ultimately proved to be better. The same trend applied for the quality of evidence used.

CONCLUSION

Although the quality of economic evaluations in LMICs was not as high as those from HICs, it is of an acceptable level given several limitations that exist in these settings. However, the results of this study may not reflect the fact that LMICs have developed a better research capacity in the domain of health economics, given that most of the studies were in theory led by researchers from HICs. Putting more effort into fostering the development of both research infrastructure and capacity building as well as encouraging local engagement in LMICs is thus necessary.

Health technology assessment in low- and middle-income countries: a landscape assessment

Objectives

Health technology assessment (HTA) for a wide range of healthcare technologies is an essential component of well-functioning health systems. Knowledge of the use of HTA in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited.

Methods

We performed a survey of HTA in selected LMICs. We interviewed key stakeholders on the use, conduct and challenges of performing HTA in their countries. We performed mixed-methods analyses to identify, characterize and describe HTA and how it relates to gross domestic product and government effectiveness.

Key findings

Of the 19 countries selected for participation, stakeholders in 12 (63%) countries responded to the survey – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo), Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland and Vietnam. Eight countries surveyed have some form of informal HTA activity conducted by stakeholders including academia, industry, government and the World Health Organization. There is evidence of knowledge sharing with five countries using HTAs from their neighbouring countries or from more developed countries. We found no evidence of formal HTA performed through dedicated, independent bodies in the LMICs surveyed. There was some evidence that HTA was moderately related to GDP per capita and strongly related to degree of centralization (government effectiveness). Respondents identified resources, both financial and human, as challenges to conducting HTA.

Conclusions

Formal HTA appears to be non-existent or limited in the LMICs surveyed but some evidence of informal HTA exists. Efforts to formalize HTA and to use existing HTA evidence will improve the quality of regulatory, coverage, formulary and reimbursement decisions, and individual and public health.

Key actors' perspectives on cost-effectiveness analysis in Uganda: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a useful tool for allocation of constrained resources, yet CEA methodologies are rarely taught or implemented in developing nations. We aimed to assess exposure to, and interest in CEA, and identify barriers to implementation in Uganda.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was carried out in Uganda using a newly developed self-administered questionnaire (via online and paper based approaches), targeting the main health care actors as identified by a previous study.

RESULTS

Overall, there was a 68% response rate, with a 92% (69/75) response rate among the paper-based respondents compared to a 40% (26/65) rate with the online respondents. Seventy eight percent (74/95) of the respondents had no exposure to CEA. None of those with a master of medicine degree had any CEA exposure, and 80% of technical officers, who are directly involved in policy formulation, had no CEA exposure. Barriers to CEA identified by more than 50% of the participants were: lack of information technology (IT) infrastructure (hardware and software); lack of local experts in the field of CEA; lack of or limited local data; limited CEA training in schools; equity or ethical issues; and lack of training grants incorporating CEA. 93% reported a lot of interest in learning to conduct CEA, and over 95% felt CEA was important for clinical decision making and policy formulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Among health care actors in Uganda, there is very limited exposure to, but substantial interest in conducting CEA and including it in clinical decision making and health care policy formation. Capacity to undertake CEA needs to be built through incorporation into medical training and use of regional approaches.

Comparing cost-effectiveness results for a vaccine across different countries worldwide: what can we learn?

INTRODUCTION

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) using country-specific thresholds tied to gross domestic product (GDP) might not be appropriate in countries with low healthcare investment and a high disease burden as a consequence.

METHODS

Using data from previously published CEA of rotavirus vaccination across nine countries worldwide, we calculated the cost neutral price (Pn) for the new intervention that reflects the price resulting in no net increase in health care costs compared with the current situation, and the maximum price (Pm) obtained with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at the threshold value of 1×GDP/capita.

RESULTS

In countries with low GDP/capita, the paradoxical finding for rotavirus vaccination is that the Pm is much higher than in countries with a high GDP/capita. On the other hand, the Pn for the low GDP/capita countries is much lower than for high GDP/capita countries because of the low investment in health care.

CONCLUSION

In countries with low healthcare investment and a high disease burden, the difference between the Pn and Pm for rotavirus vaccine which is the price range within which the ICER is below the World Health Organization (WHO) threshold value, is large. One reason could be that the WHO threshold value may not properly account for the local opportunity cost of health care expenditures. Therefore, either alternative threshold values should be selected or alternative economic assessment tools should be considered, such as budget optimisation or return on investment, if we want to communicate about real economic value of new vaccines in those countries.

Policy options for pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing: issues for low- and middle-income countries

Pharmaceutical expenditure is rising globally. Most high-income countries have exercised pricing or purchasing strategies to address this pressure. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), however, usually have less regulated pharmaceutical markets and often lack feasible pricing or purchasing strategies, notwithstanding their wish to effectively manage medicine budgets. In high-income countries, most medicines payments are made by the state or health insurance institutions. In LMICs, most pharmaceutical expenditure is out-of-pocket which creates a different dynamic for policy enforcement. The paucity of rigorous studies on the effectiveness of pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing strategies makes it especially difficult for policy makers in LMICs to decide on a course of action. This article reviews published articles on pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing policies. Many policy options for medicine pricing and purchasing have been found to work but they also have attendant risks. No one option is decisively preferred; rather a mix of options may be required based on country-specific context. Empirical studies in LMICs are lacking. However, risks from any one policy option can reasonably be argued to be greater in LMICs which often lack strong legal systems, purchasing and state institutions to underpin the healthcare system. Key factors are identified to assist LMICs improve their medicine pricing and purchasing systems.

Pharmacoeconomic education for pharmacy students in bosnia and herzegovina

Pharmacoeconomic (PE) is becoming more important in pharmaceutical reimbursement decision and drug evaluation. To ensure its appropriate application, conduction and assessment of studies it is important to have well trained and educated professionals. Pharmaceutical faculties all over the world have established PE in under- and post-graduate curricula's. In this pilot research we examine situation in B&H. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, education in this field is poor and only one faculty for pharmacy has introduced PE as subject in its program. Objective of this study is to explore understanding of PE and its concept and analysis and to evaluated adopted knowledge among graduate (fifth year/tenth semester) pharmacy students who have listened subject "pharmacoeconomics" in previous semester. A self-administered questionnaire was developed consisted of 12 questions and survey was conducted among students. Results are analyzed in MS Excel and we used descriptive statistics. Even graduate students have lessons from PE they understand its scope and definition, but do not feel capable for conducting PE studies, but show interest in additional education and getting competencies in this field finding it applicable in their future professional engagements.

Pharmacoeconomic education in Egyptian schools of pharmacy

OBJECTIVE. To investigate the status of pharmacoeconomics education in Egyptian schools of pharmacy and compile and construct recommendations on how Egypt and similar countries could improve their educational infrastructure in pharmacoeconomics. METHODS. A modified version of a published survey instrument was sent to all schools of pharmacy in Egypt (n= 24). The data were assessed to identify associations between offering pharmacoeconomics education and school characteristics. RESULTS. Usable responses were obtained from 20 schools (response rate: 83%). Only 7 schools offered pharmacoeconomics education, with a median of 20 teaching hours per semester. Among respondents, 4 schools had instructors with some training in pharmacoeconomics and only 1 school had a faculty member with PhD-level training. Only 4 schools offered graduate-level courses in pharmacoeconomics. Eight additional schools expressed interest in teaching pharmacoeconomics in the near future. Having 1 or more faculty members with training in pharmacoeconomics was significantly associated with offering pharmacoeconomics education (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS. Pharmacoeconomics education in Egypt is still in its infancy and there exists a unique opportunity for well-trained instructors and researchers to fill this gap. Providing structured pharmacoeconomics education to student pharmacists, researchers, and stakeholders can help countries establish an integrated scientific community that can start applying pharmacoeconomic evidence to healthcare decision-making.

EARLY AWARENESS AND ALERT ACTIVITIES IN LATIN AMERICA: CURRENT SITUATION IN FOUR COUNTRIES

Objectives: The aim of this study was to briefly describe the current state of early awareness and alert (EAA) activities and systems in four Latin-American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico).

Methods: Key informants were selected and completed an open questionnaire that included the following domains: current state of EAA activities and systems in each country, potential role for EAA systems in the health system, and future EAA projects that are currently being considered.

Results: In all four countries, health technology assessment (HTA) processes are used to prioritize the use of health resources, albeit at varying degrees and with different mechanisms and methodologies. EAA activities are still limited and there are virtually no institutions or units with specific functions explicitly devoted to EAA activity. However, most countries have developed some initial forms of EAA systems. Being in its initial stages there is no clear differentiation between these early awareness activities and other HTA functions, and no specific methodologies or processes are used to anticipate the emergence of new technologies. Consequently, early evaluation of technologies generally occurs in a reactive manner, after they have been introduced in the market and under the pressure of different stakeholders.

Conclusions: There is growing awareness that the early identification and assessment of emerging technologies should be an integral part of HTA and the decision-making process. Many initiatives are currently focusing on building partnerships between the various regulatory bodies involved in the incorporation of technologies at national levels. It is reasonable to foresee that EAA activities will continue to develop and expand in the region.

Economic evaluation and the Jordan Rational Drug List: an exploratory study of national-level priority setting

OBJECTIVES

To explore the extent of and barriers to the use of economic evaluation in compiling the Jordan Rational Drug List in the health care system of Jordan.

METHODS

The research reported in this article involved a case study of the Jordan Rational Drug List. Data collection methods included semi-structured interviews with decision makers and analysis of secondary documentary sources. The case study was supplemented by additional interviews with a small number of Jordanian academics involved in the production of economic evaluation.

RESULTS

The research found that there was no formal requirement for cost-effectiveness information submitted as part of the decision-making process for the inclusion of new technologies on the Jordan Rational Drug List. Both decision makers and academics suggested that economic evidence was not influential in formulary decisions. This is unusual for national formulary bodies. The study identified a number of barriers that prevent substantive and routine use of economic evaluation. While some of these echo findings of previous studies, others-notably the extent to which the sectional interests of clinical groups and commercial (pharmaceutical) industry exert undue influence over decision making-more obviously result from the specific Jordanian context.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluation was not found to be influential in the Jordan Rational Drug List. Recommendations for improvement include enhancing capacity in relation to generating, accessing, and/or applying health economic analysis to priority setting decisions. There is a further need to incentivize the use of economic evaluation, and this requires that organizational and structural impediments be removed.

TRANSFERABILITY OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORTS IN LATIN AMERICA: AN EXPLORATORY SURVEY OF RESEARCHERS AND DECISION MAKERS

Introduction: HTA agencies, especially in developing countries, are under resourced and unable to conduct the desired amount of assessments. Adapting HTA reports (HTAs) from other jurisdictions is an alternative for saving resources.

Objectives: To explore HTA transferability experiences in Latin-America and Caribbean (LAC): are decision makers (DMs) using HTAs from other jurisdictions? Are researchers adapting HTAs when developing local reports? How useful is the information found in HTAs from other jurisdictions?

Methods: Web-based survey sent to 13031 HTA researchers and DMs.

Results: We received 671 responses from 19 countries. DMs reported using HTAs from other jurisdictions to guide decisions in the majority of the situations: 52.6 percent HTAs from outside LAC (e.g., Europe), 23.1 percent from other LAC countries, and only 24.3 percent HTAs from their own countries. 63 percent of researchers reported using HTAs from other jurisdictions. Usefulness scored significantly higher for HTAs from other jurisdictions as compared to local HTAs (7.1 versus 6.0 in a 1–10 scale; p < .01). Both DMs and researchers considered the information regarding safety and effectiveness more applicable than the information on social aspects, or economic evaluation. Barriers that limit transferability had significantly different scores for HTAs from other LAC countries as compared to those from regions outside LAC (i.e., poor methodological quality 6.7 versus 5.3, different epidemiological context 6.0 versus 7.4; all p < .01).

Conclusions: HTAs from outside the region are commonly used. However, DMs and researchers agreed that HTAs from LAC had the greatest potential for transferability, provided that barriers such as poor methodological quality could be overcome.

Economics of switching to second-line antiretroviral therapy with lopinavir/ritonavir in Africa: estimates based on DART trial results and costs for Uganda and Kenya

BACKGROUND

Substantial immunological improvement has been reported for HIV-infected patients who switch from a failing regimen to a protease inhibitor regimen with Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r). We use decision analysis modeling to estimate health and economic consequences expected from this switch.

METHODS

A Markov model combined best evidence for CD4(+) T-cell response, infectious disease events, death rates, and quality of life for African populations with Kenyan and Ugandan data on drug and medical care costs. We estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of switching to an LPV/r-based regimen versus remaining on a failed first antiretroviral (ARV) regimen or discontinuing all ARV drugs. The model assumes concurrent use of cotrimoxazole, and 4% annual loss to follow-up. Local effects due to prevalence of malaria and tuberculosis are included in the model. Sensitivity analysis examines the effects of varying disease, ARV therapy and CD4(+) T-cell cost, and ART discontinuation assumptions.

RESULTS

The base model estimates an improvement of 20 months in average survival for the LPV/r group. The respective LPV/r ICER for Kenya is $1483 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) compared to $1673/QALY for Uganda. The ICERs increase to $1517 and $1707, respectively, if CD4(+) T-cell tests cost $25. The model comparing switching to LPV/r to discontinuing all ARV drugs decreases both costs and benefits proportionally for the treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

The estimates are clearly below the most stringent World Health Organization benchmark for cost-effectiveness for Kenya and within the acceptable range of cost-effectiveness for Uganda. Thus, the switch to second-line therapy with LPV/r in these countries appears to be a cost-effective use of resources.

Using economic evaluation in policy decision-making in Asian countries: mission impossible or mission probable?

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

This article provides an extensive review of literature and an in-depth analysis aimed at introducing potential applications of economic evaluation and at addressing the barriers that could prohibit the use or diminish the usefulness of economic evaluation in Asian settings. It also proposes the probable solutions to overcome these barriers.

RESULTS

Potential uses of economic evaluation include the development of public reimbursement lists, price negotiation, the development of clinical practice guidelines, and communicating with prescribers. Two types of barriers to using economic evaluation, namely barriers relating to the production of economic evaluation data and decision context-related barriers, are identified. For the first sort of barrier, the development of the national guidelines, the development of economic evaluation database, planning and use of economic evaluation in a systematic manner, and prioritization of topics for assessment are recommended. Furthermore, educating potential users and the public, making the economic evaluation process transparent and participatory, and incorporating other health preferences into the decision-making framework have been promoted to conquer decision context-related barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems practically impossible to adopt other countries' approaches using economic evaluation for priority setting because of several constraints specifically related to the context of each setting. Nevertheless, given a better understanding of its resistance, and proper policies and strategies to overcome the barriers applied, it is more than probable that a method with system/mechanisms specifically designed to fit particular settings will be used.

Cost-Effectiveness and Resource Allocation (CERA) - directions for the future

The journal Cost-Effectiveness and Resource Allocation (CERA) is now in its seventh year, and is an excellent example of how open access publishing can improve dissemination. Now the journal is through its infancy, it is time to reflect on its orientation and to define the strategy for the years to come. Firstly, the journal will pay particular attention to stimulating and publishing studies originating from low- and middle-income countries. Second, CERA will continue to solicit contributions originating from high-income countries, but with the caveat that such studies should be of interest to the broad international readership of the journal. Third, the journal encourages submissions on methodological work from any setting, that is generalisable between low-, middle-, and high income countries. Fourth, CERA recognizes the development of national health accounts and expenditure tracking as a first step to improved resource allocation, and solicit manuscripts of this nature. Finally, CERA recognizes that cost and cost-effectiveness analysis alone may not provide sufficient information to decision makers to guide their choices on the allocation of resources, and therefore encourages submission of studies that advance the broader field of priority-setting.

Barriers to generalizability of health economic evaluations in Latin America and the Caribbean region

Use and acceptance of health economic evaluations (HEEs) has been much greater in developed than in developing nations. Nevertheless, while developing countries lag behind in the development of HEE methods, they could benefit from the progress made in other countries and concentrate on ways in which existing methods can be used or would need to be modified to fulfill their specific needs. HEEs, as context-specific tools, are not easily generalizable from setting to setting. Existing studies regarding generalizability and transferability of HEEs have primarily been conducted in developed countries. Therefore, a legitimate question for policy makers in Latin America and the Caribbean region (LAC) is to what extent HEEs conducted in industrialized economies and in LAC are generalizable to LAC (trans-regional) and to other LAC countries (intra-regional), respectively. We conducted a systematic review, searching the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Office of Health Economics Health Economic Evaluation Database (HEED), LILACS (Latin America health bibliographic database) and NEVALAT (Latin American Network on HEE) to identify HEEs published between 1980 and 2004. We included individual patient- and model-based HEEs (cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit and cost-consequences analyses) that involved at least one LAC country. Data were extracted by three independent reviewers using a checklist validated by regional and international experts. From 521 studies retrieved, 72 were full HEEs (39% randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 32% models, 17% non-randomized studies and 12% mixed trial-modeling approach). Over one-third of identified studies did not specifically report the type of HEE. Cost-effectiveness and cost-consequence analyses accounted for almost 80% of the studies. The three Latin American countries with the highest participation in HEE studies were Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. While we found relatively good standards of reporting the study's question, population, interventions, comparators and conclusions, the overall reporting was poor, and evidence of unfamiliarity with international guidelines was evident (i.e. absence of incremental analysis, of discounting long-term costs and effects). Analysis or description of place-to-place variability was infrequent. Of the 49 trial-based analyses, 43% were single centre, 33% multinational and 18% multicentre national. Main reporting problems included issues related to sample representativeness, data collection and data analysis. Of the 32 model-based studies (most commonly using epidemiological models), main problems included the inadequacy of search strategy, range selection for sensitivity analysis and theoretical justifications. There are a number of issues associated with the reporting and methodology used in multinational and local HEE studies relevant for LAC that preclude the assessment of their generalizability and potential transferability. Although the quality of reporting and methodology used in model-based HEEs was somewhat higher than those from trial-based HEEs, economic evaluation methodology was usually weak and less developed than the analysis of clinical data. Improving these aspects in LAC HEE studies is paramount to maximizing their potential benefits such as increasing the generalizability/transferability of their results.

Strengthening cost-effectiveness analysis in Thailand through the establishment of the health intervention and technology assessment program

Capacity is limited in the developing world to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of health interventions. In Thailand, there have been concerted efforts to promote evidence-based policy making, including the introduction of economic appraisals within health technology assessment (HTA). This paper reviews the experience of this lower middle-income country, with an emphasis on the creation of the Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), including its mission, management structures and activities. Over the past 3 decades, several HTA programmes were implemented in Thailand but not sustained or developed further into a national institute. As a response to increasing demands for HTA evidence including CEA information, the HITAP was created in 2007 as an affiliate unit of a semi-autonomous research arm of the Ministry of Public Health. An advantage of this HTA programme over previous initiatives was that it was hosted by a research institute with long-term experience in conducting health systems and policy research and capacity building of its research staff, and excellent research and policy networks. To deal with existing impediments to conducting health economics research, the main strategies of the HITAP were carefully devised to include not only capacity strengthening of its researchers and administrative staff, but also the development of essential elements for the country's health economic evaluation methodology. These included, for example, methodological guidelines, standard protocols and benchmarks for resource allocation, many of which have been adopted by national policy-making bodies including the three major public health insurance plans. Networks and collaborations with domestic and foreign institutes have been sought as a means of resource mobilization and exchange. Although the HITAP is well financed by a number of government agencies and international organizations, the programme is vulnerable to shortages of qualified research staff, as most staff work on a part-time or temporary basis. To enhance the utilization of its research findings by policy makers, practitioners and consumers, the HITAP has adopted the principles of technical excellence, policy relevance, transparency, effective communication and participation of key stakeholders. These principles have been translated into good practice at every step of HTA management. In 2007 and 2008, the HITAP carried out assessments of a wide range of health products, medical procedures and public health initiatives. Although CEA and other economic evaluation approaches were employed in these studies, the tools and underlying efficiency goal were considered inadequate to provide complete information for prioritization. As suggested by official stakeholders, some of the projects investigated broader issues of management, feasibility, performance and socio-political implications of interventions. As yet, it is unclear what role HITAP research and associated recommendations have played in policy decisions. It is hoped that the lessons drawn on the creation of the HITAP and its experience during the first 2 years, as well as information on its main strategies and management structures, may be helpful for other resource-constrained countries when considering how best to strengthen their capacity to conduct economic appraisals of health technologies and interventions.