Use of economic evaluation in decision making: evidence and recommendations for improvement

Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries

BACKGROUND

Although health technology assessment (HTA) systems base their decision making process either on economic evaluations or comparative clinical benefit assessment, a central aim of recent approaches to value measurement, including value based assessment and pricing, points towards the incorporation of supplementary evidence and criteria that capture additional dimensions of value.

OBJECTIVE

To study the practices, processes and policies of value-assessment for new medicines across eight European countries and the role of HTA beyond economic evaluation and clinical benefit assessment.

METHODS

A systematic (peer review and grey) literature review was conducted using an analytical framework examining: (1) 'Responsibilities and structure of HTA agencies'; (2) 'Evidence and evaluation criteria considered in HTAs'; (3) 'Methods and techniques applied in HTAs'; and (4) 'Outcomes and implementation of HTAs'. Study countries were France, Germany, England, Sweden, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. Evidence from the literature was validated and updated through two rounds of feedback involving primary data collection from national experts.

RESULTS

All countries assess similar types of evidence; however, the specific criteria/endpoints used, their level of provision and requirement, and the way they are incorporated (e.g. explicitly vs. implicitly) varies across countries, with their relative importance remaining generally unknown. Incorporation of additional 'social value judgements' (beyond clinical benefit assessment) and economic evaluation could help explain heterogeneity in coverage recommendations and decision-making.

CONCLUSION

More comprehensive and systematic assessment procedures characterised by increased transparency, in terms of selection of evaluation criteria, their importance and intensity of use, could lead to more rational evidence-based decision-making, possibly improving efficiency in resource allocation, while also raising public confidence and fairness.

Economic evaluations on centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a systematic review of methods

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and appraise the quality of economic evaluations assessing centralisation of specialised healthcare services.

METHODS

A systematic review to identify economic evaluations on centralisation of any specialised healthcare service. Full economic evaluations comparing costs and consequences of centralisation of any specialised healthcare service were eligible for inclusion. Methodological characteristics of included studies were appraised using checklists adapted from recommended guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 64 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria. Two studies were conducted in the UK. Most of the studies used volume of activity as a proxy measure of centralisation. The methods used to assess centralisation were heterogeneous. Studies differed in terms of study design used and aspect of centralisation they considered. There were major limitations in studies. Only 12 studies reported the study perspective. Charges which are not true representation of costs were used by 17 studies to assess cost outcomes. Only 10 reported the detailed breakdown of the cost components used in their analysis. Discounting was necessary in 14 studies but was reported only in 7 studies. Sensitivity analyses were included by less than one-third of the studies. The applicability of the identified studies to a setting other than the one they were conducted in is questionable, given variations in the organisation of services and healthcare costs. Centralisation as a concept has also been variably and narrowly defined as activity of specific services which may not reflect the wider aspects of centralisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Confounded and biased information coming from studies without standardised methods may mislead decision-makers towards making wrong decisions on centralisation. It is important to improve the methodology and reporting of economic evaluations in order to provide more robust and transferable evidence. Wider aspects of healthcare centralisation should be considered in the estimates of costs and health outcomes.

Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal of Economic Evaluation Publications in Dentistry

Economic evaluation (EE) studies have been undertaken in dentistry since the late 20th century because economic data provide additional information to policy makers to develop guidelines and set future direction for oral health services. The objectives of this study were to assess the methodological quality of EEs in oral health. Electronic searching of Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database from 1975 to 2013 were undertaken to identify publications that include costs and outcomes in dentistry. Relevant reference lists were also searched for additional studies. Studies were retrieved and reviewed independently for inclusion by 3 authors. Furthermore, to appraise the EE methods, 1 author applied the Drummond 10-item (13-criteria) checklist tool to each study. Of the 114 publications identified, 79 studies were considered full EE and 35 partial. Twenty-eight studies (30%) were published between the years 2011 and 2013. Sixty-four (53%) studies focused on dental caries prevention or treatment. Median appraisal scores calculated for full and partial EE studies were 11 and 9 out of 13, respectively. Quality assessment scores showed that the quality of partial EE studies published after 2000 significantly improved (P = 0.02) compared to those published before 2000. Significant quality improvement was not found in full EE studies. Common methodological limitations were identified: absence of sensitivity analysis, discounting, and insufficient information on how costs and outcomes were measured and valued. EE studies in dentistry increased over the last 40 y in both quantity and quality, but a number of publications failed to satisfy some components of standard EE research methods, such as sensitivity analysis and discounting.