Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations Focused on Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: The Tortoise and the Cheetah

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to systematically review recent health economic evaluations (HEEs) of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in healthcare. The aim was to discuss pertinent methods, reporting quality and challenges for future implementation of AI in healthcare, and additionally advise future HEEs.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted in 2 databases (PubMed and Scopus) for articles published in the last 5 years. Two reviewers performed independent screening, full-text inclusion, data extraction, and appraisal. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Philips checklist were used for the quality assessment of included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 884 unique studies were identified; 20 were included for full-text review, covering a wide range of medical specialties and care pathway phases. The most commonly evaluated type of AI was automated medical image analysis models (n = 9, 45%). The prevailing health economic analysis was cost minimization (n = 8, 40%) with the costs saved per case as preferred outcome measure. A total of 9 studies (45%) reported model-based HEEs, 4 of which applied a time horizon >1 year. The evidence supporting the chosen analytical methods, assessment of uncertainty, and model structures was underreported. The reporting quality of the articles was moderate as on average studies reported on 66% of Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards items.

CONCLUSIONS

HEEs of AI in healthcare are limited and often focus on costs rather than health impact. Surprisingly, model-based long-term evaluations are just as uncommon as model-based short-term evaluations. Consequently, insight into the actual benefits offered by AI is lagging behind current technological developments.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Competencies for Professionals in Health Economics and Outcomes Research: The ISPOR Health Economics and Outcomes Research Competencies Framework

The need for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) has expanded globally, fueling demand for professionals trained in the discipline. By leveraging the expertise and perspectives of its members, the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) established a set of competencies for HEOR professionals. The resulting 41 competencies were organized into 13 topic domains that collectively comprise the ISPOR Health Economics and Outcomes Research Competencies Framework. In this article, we explain the collaborative process used by the ISPOR Institutional Council and Faculty Advisor Council to identify and validate the framework. This process entailed expertise from the council members combined with natural language processing to examine competencies included in ISPOR Career Center HEOR job postings, qualitative input from a focused Institutional Council-Faculty Advisor Council workgroup, and quantitative input from 3 surveys of mutually exclusive member groups: a general member survey to assess importance and relevance of each competency, a faculty member survey to assess the extent to which HEOR graduate degree programs cover each of the competencies, and a student member survey to assess exposure to each of the competencies. Organization of the competencies into topic domains was achieved by engaging the Education Council, which applied a taxonomy consistent with ISPOR's educational programming. The resulting ISPOR Health Economics and Outcomes Research Competencies Framework has the important potential of serving as a tool to guide academic curricula, fellowships, and continuing education programs, and assessment of job candidates. As the HEOR field advances, so do the job types and the breadth of topics in which professionals must demonstrate competence. Future work will entail revisiting the competencies to ensure their currency and comprehensiveness, and tailoring the framework according to major specialty areas.

Why the Economic Aspects of Healthcare are not Unique

Frequent claims suggest that healthcare and its production are not only different from other goods, but that they differ to such an extent that healthcare should be viewed as unique. Various features of healthcare, such as the lack of a perfect market and the existence of information asymmetry, are cited as evidence of this claim. However, such a view results from unduly emphasising the characteristics of healthcare as being atypical. This article redresses this imbalance by taking an alternative approach and examines the ways in which the economic aspects of healthcare are similar to those of other goods. It was found that the differential aspects are less distinctive than claimed and the economic aspects of healthcare are not unique.

Introduction to Metamodeling for Reducing Computational Burden of Advanced Analyses with Health Economic Models: A Structured Overview of Metamodeling Methods in a 6-Step Application Process

Metamodels can be used to reduce the computational burden associated with computationally demanding analyses of simulation models, although applications within health economics are still scarce. Besides a lack of awareness of their potential within health economics, the absence of guidance on the conceivably complex and time-consuming process of developing and validating metamodels may contribute to their limited uptake. To address these issues, this article introduces metamodeling to the wider health economic audience and presents a process for applying metamodeling in this context, including suitable methods and directions for their selection and use. General (i.e., non-health economic specific) metamodeling literature, clinical prediction modeling literature, and a previously published literature review were exploited to consolidate a process and to identify candidate metamodeling methods. Methods were considered applicable to health economics if they are able to account for mixed (i.e., continuous and discrete) input parameters and continuous outcomes. Six steps were identified as relevant for applying metamodeling methods within health economics: 1) the identification of a suitable metamodeling technique, 2) simulation of data sets according to a design of experiments, 3) fitting of the metamodel, 4) assessment of metamodel performance, 5) conducting the required analysis using the metamodel, and 6) verification of the results. Different methods are discussed to support each step, including their characteristics, directions for use, key references, and relevant R and Python packages. To address challenges regarding metamodeling methods selection, a first guide was developed toward using metamodels to reduce the computational burden of analyses of health economic models. This guidance may increase applications of metamodeling in health economics, enabling increased use of state-of-the-art analyses (e.g., value of information analysis) with computationally burdensome simulation models.

Use of Checklists in Reviews of Health Economic Evaluations, 2010 to 2018

OBJECTIVE

It is useful for reviewers of economic evaluations to assess quality in a manner that is consistent and comprehensive. Checklists can allow this, but there are concerns about their reliability and how they are used in practice. We aimed to describe how checklists have been used in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations.

METHODS

Meta-review with snowball sampling. We compiled a list of checklists for health economic evaluations and searched for the checklists' use in systematic reviews from January 2010 to February 2018. We extracted data regarding checklists used, stated checklist function, subject area, number of reviewers, and issues expressed about checklists.

RESULTS

We found 346 systematic reviews since 2010 that used checklists to assess economic evaluations. The most common checklist in use was developed in 1996 by Drummond and Jefferson, and the most common stated use of a checklist was quality assessment. Checklists and their use varied within subject areas; 223 reviews had more than one reviewer who used the checklist.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of checklists is inconsistent. Eighteen individual checklists have been used since 2010, many of which have been used in ways different from those originally intended, often without justification. Different systematic reviews in the same subject areas would benefit from using one checklist exclusively, using checklists as intended, and having 2 reviewers complete the checklist. This would increase the likelihood that results are transparent and comparable over time.

Use of Checklists in Reviews of Health Economic Evaluations, 2010 to 2018

OBJECTIVE

It is useful for reviewers of economic evaluations to assess quality in a manner that is consistent and comprehensive. Checklists can allow this, but there are concerns about their reliability and how they are used in practice. We aimed to describe how checklists have been used in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations.

METHODS

Meta-review with snowball sampling. We compiled a list of checklists for health economic evaluations and searched for the checklists' use in systematic reviews from January 2010 to February 2018. We extracted data regarding checklists used, stated checklist function, subject area, number of reviewers, and issues expressed about checklists.

RESULTS

We found 346 systematic reviews since 2010 that used checklists to assess economic evaluations. The most common checklist in use was developed in 1996 by Drummond and Jefferson, and the most common stated use of a checklist was quality assessment. Checklists and their use varied within subject areas; 223 reviews had more than one reviewer who used the checklist.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of checklists is inconsistent. Eighteen individual checklists have been used since 2010, many of which have been used in ways different from those originally intended, often without justification. Different systematic reviews in the same subject areas would benefit from using one checklist exclusively, using checklists as intended, and having 2 reviewers complete the checklist. This would increase the likelihood that results are transparent and comparable over time.

Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement

BACKGROUND

'Mapping' onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies.

METHODS

In the absence of previously published reporting checklists or reporting guidance documents, a de novo list of reporting items was created by a working group comprising six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. A two-round, modified Delphi survey, with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, was used to identify a list of essential reporting items from this larger list.

RESULTS

From the initial de novo list of 29 candidate items, a set of 23 essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorized within six sections: (1) title and abstract; (2) introduction; (3) methods; (4) results; (5) discussion; and (6) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS Explanation and Elaboration paper.

CONCLUSION

It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of the reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by seven health economics and quality-of-life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years' time.

Propensity-score matching in economic analyses: comparison with regression models, instrumental variables, residual inclusion, differences-in-differences, and decomposition methods

This paper examines the use of propensity score matching in economic analyses of observational data. Several excellent papers have previously reviewed practical aspects of propensity score estimation and other aspects of the propensity score literature. The purpose of this paper is to compare the conceptual foundation of propensity score models with alternative estimators of treatment effects. References are provided to empirical comparisons among methods that have appeared in the literature. These comparisons are available for a subset of the methods considered in this paper. However, in some cases, no pairwise comparisons of particular methods are yet available, and there are no examples of comparisons across all of the methods surveyed here. Irrespective of the availability of empirical comparisons, the goal of this paper is to provide some intuition about the relative merits of alternative estimators in health economic evaluations where nonlinearity, sample size, availability of pre/post data, heterogeneity, and missing variables can have important implications for choice of methodology. Also considered is the potential combination of propensity score matching with alternative methods such as differences-in-differences and decomposition methods that have not yet appeared in the empirical literature.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website ( www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website: (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting.

OBJECTIVE

The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.

METHODS

The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list.

RESULTS

Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).

CONCLUSIONS

We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.

Charting new HMO territory. The action was in the Northeast last week, as WellPoint moved on WellChoice, and HIP-Group Health merger announced

Consolidation in the industry made bigger strides last week, with two large managed-care deals and an information technology merger. While some fear the insurer deals will put even more price pressure on physicians and hospitals, the GE Healthcare-IDX merger drew some praise. James Thrall, left, of Massachusetts General Hospital, says it's likely to improve integration of radiology systems.

First principles for financial modeling in medicine

This article provides an overview of some of the core issues in business for physicians and is intended as an introduction. No prior understanding of business processes, finance, or accounting will be assumed or expected. The impetus for this work is the changing nature of medical practice in the United States in the past 20 years. Organizational changes and financial pressures challenge those of us in medicine as never before. For the vast majority of physicians, these realms are outside the scope of our traditional training and expertise. This article will provide an introduction to understanding these issues, starting with misconceptions about the overlap between medicine and finance. We will then introduce core concepts of cash vs. revenue, risk and uncertainty, and basic financial modeling.

Reading and interpreting economic evaluations in rheumatoid arthritis: an assessment of selected instruments for critical appraisal

OBJECTIVE

To describe and compare the relative attributes (reliability, ease of use, applicability, and relevance) of different assessment tools for economic analyses as they pertain to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) literature.

METHODS

An expert panel, comprising rheumatology researchers and clinicians, operationalized 2 economic appraisal instruments and applied them to 11 articles used for analysis. Each expert reviewed 3 articles, with each article independently reviewed by a pair of experts. A summary score for each article per appraisal instrument was calculated by dividing the number of items that received a "positive" response by the total number of items in the appraisal instrument.

RESULTS

Scores for each article were similar across reviewers and appraisal instruments.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for a more comprehensive approach for evaluating this rapidly growing body of economic literature that is not only valid and reliable, but also easy to apply and understand. Although consistency between reviewers was good on both guidelines, inter-guideline discrepancies were noted and reviewers reported some difficulty in using the operationalized format.

Tools for the practice manager

Managers must ensure that financial and human resources are used efficiently and effectively in the accomplishment of an organization's objectives. This involves establishing plans and performance standards and correcting deviations from those plans and standards.

The two cultures and the health care revolution. Commerce and professionalism in medical care

The current trend toward the invasion of commerce into medical care, an arena formerly under the exclusive purview of physicians, is seen by the authors as an epic clash of cultures between commercial and professional traditions in the United States. Both have contributed to US society for centuries; both have much to offer in strengthening medical care and reducing costs. At the same time, this invasion by commercialism of an arena formerly governed by professionalism poses severe hazards to the care of the sick and the welfare of communities: the health of the public and the public health. Some of these hazards are briefly listed and reviewed, together with a brief outline of standards that might be established nationally to abate these hazards. A national agency in the private sector is proposed, the National Council on Medical Care, to set standards and provide an approval mechanism that would then be the basis for state enforcement through licensing. Two models for such an initiative are outlined, one based on the National Academy of Sciences as the initiating force, and the other on an initiative provided by a consortium of national charitable foundations interested in health policy. In both cases, wide support from the national foundations would be essential. In the case of the academy model, some government funds might also be available without loss of the freedom of a private-sector initiative. Some operational options for such a national council, its membership, and the conduct of its affairs are briefly outlined as a basis for further discussion.

Medicine as business and profession

This paper analyzes one dimension of the frequently alleged contradiction between treating medicine as a business and as a profession, namely the incompatibility between viewing the physician patient relationship in economic and moral terms. The paper explores the utilitarian foundations of economics and the deontological foundations of professional medical ethics as one source for the business/medicine conflict that influences beliefs about the proper understanding of the therapeutic relationship. It then, focuses on the contrast and distinction between medicine as business and profession by critically analyzing the classic economic view of the moral status of medicine articulated by Kenneth Arrow. The paper concludes with a discussion of some advantages associated with regarding medicine as a business.