Adaptability costs in immune escape variants of vesicular stomatitis virus.

I. Novella,Dorothy L Gilbertson,B. Borrego,E. Domingo,J. Holland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.VIRUSRES.2004.06.007

IF: 6.286

Virus Research

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

An Introduction to the Main Types of Economic Evaluations Used for Informing Priority Setting and Resource Allocation in Healthcare: Key Features, Uses, and Limitations

Hugo C. Turner,Rachel A. Archer,Laura E. Downey,Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai,Kalipso Chalkidou,Mark Jit,Yot Teerawattananon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.722927

IF: 5.2

2021-08-25

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:Economic evidence is increasingly being used for informing health policies. However, the underlining principles of health economic analyses are not always fully understood by non-health economists, and inappropriate types of analyses, as well as inconsistent methodologies, may be being used for informing health policy decisions. In addition, there is a lack of open access information and methodological guidance targeted to public health professionals, particularly those based in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive and accessible introduction to economic evaluations for public health professionals with a focus on LMIC settings. We cover the main principles underlining the most common types of full economic evaluations used in healthcare decision making in the context of priority setting (namely cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses), and outline their key features, strengths and weaknesses. It is envisioned that this will help those conducting such analyses, as well as stakeholders that need to interpret their output, gain a greater understanding of these methods and help them select/distinguish between the different approaches. In particular, we highlight the need for greater awareness of the methods used to place a monetary value on the health benefits of interventions, and the potential for such estimates to be misinterpreted. Specifically, the economic benefits reported are typically an approximation, summarising the health benefits experienced by a population monetarily in terms of individual preferences or potential productivity gains, rather than actual realisable or fiscal monetary benefits to payers or society.

public, environmental & occupational health
Mental health services in Belgium

Ruben Willems,Kirsten Catthoor,Olivia Cools,Manuel Morrens,Piet Snoeck,Juan Tecco,Geert Dom

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2024.2386052

2024-08-18

International Review of Psychiatry

Abstract:Belgium exhibits a complex governmental structure with overlapping yet fragmented healthcare service responsibilities across various levels. The past decade has been characterized with major political reforms, and a continuing road towards deinstitutionalization, enhancing care intensity, and fortifying primary care services. This article provides a concise overview of recent epidemiological trends in Belgium, the organizational landscape of mental healthcare, the roles and financing mechanisms of key institutions and professions, and a selection of specific topics such as euthanasia. Mental healthcare has ascended on the political agenda with a declaration of interest to eliminate a historical underfunding. This is urgent because over one fifth of the adult population struggles with mental issues on a yearly basis, with suicide rates 50 to 60% above the European average. Beyond the individual toll, there is a burning societal impact, reflected in the 7.4 billion euro directly spend within the healthcare sector, alongside substantial additional costs incurred through social security and productivity losses. Policy measures are needed to tackle contemporary challenges such as the attraction, recruiting and retention of skilled healthcare personnel, ensuring equitable remuneration across institutions and professions, and addressing critical areas such as forensic, transcultural, and transition psychiatry.

psychiatry
Estimating and Rewarding the Value of Healthcare Interventions Beyond the Healthcare Sector: A Conceptual Framework

Askal Ayalew Ali,Amit Kulkarni,Sandipan Bhattacharjee,Vakaramoko Diaby

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01392-w

2024-05-18

PharmacoEconomics

Abstract:Evaluating healthcare interventions for their impacts beyond health outcomes may result in recognition of changes in human capital, income level, tax revenue, and government spending, which could affect economic growth and population health. In this paper, we document instances where current health technology assessment (HTA) practices fail to account for the impacts of healthcare interventions on broader society beyond the healthcare sector.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services,economics
Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields—a systematic literature review

Sarah Louise Elin Roberts,Andy Healey,Nick Sevdalis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0901-7

2019-07-15

Implementation Science

Abstract:<h3 class="Heading">Background</h3><p class="Para">Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices represent a cost-effective use of limited resources. We report a systematic review and critical appraisal of the application of health economic methods in improvement/implementation research.</p><h3 class="Heading">Method</h3><p class="Para">A systematic literature search identified 1668 papers across the Agris, Embase, Global Health, HMIC, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, MEDLINE and EconLit databases between 2004 and 2016. s were screened in Rayyan database, and key data extracted into Microsoft Excel. Evidence was critically appraised using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) framework.</p><h3 class="Heading">Results</h3><p class="Para">Thirty studies were included—all health economic studies that included implementation or improvement as a part of the evaluation. Studies were conducted mostly in Europe (62%) or North America (23%) and were largely hospital-based (70%). The field was split between improvement (<em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">N</em> = 16) and implementation (<em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">N</em> = 14) studies. The most common intervention evaluated (43%) was staffing reconfiguration, specifically changing from physician-led to nurse-led care delivery. Most studies (<em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">N</em> = 19) were ex-post economic evaluations carried out empirically—of those, 17 were cost effectiveness analyses. We found four cost utility analyses that used economic modelling rather than empirical methods. Two cost-consequence analyses were also found. Specific implementation costs considered included costs associated with staff training in new care delivery pathways, the impacts of new processes on patient and carer costs and the costs of developing new care processes/pathways. Over half (55%) of the included studies were rated 'good' on QHES. Study quality was boosted through inclusion of appropriate comparators and reporting of incremental analysis (where relevant); and diminished through use of post-hoc subgroup analysis, limited reporting of the handling of uncertainty and justification for choice of discount rates.</p><h3 class="Heading">Conclusions</h3><p class="Para">The quantity of published economic evaluations applied to the field of improvement and implementation research remains modest; however, quality is overall good. Implementation and improvement scientists should work closely with health economists to consider costs associated with improvement interventions and their associated implementation strategies. We offer a set of concrete recommendations to facilitate this endeavour.</p>

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Use of economic evaluation in local health care decision-making in England: a qualitative investigation

Oya Eddama,Joanna Coast

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.06.004

IF: 3.255

Health Policy

Abstract:Objective: To explore decision-making and the use of economic evaluation at the local health care decision-making level in England (UK). Methods: Data collection was over a 16-month period (January 2003 to April 2004). Data collection comprised 29 in-depth interviews with a range of decision makers, 13 observations of decision-making meetings, and analysis of documents produced at meetings. A constant comparative approach was used to identify broad themes and sub-themes arising from the data. Data were analysed using Microsoft Word. Results: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance provides the main way in which economic evaluation is used at a local level in the UK, although following NICE guidance is often regarded as detrimental to pursuing local priorities. Other than through NICE, economic evaluation is not considered at the local level; we found no evidence for use at the meeting group (by individuals). Although decision makers appear to understand notions of scarcity, with some also referring to value for money, the process of decision-making departs from these principles in practice. Disinvestment decisions are not made nor are decisions weighted against pre-defined criteria. Options appraisal is conducted, but it does not embody the principles of economic evaluation, since options are not considered in terms of their costs and benefits and opportunity cost is not accounted for. There appear to be two reasons why economic evaluation is not used at the local level: (1) the nature of management decisions concerned with the employment of extra staff and new equipment, rather than the choice of medicines or specific interventions usually assessed in published economic evaluation; (2) lack of awareness of the economic evaluation approach to decision-making. These two factors point to a lack of freedom in decision-making at the local level and a lack of understanding of how priority setting can be achieved in practice. Conclusion: A more detailed and rigorous approach to prioritisation at the local level is required. Whilst, PCTs have been given greater responsibility for priority setting, they lack the necessary power and understanding of the ways in which long term solutions to problems in health care can be achieved. Economics can be a valuable asset to priority setting and has already filtered into the jargon used by decision makers. Whilst most concepts are understood, the leap to adopting these concepts into the practice of decision-making needs to be made.
The broader benefits of vaccines: methodologies for inclusion in economic evaluation

Steven Simoens,Sandy Tubeuf,Nicolas Dauby,Olivier Ethgen,Sophie Marbaix,Marjan Willaert,Jeroen Luyten

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14760584.2024.2387599

Abstract:Background: As the societal value of vaccines is increasingly recognized, there is a need to examine methodological approaches that could be used to integrate these various benefits in the economic evaluation of a vaccine. Research design and methods: A literature review and two expert panel meetings explored methodologies to value herd immunity, health spillover effects (beyond herd immunity), impact on antimicrobial resistance, productivity, and equity implications of vaccines. Results: The consideration of broader benefits of vaccines in economic evaluation is complicated and necessitates technical expertise. Whereas methodologies to account for herd immunity and work productivity are relatively well established, approaches to investigate equity implications are developing and less frequently applied. Modeling the potential impact on antimicrobial resistance not only depends on the multi-faceted causal relationship between vaccination and resistance but also on data availability. Conclusions: Different methods are available to value the broad impact of vaccines, and it is important that analysts are aware of their strengths and limitations and justify their choice of method. In the future, we expect that an increasing number of economic evaluations will consider the broader benefits of vaccines as part of their base-case analysis or in sensitivity analyses.
Economic evaluation and mental health: sparse past. fertile future?

Martin Knapp

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-176x(199912)2:4<163::aid-mhp64>3.0.co;2-1

1999-12-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Demands for economic inputs to mental health policy-making, practice decisions and research evaluations have grown considerably in recent years, but the overall supply response has been modest and uneven. AIMS: This paper examines the key historical phases in the development of mental health economics research, and what they imply for the way economics is received and employed. Focusing on the quest for cost-effectiveness, the paper considers challenges for mental health economics. METHODS: An informal review of the growing demand for mental health economics (and how that demand has been expressed), and how economists have responded. RESULTS: Five historical development phases characterize this growth. Initially, the dominant feature is innocence or neglect of scarcity. Cost measures are rarely calculated, cost-effectiveness is not part of the decision-making lexicon and the potential for inefficiency is huge. In the second phase, innocence turns to criticism of attempts to introduce resource rationality, and many clinicians actively reject economics. Health is seen as priceless, and not to be compromised by the pursuit of efficiency. After a period of reluctance there follows impetuosity as the need for economic insights is recognized, but the search for data is desperate and undiscriminating. Poor quality research is conducted, with the risk that decisions are misinformed and perhaps damaging. Once again, resources are inappropriately used. Next follows the constructive development phase: previous mistakes are appreciated and the standards of evaluation improve markedly. Studies are better designed, more likely to be integrated into clinical or policy evaluations, carefully conducted and sensibly interpreted. Inefficiency should be reduced, along with inequity. Finally, there is perhaps a nirvana-like fifth phase in which sophisticated economic studies are widely undertaken, where systematic reviews and meta-analyses help to reveal the wider picture and where findings are readily available to clinicians, managers and providers. Whether such a stage is attainable is open to question. DISCUSSION: Although the number and sophistication of economic evaluations have both increased noticeably over recent years, there remain imbalances. There is little economics evidence on care arrangements or treatments for dementia, most of the neuroses and the disorders of childhood and adolescence. There are many fewer good evaluations of psychological interventions than of drug treatments. Geographically, few economic evaluations are conducted outside Western Europe, North America or Australasia. IMPLICATIONS FOR DECISION-MAKERS AND RESEARCH: Many challenges consequently face the next generation of mental health economics evaluations, both for research economists and for those health care decision-makers who find themselves increasingly having to draw on economics evidence. One challenge is to be fully aware that the information that economists can currently offer may fall short of what decision-makers need. The gap between the two must be fully appreciated. Building more comprehensive pictures of the cost and outcome consequences of different care policies and treatment interventions is one way to bridge this gap. At the same time a sense of perspective must be maintained and promoted. For example, there is growing concern across the world about the high prices of new drugs, yet drug acquisition costs usually represent only a small proportion of total costs. Decisions sometimes appear to be disproportionately focused on small parts of the overall mental health care picture. A similar tendency prompts another challenge, which is to undertake and interpret research so as to overcome, or at least not to exacerbate, the boundary problems that characterize the multi-service, multi-agency reality of many mental health care systems. The adequacy of short-term evaluations - which dominate our field - must be questioned in light of the chronicity of many mental health problems, and of their externality effects (including inter-generational transmission of problems). Although funding will always be a problem, longer-term evidence is needed. So, too, is research that looks at the reasons for inter-individual cost and outcome variations. Economic evaluations should also pay more attention to equity as well as efficiency as a criterion of improved resource allocation. Finally, more economic data should be gathered alongside and not after clinical data, particularly as economic assumptions often appear to drive key practice and policy changes.
Health System Efficiency: A Fragmented Picture Based on OECD Data

Andreas Behr,Katja Theune

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-017-0010-y

Abstract:Background: Globally, health expenditure as a percentage of GDP has increased in recent years, so evaluating the health care systems used in different countries is an important tool for identifying best practices and improving inefficient health care systems. Objective: We investigate health system efficiency at the country level based on OECD health data. We focus on several aspects of health care systems to identify specific inefficiencies within them. This information hints at potential policy interventions that could improve specific parts of a country's health care system. Methods: A discussion is provided of ideal-typical evaluations of health systems, ignoring data restrictions, which provide the theoretical basis for an analysis performed under factual data restrictions. This investigation includes health care systems in 34 countries and is based on OECD health data. Health care system efficiency scores are obtained using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Relative productivity measures are calculated based on average DEA prices. Given the severe data limitations involved, instead of performing an all-encompassing analysis of each health care system, we focus on several aspects of each system, performing five partial analyses. Results: For each country, the efficiencies yielded by the five partial analyses varied considerably, resulting in an ambiguous picture of the efficiencies of the various health care systems considered. A synopsis providing comprehensive rankings of the analyzed countries is provided. Conclusion: Analysis of several aspects of the health care systems considered here highlights potential improvements in specific areas of these systems, thereby providing information for policymakers on where to focus when aiming to improve a country's health care system.
The attitude of Belgian social insurance physicians towards evidence-based practice and clinical practice guidelines

Annemie Heselmans,Peter Donceel,Bert Aertgeerts,Stijn Van de Velde,Dirk Ramaekers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-10-64

2009-09-09

Abstract:Background: Evidence-based medicine has broadened its scope and is starting to reach insurance medicine. Although still in its initial stages, physicians in the area of insurance medicine should keep up-to-date with the evidence on various diseases in order to correctly assess disability and to give appropriate advice about health care reimbursement. In order to explore future opportunities of evidence-based medicine to improve daily insurance medicine, there is a need for qualitative studies to better understand insurance physicians' perceptions of EBM. The present study was designed to identify the attitude of insurance physicians towards evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines, and to determine their ability to access, retrieve and appraise the health evidence and the barriers for applying evidence to practice. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study was carried out among all Dutch-speaking insurance physicians employed at one of the six Belgian social insurance sickness funds and at the National Institute of Disability and Health care Insurance (n = 224). Chi-square tests were used to compare nominal and ordinal variables. Student's t-tests, ANOVA, Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis were used to compare means of continuous variables for different groups. Results: The response rate was 48.7%. The majority of respondents were positive towards evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines. Their knowledge of EBM was rather poor. Perceived barriers for applying evidence to practice were mainly time and lack of EBM skills. Conclusion: Although the majority of physicians were positive towards EBM and welcomed more guidelines, the use of evidence and clinical practice guidelines in insurance medicine is low at present. It is in the first place important to eradicate the perceived inertia which limits the use of EBM and to further investigate the EBM principles in the context of insurance medicine. Available high-quality evidence-based resources (at the moment mainly originating from other medical fields) need to be structured in a way that is useful for insurance physicians and global access to this information needs to be ensured.
[Evolution and new perspectives of health care financing in developing countries]

Martine Audibert,Jacky Mathonnat,Eric de Roodenbeke

Abstract:Over the last twenty five years, the perspective of health care financing has dramatically changed in developing countries. In this context, it is worth reviewing the literature and the experiences in order to understand the major shifts on this topic. During the sixties, health care policies focused on fighting major epidemics. Programs were dedicated to reduce the threat to population health. Financing related to the mobilization of resources for these programs and most of them were not managed within national administrations. The success of these policies was not sustainable. After Alma Ata, primary health care became a priority but it took some years before the management of the health care district was introduced as a major topic. In the eighties, with the district policy and the Bamako Initiative, the economic approach became a major part of all health care policies. At that time, most of health care financing was related to cost recovery strategies. All the attention was then drawn on how it worked: Fee policies, distribution of revenues, efficient use of resources and so on. In the second half of the nineties, cost recovery was relegated to the back scene, health care financing policy then becoming a major front scene matter. Two major reasons may explain this change in perspective: HIV which causes a major burden on the whole health system, and fighting poverty in relation with debts reduction. In most developing countries, with high HIV prevalence, access to care is no longer possible within the framework of the ongoing heath care financing scheme. Health plays a major role in poverty reduction strategies but health care officials must take into account every aspect of public financing. New facts also have to be taken into account: Decentralization/autonomy policies, the growing role of third party payment and the rising number of qualified health care professionals. All these facts, along with a broader emphasis given to the market, introduce a need for a better management of resources through financing mechanisms. Some major reports from WHO and the World Bank are the landmarks of the evolution on how to approach health care financing: The 1993 World Bank report on investing in health, the 2000 WHO report on health in the world and the WHO report on macroeconomics and health. In this early millenium, there is a general agreement on some major aspects of health care financing such as: Lack of resources for financing health care; cost recovery as a part of any sustainable health care system; health as a public good needing some extended subsidies; protecting people from the burden of disease as a part of financing schemes; equity in relation with the public private mix at the center of many debates; financing as a key mechanism for the regulation of the whole health care system and not only as a resource mobilization; HIV in bringing up new problems clearly shows how all these matters are related. Health care financing is at the heart of ongoing questions on health care reforms. Although developing countries have low insurance coverage and weak modern medical care, they share the same questions as developed countries: How to promote technical and allocative efficiency? What place for incentives? What role for the public sector? How can market and contracting bring results? What progress through stewardship and better governance?
Optimizing Healthcare Organization Performance via Comparative Studies: Global Trends, Challenges and Future Research Directions in Health Economics

Wan TTH*

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23880/oajda-16000141

2024-01-01

Abstract:Health economics research and evaluation has demonstrated its key role in shaping global health. Patient care quality and safety measures coupled with the balance of equity of care and cost efficiency are essential to help countries to achieve high quality and productivity in their performance. Furthermore, data science coupled with artificial intelligence plays a pivotal role in conducting rigorous comparative studies guided by sound theoretical perspectives in selecting appropriate data and predictive models. With the assistance of quantum computing technology, it is promising that new insight could be gained from longitudinal study design and analysis of both micro- and macro-predictor variables of efficiency and effectiveness to optimize health organization performance.
The use of cost-effectiveness analysis for health benefit package design - should countries follow a sectoral, incremental or hybrid approach?

Rob Baltussen,Gavin Surgey,Anna Vassall,Ole F Norheim,Kalipso Chalkidou,Sameen Siddiqi,Mojtaba Nouhi,Sitaporn Youngkong,Maarten Jansen,Leon Bijlmakers,Wija Oortwijn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-023-00484-2

2023-10-09

Abstract:Background: Countries around the world are increasingly rethinking the design of their health benefit package to achieve universal health coverage. Countries can periodically revise their packages on the basis of sectoral cost-effectiveness analyses, i.e. by evaluating a broad set of services against a 'doing nothing' scenario using a budget constraint. Alternatively, they can use incremental cost-effectiveness analyses, i.e. to evaluate specific services against current practice using a threshold. In addition, countries may employ hybrid approaches which combines elements of sectoral and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis - a country may e.g. not evaluate the comprehensive set of all services but rather relatively small sets of services targeting a certain condition. However, there is little practical guidance for countries as to which kind of approach they should follow. Methods: The present study was based on expert consultation. We refined the typology of approaches of cost-effectiveness analysis for benefit package design, identified factors that should be considered in the choice of approach, and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among experts over the course of several review rounds. Results: Sectoral cost-effectiveness analysis is especially suited in contexts with large allocative inefficiencies in current service provision and can, in theory, realize large efficiency gains. However, it may be challenging to implement a comprehensive redesign of the package in practice. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis is especially relevant in contexts where specific new services may impact the sustainability of the health system. It may potentially support efficiency improvement, but its focus has typically been on new services while existing inefficiencies remain unchallenged. The use of hybrid approach may be a way forward to address the strengths and weaknesses of sectoral and incremental analysis areas. Such analysis may be especially useful to target disease areas with suspected high inefficiencies in service provision, and would then make good use of the available research capacity and be politically rewarding. However, disease-specific analyses bear the risk of not addressing resource allocation inefficiencies across disease areas. Conclusions: Countries should carefully select their approach of cost-effectiveness analyses for benefit package design, based on their decision-making context.
The need for a broad perspective when assessing value-for-money for out-of-hours primary care

Jane Phiri,Stefan Morreel,Diana De Graeve,Hilde Philips,Philippe Beutels,Veronique Verhoeven,Lander Willem

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1463423624000318

2024-09-22

Primary Health Care Research & Development

Abstract:Background: Out-of-hours primary care (OOH-PC) has emerged as a promising solution to improve efficiency, accessibility, and quality of care and to reduce the strain on emergency departments. As this modality gains traction in diverse healthcare settings, it is increasingly important to fully assess its societal value-for-money and conduct thorough process evaluations. However, current economic evaluations mostly emphasise direct- and short-term effect measures, thus lacking a broader societal perspective. Aim: This study offers a comprehensive overview of current effect measures in OOH-PC evaluations and proposes additional measures from the evaluation of integrated care programmes. Approach and Development: First, we systematically identified the effect measures from published cost-effectiveness studies and classified them as process, outcome, and resource use measures. Second, we elaborate on the incorporation of 'productivity gains', 'health promotion and early intervention', and 'continuity of care' as additional effects into economic evaluations of OOH-PC. Seeking care affects personal and employee time, potentially resulting in decreased productivity. Challenges in taking time off work and limited access to convenient care are often cited as barriers to accessing primary care. As such, OOH-PC can potentially reduce opportunity costs for patients. Furthermore, improving access to healthcare is important in determining whether people receive promotional and preventive services. Health promotion involves empowering people to take control of their health and its determinants. Given the unscheduled nature and the fragmented or rotational care in OOH-PC, the degree to which interventions and modalities provide continuity should be monitored, assessed, and included in economic evaluations. Continuity of care in primary care improves patient satisfaction, promotes adherence to medical advice, reduces reliance on hospitals, and reduces mortality. Conclusion: Although it is essential to also address local settings and needs, the integration of broader scope measures into OOH-PC economic evaluations improves the comprehensive evaluation that aligns with welfare gains.

primary health care
Methods for Health Economic Evaluation of Vaccines and Immunization Decision Frameworks: A Consensus Framework from a European Vaccine Economics Community

Bernhard Ultsch,Oliver Damm,Philippe Beutels,Joke Bilcke,Bernd Brüggenjürgen,Andreas Gerber-Grote,Wolfgang Greiner,Germaine Hanquet,Raymond Hutubessy,Mark Jit,Mirjam Knol,Rüdiger von Kries,Alexander Kuhlmann,Daniel Levy-Bruhl,Matthias Perleth,Maarten Postma,Heini Salo,Uwe Siebert,Jürgen Wasem,Ole Wichmann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0335-2

2015-10-17

PharmacoEconomics

Abstract:BackgroundIncremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses [health economic evaluations (HEEs)] of vaccines are routinely considered in decision making on immunization in various industrialized countries. While guidelines advocating more standardization of such HEEs (mainly for curative drugs) exist, several immunization-specific aspects (e.g. indirect effects or discounting approach) are still a subject of debate within the scientific community.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to develop a consensus framework for HEEs of vaccines to support the development of national guidelines in Europe.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify prevailing issues related to HEEs of vaccines. Furthermore, European experts in the field of health economics and immunization decision making were nominated and asked to select relevant aspects for discussion. Based on this, a workshop was held with these experts. Aspects on ‘mathematical modelling’, ‘health economics’ and ‘decision making’ were debated in group-work sessions (GWS) to formulate recommendations and/or—if applicable—to state ‘pros’ and ‘contras’.ResultsA total of 13 different aspects were identified for modelling and HEE: model selection, time horizon of models, natural disease history, measures of vaccine-induced protection, duration of vaccine-induced protection, indirect effects apart from herd protection, target population, model calibration and validation, handling uncertainty, discounting, health-related quality of life, cost components, and perspectives. For decision making, there were four aspects regarding the purpose and the integration of HEEs of vaccines in decision making as well as the variation of parameters within uncertainty analyses and the reporting of results from HEEs. For each aspect, background information and an expert consensus were formulated.ConclusionsThere was consensus that when HEEs are used to prioritize healthcare funding, this should be done in a consistent way across all interventions, including vaccines. However, proper evaluation of vaccines implies using tools that are not commonly used for therapeutic drugs. Due to the complexity of and uncertainties around vaccination, transparency in the documentation of HEEs and during subsequent decision making is essential.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services,economics
The Limitations and Potentials of Evaluating Economic Aspects of Community-Based Health Promotion: A Critical Review

Philipp Weber,Leonie Birkholz,Riccarda Straub,Simone Kohler,Natalie Helsper,Lea Dippon,Klaus Pfeifer,Alfred Rütten,Jana Semrau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-023-00864-y

2024-01-10

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Abstract:Community-based health promotion (CBHP) interventions are promising approaches to address public health problems; however, their economic evaluation presents unique challenges. This review aims to explore the opportunities and limitations of evaluating economic aspects of CBHP, focusing on the assessment of intervention costs and outcomes, and the consideration of political-level changes and health equity. A systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science and PsycInfo databases identified 24 CBHP interventions, the majority of which targeted disadvantaged communities. Only five interventions included a detailed cost/resource assessment. Outcomes at the operational level were mainly quantitative, related to sociodemographics and environment or health status, while outcomes at the political level were often qualitative, related to public policy, capacity building or networks/collaboration. The study highlights the limitations of traditional health economic evaluation methods in capturing the complexity of CBHP interventions. It proposes the use of cost-consequence analysis (CCA) as a more comprehensive approach, offering a flexible and multifaceted assessment of costs and outcomes. However, challenges remain in the measurement and valuation of outcomes, equity considerations, intersectoral costs and attribution of effects. While CCA is a promising starting point, further research and methodological advancements are needed to refine its application and improve decision making in CBHP.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services,economics
The economics of the COVID-19 pandemic: economic evaluation of government mitigation and suppression policies, health system innovations, and models of care

Kathryn Margaret Antioch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-023-01919-z

2023-05-24

Abstract:Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the scope of health economics literature, which will increasingly examine value beyond health care interventions such as government policy and broad health system innovations. Aim: The study analyzes economic evaluations and methodologies evaluating government policies suppressing or mitigating transmission and reducing COVID-19, broad health system innovations, and models of care. This can facilitate future economic evaluations and assist government and public health policy decisions during pandemics. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was used. Methodological quality was quantified using the scoring criteria in European Journal of Health Economics, Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Checklist and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) Cost Benefit Analysis Checklist. PUBMED, Medline, and Google Scholar were searched from 2020-2021. Results: Cost utility analysis (CUA) and cost benefit analysis (CBA) analyzing mortality, morbidity, quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, national income loss, and value of production effectively evaluate government policies suppressing or mitigating COVID-19 transmission, disease, and impacting national income loss. The WHO's pandemic economic framework facilitates economic evaluations of social and movement restrictions. Social return on investment (SROI) links benefits to health and broader social improvements. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) can facilitate vaccine prioritization, equitable health access, and technology evaluation. Social welfare function (SWF) can account for social inequalities and population-wide policy impact. It is a generalization of CBA, and operationally, it is equal to an equity-weighted CBA. It can provide governments with a guideline for achieving the optimal distribution of income, which is vital during pandemics. Economic evaluations of broad health system innovations and care models addressing COVID-19 effectively use cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) that utilize decision trees and Monte Carlo models, and CUAs that effectively utilize decision trees and Markov models, respectively. Conclusion: These methodologies are very instructive for governments, in addition to their current use of CBA and the value of a statistical life analytical tool. CUA and CBA effectively evaluate government policies suppressing or mitigating COVID-19 transmission, disease, and impacts on national income loss. CEA and CUA effectively evaluate broad health system innovations and care models addressing COVID-19. The WHO's framework, SROI, MCDA, and SWF can also facilitate government decision-making during pandemics. Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-023-01919-z.
Cure for increasing health care costs: The Bernhoven case as driver of new standards of appropriate care

Nicoline van Leersum,Peter Bennemeer,Marcel Otten,Sander Visser,Ab Klink,Jan A M Kremer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.01.002

IF: 3.255

Health Policy

Abstract:Containing costs is a major challenge in health care. Cost and quality are often seen as trade-offs, but high quality and low costs can go hand-in-hand as waste exists in unnecessary and unfounded care. In the Netherlands, two healthcare insurers and a hospital collaborate to improve quality of care and decrease healthcare costs. Their aim is to reduce unnecessary care by shifting the business model and culture from a focus on volume to a focus on quality. Key drivers to support this are taking time for integrated diagnosis ('first time right'), the right care at the right place and shared decision making between doctor and patient. Conditions to realize this are 1) contract innovation between the hospital and insurers to move away from fee-for-service reimbursement, 2) a culture change within the organization with emphasis on collaboration and empowerment of medical leadership and physicians to change daily practice, and 3) a reorganization of the hospital organization structure from a large number of medical departments to four business units related to the fundamental underlying patient need (acute care, solution shop, intervention unit and chronic care). Results from this whole-system-approach experiment show it is possible to provide better care (as experienced by patients) with lower volumes (16% lower DRG claims after 3 years) and provides valuable lessons for further healthcare reform.
The economics of hospital reform from hierarchical to market-based incentives

Alexander S Preker,April Harding

Abstract:Heavy investment over the past 30 years has made the hospital sector the largest expenditure category of the health system in most developed and developing countries. In most countries hospitals remain a critical link to health care, providing both advanced and basic care for the population. Often, they are the provider 'of last resort' for the poor and critically ill. This article provides insights into recent hospital reforms undertaken throughout the world, with an emphasis on organisational changes such as increased management autonomy, corporatisation, and privatisation. It provides some insights about these popular reform modalities from a review of the literature, reform experiences in other sectors and empirical evidence from hospital sector itself. The material presented tries to answer three questions: (a) what problems did this type of reform try to address; (b) what are the core elements of their design, implementation and evaluation; and, (c) is there any evidence that this type of reform is successful in addressing problems for which they were intended? While this paper focuses on issues related to the design of the reforms, the paper also reports the findings from a larger study that examined the implementation and evaluation of such reforms so that they will be available to countries that are considering venturing down this reform path.
How to reform western care payment systems according to physicians, policy makers, healthcare executives and researchers: a discrete choice experiment

Roselinde Kessels,Pieter Van Herck,Eline Dancet,Lieven Annemans,Walter Sermeus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0847-7

2015-05-06

Abstract:Background: Many developed countries are reforming healthcare payment systems in order to limit costs and improve clinical outcomes. Knowledge on how different groups of professional stakeholders trade off the merits and downsides of healthcare payment systems is limited. Methods: Using a discrete choice experiment we asked a sample of physicians, policy makers, healthcare executives and researchers from Canada, Europe, Oceania, and the United States to choose between profiles of hypothetical outcomes on eleven healthcare performance objectives which may arise from a healthcare payment system reform. We used a Bayesian D-optimal design with partial profiles, which enables studying a large number of attributes, i.e. the eleven performance objectives, in the experiment. Results: Our findings suggest that (a) moving from current payment systems to a value-based system is supported by physicians, despite an income trade-off, if effectiveness and long term cost containment improve. (b) Physicians would gain in terms of overall objective fulfillment in Eastern Europe and the US, but not in Canada, Oceania and Western Europe. Finally, (c) such payment reform more closely aligns the overall fulfillment of objectives between stakeholders such as physicians versus healthcare executives. Conclusions: Although the findings should be interpreted with caution due to the potential selection effects of participants, it seems that the value driven nature of newly proposed and/or introduced care payment reforms is more closely aligned with what stakeholders favor in some health systems, but not in others. Future studies, including the use of random samples, should examine the contextual factors that explain such differences in values and buy-in. Jel classification: C90, C99, E61, I11, I18, O57.
Economic analysis in behavioral health: Toward application of standardized methodologies.

Robert M. Kaplan,Marthe Gold,Sarah Q. Duffy,Nancy Miller,Jill R. Glassman,David A. Chambers,Theodore G. Ganiats,Sam Berndt,Dawn K. Wilson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000769

2019-08-01

Health Psychology

Abstract:Health care remains the most expensive sector in the U.S. economy, now accounting for nearly 1 in every 5 dollars spent. The purpose of health care is to improve the health of populations. However, formal medical care is one of many alternatives for improving health. In order to make better use of scarce resources, cost-effectiveness methodologies have been developed to evaluate how to produce the most health within the constraints of available resources. Standardized cost-effectiveness methodologies are now commonly used in the evaluation of medical therapies and new technologies. However, these methods have rarely been employed for the evaluation of behavioral interventions. Behavioral interventions often use measures that are not generally applied in other areas of health outcomes research. A consequence of neglecting to employ standardized cost-effectiveness analysis is that behavioral, psychological, and environmental interventions may be left out of resource allocation discussions. The purpose of this paper is to review standardized approaches to cost-effectiveness analysis and to encourage their use for the evaluation of behavioral intervention programs. Application of standardized methods of cost-effectiveness analysis will allow direct comparisons between investing in behavioral interventions programs in comparison to a wide range of other alternatives. The methods are general and can be used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of social and environmental interventions in addition to traditional medical and surgical treatments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

psychology, clinical

Adaptability costs in immune escape variants of vesicular stomatitis virus.

An Introduction to the Main Types of Economic Evaluations Used for Informing Priority Setting and Resource Allocation in Healthcare: Key Features, Uses, and Limitations

Mental health services in Belgium

Estimating and Rewarding the Value of Healthcare Interventions Beyond the Healthcare Sector: A Conceptual Framework

Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields—a systematic literature review

Use of economic evaluation in local health care decision-making in England: a qualitative investigation

The broader benefits of vaccines: methodologies for inclusion in economic evaluation

Economic evaluation and mental health: sparse past. fertile future?

Health System Efficiency: A Fragmented Picture Based on OECD Data

The attitude of Belgian social insurance physicians towards evidence-based practice and clinical practice guidelines

[Evolution and new perspectives of health care financing in developing countries]

Optimizing Healthcare Organization Performance via Comparative Studies: Global Trends, Challenges and Future Research Directions in Health Economics

The use of cost-effectiveness analysis for health benefit package design - should countries follow a sectoral, incremental or hybrid approach?

The need for a broad perspective when assessing value-for-money for out-of-hours primary care

Methods for Health Economic Evaluation of Vaccines and Immunization Decision Frameworks: A Consensus Framework from a European Vaccine Economics Community

The Limitations and Potentials of Evaluating Economic Aspects of Community-Based Health Promotion: A Critical Review

The economics of the COVID-19 pandemic: economic evaluation of government mitigation and suppression policies, health system innovations, and models of care

Cure for increasing health care costs: The Bernhoven case as driver of new standards of appropriate care

The economics of hospital reform from hierarchical to market-based incentives

How to reform western care payment systems according to physicians, policy makers, healthcare executives and researchers: a discrete choice experiment

Economic analysis in behavioral health: Toward application of standardized methodologies.