Interpreting economic evaluations of healthcare interventions: A simple guide

Luke Paterson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2024.33.sup2b.1

2024-02-01

Journal of Wound Care

Abstract:This guide aims to help healthcare professionals of all backgrounds make sense of economic evaluations to determine whether interventions represent value for money

dermatology

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
Preparing early economic evaluations for the development and management of health service interventions

Andrew Partington,Maria Crotty,Kate Laver,Leanne Greene,Hossein Haji Ali Afzali,Jonathan Karnon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462324000539

2024-10-19

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Abstract://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0266462324000539/resource/name/firstPage-pdf-S0266462324000539a.jpg

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,medical informatics
How to conduct cost and value analyses in health professions education: AMEE Guide No. 139

Jonathan Foo,David A. Cook,Martin Tolsgaard,George Rivers,Jennifer Cleland,Kieran Walsh,Mohamed Elhassan Abdalla,You You,Dragan Ilic,Robert Golub,Henry Levin,Stephen Maloney

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1838466

IF: 4.277

2021-01-01

Medical Teacher

Abstract:Growing demand for accountability, transparency, and efficiency in health professions education is expected to drive increased demand for, and use of, cost and value analyses. In this AMEE Guide, we introduce key concepts, methods, and literature that will enable novices in economics to conduct simple cost and value analyses, hold informed discussions with economic specialists, and undertake further learning on more advanced economic topics. The practical structure for conducting analyses provided in this guide will enable researchers to produce robust results that are meaningful and useful for improving educational practice. Key steps include defining the economic research question, identifying an appropriate economic study design, carefully identifying cost ingredients, quantifying, and pricing the ingredients consumed, and conducting sensitivity analyses to explore uncertainties in the results.
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
A novel way to integrate economic information into clinical practice guidelines

Juha E. Ahonen,Elisa Rissanen,Raija Sipilä,Jorma Komulainen,Eila Kankaanpää

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11891-3

2024-11-23

BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:Clinical guidelines are widely used to support clinical decision making, so they could also provide economic information about medical interventions to promote cost-conscious health care. We developed a new way to integrate economic information into the Finnish Current Care Guidelines.

health care sciences & services
Economic evaluation: what does a nurse manager need to know?

Hannah-Rose Douglas,Charles Normand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2005.00586.x

Abstract:This paper considers how health economists can assist nurse managers, using the concepts and tools of economic evaluation. We aim to clarify these and also explode some of the myths about economic evaluation and its role in health care decision-making. Economic evaluation techniques compare alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. There are four principal methods; cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit analysis, all of which synthesize costs and outcomes, at different levels of outcome. Economic evaluation is an intrinsic part of national decision-making about the efficient provision of effective treatments and services, and increasingly, organizational matters. In the UK, such technology evaluation is disseminated in guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE), having a top-down impact on the nurse manager. But economic evaluation is increasingly relevant to the nurse manager at local level, through newer techniques such as Programme Budgeting Marginal Analysis (PBMA), which facilitates explicit, transparent decisions, from the bottom-up. Nurse managers need to weigh up competing demands on resources and decide in ways which maximize health gain. Economic evaluation can help here because it presents evidence to challenge or support existing allocations, and provides a systematic framework to analyse health care decisions. In the current context of competition for scarce resources, we suggest that nurse managers need to embrace these techniques, or be marginalized from the resource allocation process.
An overview of the perspectives used in health economic evaluations

Manit Sittimart,Waranya Rattanavipapong,Andrew J. Mirelman,Trinh Manh Hung,Saudamini Dabak,Laura E. Downey,Mark Jit,Yot Teerawattananon and Hugo C. Turner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-024-00552-1

2024-05-15

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Abstract:The term 'perspective' in the context of economic evaluations and costing studies in healthcare refers to the viewpoint that an analyst has adopted to define the types of costs and outcomes to consider in their studies. However, there are currently notable variations in terms of methodological recommendations, definitions, and applications of different perspectives, depending on the objective or intended user of the study. This can make it a complex area for stakeholders when interpreting these studies. Consequently, there is a need for a comprehensive overview regarding the different types of perspectives employed in such analyses, along with the corresponding implications of their use. This is particularly important, in the context of low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), where practical guidelines may be less well-established and infrastructure for conducting economic evaluations may be more limited. This article addresses this gap by summarising the main types of perspectives commonly found in the literature to a broad audience (namely the patient, payer, health care providers, healthcare sector, health system, and societal perspectives), providing their most established definitions and outlining the corresponding implications of their uses in health economic studies, with examples particularly from LMIC settings. We then discuss important considerations when selecting the perspective and present key arguments to consider when deciding whether the societal perspective should be used. We conclude that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to what perspective should be used and the perspective chosen will be influenced by the context, policymakers'/stakeholders' viewpoints, resource/data availability, and intended use of the analysis. Moving forward, considering the ongoing issues regarding the variation in terminology and practice in this area, we urge that more standardised definitions of the different perspectives and the boundaries between them are further developed to support future studies and guidelines, as well as to improve the interpretation and comparison of health economic evidence.

health policy & services
Health Economic Methods: Cost-Minimization, Cost-Effectiveness, Cost-Utility, and Cost-Benefit Evaluations

Alisa M. Higgins,Anthony H. Harris

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccc.2011.10.002

IF: 3.879

2012-01-01

Critical Care Clinics

Abstract:Health care resources are limited, and health care providers must strive to maximize health benefits to patients within available resources. This is becoming increasingly important in critical care as demand for services grows and costs associated with treatment increase. Economic evaluations enable comparisons of both the costs and effects of an intervention. There are four main types: cost-minimization, cost effectiveness,cost-utility, and cost-benefit. The costs associated with the intervention are measured in monetary units (dollars); the evaluation types differ with respect to how outcomes are measured. This article introduces the methodology for performing these economic evaluations,highlighting important aspects regarding critical care.

critical care medicine
Striving for a Societal Perspective: A Framework for Economic Evaluations When Costs and Effects Fall on Multiple Sectors and Decision Makers

Simon Walker,Susan Griffin,Miqdad Asaria,Aki Tsuchiya,Mark Sculpher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00481-8

2019-05-16

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Abstract:In most societies, resources are distributed by individuals acting in markets and by governments through some form of collective decision-making process. Economic evaluation offers a set of tools to inform collective decisions by examining the resource requirements and outcomes of alternative policies. The 'societal perspective' has been advocated, but less consideration has been given to what this should include and its practical implementation. This paper presents a framework for economic evaluation of policies with costs and outcomes falling on different sectors (e.g. health, criminal justice, education) and involving different decision makers. It extends the 'impact inventory' developed by the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine by considering all affected individuals and reflecting how outcomes attributed to an intervention can be compared with outcomes forgone as a result of resources not being available for other purposes. The framework sets out the series of assessments to be made, distinguishing points at which value judgements feed into the evaluation, and the implications of alternative judgements. These assessments reflect the institutional arrangements of public bodies, for example, their funding, the outcomes they consider important and their relative valuations of these outcomes. By avoiding the use of an abstract 'societal perspective', the contribution of the framework is to inform multiple decision makers with different objectives and provide practical guidance on overall societal impact.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services,economics
National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: A Cross-Country Comparison

Deepshikha Sharma,Arun Kumar Aggarwal,Laura E Downey,Shankar Prinja

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00250-7

Abstract:Background and objectives: Globally, a number of countries have developed guidelines that describe the design and conduct of economic evaluations as part of health technology assessment (HTA) or pharmacoeconomic analysis for decision making. The current scoping review was undertaken with an objective to summarize the recommendations made on methods of economic evaluation by the national healthcare economic evaluation (HEE) guidelines. Methodology: A comprehensive search was undertaken in the website repositories of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and Guide to Economic Analysis and Research (GEAR), and websites of national HTA agencies and ministries of health of individual countries. All guidelines in the English language were included in this review. Data were extracted with respect to general and methodological characteristics, and a descriptive analysis of recommendations made across the countries was undertaken. Results: Overall, our review included 31 national HEE guidelines, published between 1997 and August 2020. Nearly half (45%) of the guidelines targeted the evaluation of pharmaceuticals. The nature of the guidelines was either mandatory (31%), recommendatory (42%), or voluntary (16%). There was a substantial consensus among the guidelines on several key principles, including type of economic evaluation (cost-utility analysis), time horizon of the analysis (long enough), health outcome measure (quality-adjusted life-years) and use of sensitivity analyses. The recommendations on study perspective, comparator, discount rate and type of costs to be included (particularly the inclusion of indirect costs) varied widely. Conclusion: Despite similarity in the overall processes, variation in several recommendations given by various national HEE guidelines was observed. This is perhaps unsurprising given the differences in the health systems and financing mechanisms, capacity of local researchers, and data availability. This review offers important lessons and a starting point for countries that are planning to develop their own HEE guidelines.
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.
A commentary on "Guideline for economic evaluation of healthcare technologies in Japan"

T. Shiroiwa

2013-12-01

Abstract:It is desirable that economic evaluation of healthcare technologies is performed (or included) based on a common analytical framework to improve transparency and comparability. In many countries, researchers or agencies of health technology assessment have drawn up guidelines for economic evaluation. Some Asian countries, including Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and China, have already published

Economics,Medicine
Economic evaluation of healthcare safety: which attributes of safety do healthcare professionals consider most important in resource allocation decisions?

L Steuten,M Buxton,L. Steuten,M. Buxton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2008.027870

2010-08-10

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: There is an increasing need to assess the value of safety improvements to society. Concerns exist, however, as to what extent standard health economic methods appropriately reflect this value because these methods do not typically incorporate the non-health or extra-consequentialist value of avoiding healthcare incidents, which may--for example, be associated with a decreased trust of patients and citizens in healthcare systems and providers.OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify health and non-health attributes of safety from the literature and (2) to prioritise those that are considered most important by healthcare decision-makers and could be included in a subsequent conjoint analysis to determining the relative value of safety interventions and the willingness to pay of decision-makers.METHODS: A literature review and 25 semistructured interviews have been conducted with healthcare decision-makers experienced in safety management, considering a general healthcare, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and sharps injuries context.RESULTS: The literature review showed that in addition to likelihood of an incident and its direct medical and cost consequences, factors such as preventability, dread, controllability and trust in safety devices or systems affect the value of safety and decision-makers' willingness to pay. The interview results consistently indicated that "preventability of healthcare incidents", "health consequences", "financial consequences" and "trust in safety systems/devices" are the most important attributes across all contexts. In addition, context-specific attributes were identified.CONCLUSION: A set of four common and two context-specific attributes, including health and non-health aspects of safety, was identified. The next step is to attaching appropriate levels to these attributes and to incorporate them into a series of case studies among various groups of decision-makers, healthcare professionals, patient groups and the general public.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Economic evaluations in cataract surgery: a narrative review

José Ginel,N. Burguera,D. Piñero,A. Sáez-Martín,A. Haro De Rosario,J. Fernández

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-02965-x

IF: 4.4563

2024-02-13

Eye

Abstract:Economic evaluations are tools for assessing emerging technologies and a complement for decision-making in healthcare systems. However, this topic may not be familiar for doctors and academics, who may be confused when interpreting the results of studies using these tools. Cataract is a disease which has received special attention in healthcare systems due to its high incidence, the great impact that it could have on patients' quality of life, and the fact that it can be definitively solved in almost all cases through cataract surgery. Historically, economic evaluations in cataract surgery have been conducted for many purposes by simply assessing whether the surgery is cost-effective for specific questions related to the implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses, surgical techniques, optimizing assessments, preventing diseases or complications, etc. Moreover, although there are systematic reviews about cataract surgery and narrative reviews introducing the concept of economic evaluations, as far as we know, no previous study has been conducted that synthesizes and integrates evidence coming from both fields. Thus, the purpose of this narrative review is to introduce doctors and academics to economic evaluation tools, to describe how these have been historically applied to cataract surgery, and to provide special considerations for the correct interpretation of economic studies.

ophthalmology
Methodological challenges and potential solutions for economic evaluations of palliative and end-of-life care: A systematic review

Claudia Fischer,Damian Bednarz,Judit Simon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163231214124

Abstract:Background: Given the increasing demand for palliative and end-of-life care, along with the introduction of costly new treatments, there is a pressing need for robust evidence on value. However, comprehensive guidance is missing on methods for conducting economic evaluations in this field. Aim: To identify and summarise existing information on methodological challenges and potential solutions/recommendations for economic evaluations of palliative and end-of-life care. Design: We conducted a systematic review of publications on methodological considerations for economic evaluations of adult palliative and end-of-life care as per our PROSPERO protocol CRD42020148160. Following initial searches, we conducted a two-stage screening process and quality appraisal. Information was thematically synthesised, coded, categorised into common themes and aligned with the items specified in the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement. Data sources: The databases Medline, Embase, HTADatabase, NHSEED and grey literature were searched between 1 January 1999 and 5 June 2023. Results: Out of the initial 6502 studies, 81 were deemed eligible. Identified challenges could be grouped into nine themes: ambiguous and inaccurate patient identification, restricted generalisability due to poor geographic transferability of evidence, narrow costing perspective applied, difficulties defining comparators, consequences of applied time horizon, ambiguity in the selection of outcomes, challenged outcome measurement, non-standardised measurement and valuation of costs as well as challenges regarding a reliable preference-based outcome valuation. Conclusion: Our review offers a comprehensive context-specific overview of methodological considerations for economic evaluations of palliative and end-of-life care. It also identifies the main knowledge gaps to help prioritise future methodological research specifically for this field.
Examining how well economic evaluations capture the value of mental health

James Lathe,Richard J Silverwood,Alun D Hughes,Praveetha Patalay

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(23)00436-4

IF: 77.056

2024-01-27

The Lancet Psychiatry

Abstract:Summary Health economics evidence informs health-care decision making , but the field has historically paid insufficient attention to mental health. Economic evaluations in health should define an appropriate scope for benefits and costs and how to value them. This Health Policy provides an overview of these processes and considers to what extent they capture the value of mental health. We suggest that although current practices are both transparent and justifiable, they have distinct limitations from the perspective of mental health. Most social value judgements, such as the exclusion of interindividual outcomes and intersectoral costs, diminish the value of improving mental health, and this reduction in value might be disproportionate compared with other types of health. Economic analyses might have disadvantaged interventions that improve mental health compared with physical health, but research is required to test the size of such differential effects and any subsequent effect on decision-making systems such as health technology assessment systems. Collaboration between health economics and the mental health sciences is crucial for achieving mental–physical health parity in evaluative frameworks and, ultimately, improving population mental health.

psychiatry
Incorporating healthcare access and equity in economic evaluations: a scoping review of guidelines

Bryony Dawkins,Bethany Shinkins,Tim Ensor,David Jayne,David Meads

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462324000618

2024-11-24

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Abstract:Background International development agendas increasingly push for access to healthcare for all through universal healthcare coverage. Health economic evaluations and health technology assessment (HTA) could provide evidence to support this but do not routinely incorporate consideration of equitable access. Methods We undertook an international scoping review of health economic evaluation and HTA guidelines to examine how well issues of healthcare access and equity are represented, evidence recommendations, and gaps in current guidance to support evidence generation in this area. Guidelines were sourced from guideline repositories and websites of international agencies and organizations providing best practice methods guidance. Articles providing methods guidance for the conduct of HTA, or health economic evaluation, were included, except where they were not available in English and a suitable translation could not be obtained. Results The search yielded forty-seven national, four international, and nine independent guidelines, along with eighty-six articles providing specific methods guidance. The inclusion of equity and access considerations in current guidance is extremely limited. Where they do feature, detail on specific methods for providing evidence on these issues is sparse. Discussion Economic evaluation could be a valuable tool to provide evidence for the best healthcare strategies that not only maximize health but also ensure equitable access to care for all. Such evidence would be invaluable in supporting progress towards universal healthcare coverage. Clear guidance is required to ensure evaluations provide evidence on the best strategies to support equitable access to healthcare, but such guidance rarely exists in current best practice and guidance documents.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Studies

Joanna E. Siegel,George W. Torrance,Louise B. Russell,Bryan R. Luce,Milton C. Weinstein,Marthe R. Gold,the members of the Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199711020-00005

1997-02-01

PharmacoEconomics

Abstract:This article reports the recommendations of the Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, sponsored by the US Public Health Service, on standardised methods for conducting cost-effectiveness analyses. Although not expressly directed at analyses of pharmaceutical agents, the Panel’s recommendations are relevant to pharmacoeconomic studies.The Panel outlines a ‘Reference Case’ set of methodological practices to improve quality and comparability of analyses. Designed for studies that inform resource-allocation decisions, the Reference Case includes recommendations for study framing and scope, components of the numerator and denominator of cost-effectiveness ratios, discounting, handling uncertainty and reporting.The Reference Case analysis is conducted from the societal perspective, and includes all effects of interventions on resource use and health. Resource use includes ‘time’ resources, such as for caregiving or undergoing an intervention. The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is the common measure of health effect across Reference Case studies. Although the Panel does not endorse a measure for obtaining quality-of-life weights, several recommendations address the QALY. The Panel recommends a 3% discount rate for costs and health effects.Pharmacoeconomic studies have burgeoned in recent years. The Reference Case analysis will improve study quality and usability, and permit comparison of pharmaceuticals with other health interventions.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services,economics
The Knowledge and Application of Economics in Healthcare in a High-Income Country Today: The Case of Belgium

Baudouin Standaert,Désirée Vandenberghe,Mark P Connolly,Johan Hellings

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp12030021

2024-09-04

Abstract:Healthcare is a huge business sector in many countries, focusing on the social function of delivering quality health when people develop illness. The system is essentially financed by public funds based on the solidarity principle. With a large financial outlay, the sector must use economic evaluation methods to achieve better efficiency. The objective of our study was to evaluate and to understand how health economics is used today, taking Belgium as an example of a high-income country. The evaluation started with a historical view of healthcare development and ended with potential projections for its future. A literature review focused on country-specific evaluation reports to identify the health economic methods used, with a search for potential gaps. The first results indicated that Belgium in 2021 devoted 11% of its GDP, 17% of its total tax revenue, and 30% of the national Social Security Fund to health-related activities, totalizing EUR 55.5 billion spending. The main health economic method used was a cost-effectiveness analysis linked to budget impact, assigning reimbursable monetary values to new products becoming available. However, these evaluation methods only impacted at most 20% of the money circulating in healthcare. The remaining 80% was subject to financial regulations (70%) and budgeting (10%), which could use many other techniques of an economic analysis. The evaluation indicated two potentially important changes in health economic use in Belgium. One was an increased focus on budgeting with plans, time frames, and quantified treatment objectives on specific disease problems. Economic models with simulations are very supportive in those settings. The other was the application of constrained optimization methods, which may become the new standard of practice when switching from fee-for-service to pay-per-performance as promoted by value-based healthcare and value-based health management. This economic refocusing to a more constrained approach may help to keep the healthcare system sustainable and affordable in the face of the many future challenges including ageing, climate change, migration, pandemics, logistical limitations, and financial instability.
Optimisation versus certainty: understanding the issue of heterogeneity in economic evaluation

Warren Stevens,Charles Normand,Warren Stevens,Charles Normand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00215-6

2004-01-01

Abstract:This paper considers how the information provided by economic evaluation for decision-makers can fail to optimise use of health resources and how assessment of the relative cost-effectiveness of health care interventions can be misleading unless heterogeneity within populations is taken into account. The cost-effectiveness of an intervention is not a point estimate but an average chosen from within a distribution of different results. The normal interpretation of the distribution around that point is often mistakenly assumed to be the 'white noise' of measurement error. In reality this variance is a combination of measurement error and true heterogeneity of results. There remains an overemphasis on pursuing certainty which stems from the fact that the methods involved were originally devised to measure dichotomous outcomes not continuous ones such as cost-effectiveness ratios. It is argued in this paper that more consideration be given to the heterogeneous nature of costs and effects across populations in analysis and policy making.

public, environmental & occupational health,social sciences, biomedical

Interpreting economic evaluations of healthcare interventions: A simple guide

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

Preparing early economic evaluations for the development and management of health service interventions

How to conduct cost and value analyses in health professions education: AMEE Guide No. 139

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

A novel way to integrate economic information into clinical practice guidelines

Economic evaluation: what does a nurse manager need to know?

An overview of the perspectives used in health economic evaluations

Health Economic Methods: Cost-Minimization, Cost-Effectiveness, Cost-Utility, and Cost-Benefit Evaluations

Striving for a Societal Perspective: A Framework for Economic Evaluations When Costs and Effects Fall on Multiple Sectors and Decision Makers

National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: A Cross-Country Comparison

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

A commentary on "Guideline for economic evaluation of healthcare technologies in Japan"

Economic evaluation of healthcare safety: which attributes of safety do healthcare professionals consider most important in resource allocation decisions?

Economic evaluations in cataract surgery: a narrative review

Methodological challenges and potential solutions for economic evaluations of palliative and end-of-life care: A systematic review

Examining how well economic evaluations capture the value of mental health

Incorporating healthcare access and equity in economic evaluations: a scoping review of guidelines

Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Studies

The Knowledge and Application of Economics in Healthcare in a High-Income Country Today: The Case of Belgium

Optimisation versus certainty: understanding the issue of heterogeneity in economic evaluation