The economic benefits of health and prevention in a high-income country: the example of Germany

This paper complements the current health policy debate, which is largely confined to the cost aspects of health systems, by considering explicitly the potential economic benefits of investing in health in general and via - chiefly primary - prevention. While concerns about high and rising health care costs are justified, we see a pressing need to also measure the benefits, ultimately enabling a complete economic assessment of the socially optimal level of resources for health. Despite the use of Germany as our point of reference, our approach and findings likely apply to a wider set of European highincome countries. Using new and already existing data, we find that in sheer health terms Germany has a lot to gain from more and better illness prevention. Assuming part of this existing burden can be reduced via effective preventive interventions, we find that the resulting economic benefits - expressed in people's willingness to pay for a reduction in mortality risk - would be substantial. We also gather Germany-specific evidence to suggest that the existing burden of ill health - whether caused by lack of prevention or treatment - negatively impacts a number of important economic outcomes at the individual and macro-economic level. Referring to work carried out in parallel to this project, we find that a number of cost-effective, primary preventive interventions exist to tackle part of the avoidable disease burden. Yet we note a deficit of economic evaluations, in particular in non-clinical interventions - a finding that underlines the role of government in the production of research on specifically non-clinical prevention. In light of the market failures discussed, from an economic perspective the role of government not only consists of research, but also - surprisingly to many - extends to actual interventions to address the health behaviour-related determinants of chronic disease. With the stakes as high and the economic justification for action in place, the case for scaling up preventive efforts in Germany, backed up by solid epidemiological and economic research, is hard to deny. -- Die vorliegende Studie ergänzt die gegenwärtige gesundheitspolitische Debatte, die sich vorwiegend auf Kostenaspekte des Gesundheitswesens konzentriert, indem sie den potentiellen ökonomischen Nutzen von Gesundheitsinvestitionen im allgemeinen und (Primär-)Prävention im besonderen hervorhebt. Auch wenn die Sorge um hohe und steigende Kosten des Gesundheitswesens berechtigt ist, bleibt die Notwendigkeit, auch den Nutzen der Gesundheitsausgaben zu erfassen, um somit zu einer ökonomisch vollständigen Einschätzung des sozial optimalen Niveaus der Gesundheitsausgaben zu gelangen. Trotz des Fokus auf Deutschland sind unser Ansatz und die Ergebnisse auch auf andere Mitgliedsländer der EU übertragbar. Wir zeigen anhand neuer und schon bekannter Daten, dass der Spielraum für Gesundheitsverbesserungen, vorwiegend durch Prävention, in Deutschland erheblich ist. Der ökonomische Nutzen - gemessen an der Zahlungsbereitschaft der Bevölkerung - der durch Reduktion eines Teils dieser Krankheitslast mittels Interventionen erzielt werden kann, ist nach unseren Berechnungen beachtlich. Darüber hinaus zeigen mehrere Studien, wie die aktuell gegebene Krankheitslast, ob durch einen Mangel an Prävention oder Versorgung verursacht, eine Reihe relevanter ökonomischer Grössen auf individueller und gesamtwirtschaftlicher Ebene beeinträchtigt. Wie eine parallel durchgeführte Studie der Autoren ergab, existieren auch eine Reihe kosten-effektiver Interventionen im Bereich der primären Prävention. Dennoch bestehen noch Lücken in der ökonomischen Bewertung insbesondere nicht-klinischer Interventionen - ein Ergebnis, das die Rolle des Staates in der Evaluation dieser Interventionen unterstreicht. Aufgrund von Marktversagen in einigen relevanten Bereichen besteht eine ökonomische Rechtfertigung für staatliches Handeln nicht nur im Bereich der Forschung, sondern - überraschend für manche - auch im Bereich der (Primär-)Prävention der nicht-ansteckenden und mit dem individuellen Gesundheitsverhalten verbundenen Krankheiten. Aufgrund des in diesem Papier dokumentierten hohen gesundheitlichen und ökonomischen Nutzens sowie der ökonomischen Rechtfertigung der Rolle des Staates kann das Argument für eine Verstärkung der Prävention in Deutschland nur schwer bestritten werden.

HEE-GER: a systematic review of German economic evaluations of health care published 1990–2004

BACKGROUND: Studies published in non-English languages are systematically missing in systematic reviews of growth and quality of economic evaluations of health care. The aims of this study were: to characterize German evaluations, published in English or German-language, in terms of various key parameters; to investigate methods to derive quality-of-life weights in cost-utility studies; and to examine changes in study characteristics over the years. METHODS: We conducted a country-specific systematic review of the German and English-language literature of German economic evaluations (assessment of or application to the German health care system) published 1990–2004. Generic and specialized health economic databases were searched. Two independent reviewers verified fulfillment of inclusion criteria and extracted study characteristics. RESULTS: The fulltexts of 730 articles were reviewed of which 283 fulfilled all entry criteria. 32% of included studies were published in German-language. 51% of studies evaluated pharmaceuticals and 63% were cost-effectiveness analyses. Economic appraisals concentrate on few disease categories and important health areas are strongly underrepresented. Declaration of sponsorship was associated with article language (49% English articles vs. 29% German articles, p < 0.001). The methodology used to obtain quality-of-life weights in published cost-utility studies was very diverse, poorly reported and most studies did not use German patients' or community health state valuations. CONCLUSION: Many of the German-language evaluations included in our study are likely to be missing in international reviews and may be systematically different from English-language reviews from Germany. Lack of transparency and adherence to recommended reporting practices constitute a serious problem in German economic evaluations

The emotional impact of medical error involvement on physicians: a call for leadership and organisational accountability

Summary Objective: Involvement in errors often results in serious health effects, emotional distress, as well as performance and work-related consequences in staff members, in particular physicians. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate current evidence on a) the impact of involvement in medical errors on physicians, b) needs and experiences in coping with the experience of error, and c) interventions to support physicians involved in errors. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in a two-step procedure using predefined search protocols and inclusion criteria that cover the relevant literature published between 1980 and 2007. Results: Of 3,852 identified candidate articles, 87 studies were selected for critical appraisal and 32 were included in the review. Involvement in medical errors often provokes intense emotional distress that seems to considerably increase the risk for burn-out and depression. The evidence suggests a reciprocal cycle of these symptoms and future suboptimal patient care and error. Communication and interaction with colleagues and supervisors are perceived as the most helpful resource by physicians. Physicians involved in errors usually feel not supported in coping with this experience by the institutions they work in. Conclusion: Many professionals respond to error with serious emotional distress, and these emotions can imprint a permanent emotional scar. Given the significant burden on physicians&apos; health, well-being and performance associated with medical errors, health care institutions and clinical leaders have to take accountability and provide staff with formal and informal systems of support

The economics of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease - A systematic review of economic evaluations

Background: In the quest for public and private resources, prevention continues to face a difficult challenge in obtaining tangible public and political support. This may be partly because the economic evidence in favour of prevention is often said to be largely missing. The overall aim of this paper is to examine whether economic evidence in favour of prevention does exist, and if so, what its main characteristics, weaknesses and strengths are. We concentrate on the evidence regarding primary prevention that targets cardiovascular disease event or risk reduction. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of journal articles published during the period 1995–2005, based on a comprehensive key-word based search in generic and specialized electronic databases, accompanied by manual searches of expert databases. The search strategy consisted of combinations of freetext and keywords related to economic evaluation, cardiovascular diseases, and primary preventive interventions of risk assessment or modification. Results: A total of 195 studies fulfilled all of the relevant inclusion criteria. Overall, a significant amount of relevant economic evidence in favour of prevention does exist, despite important remaining gaps. The majority of studies were cost-effectiveness-analyses, expressing benefits as "life years gained", were conducted in a US or UK setting, assessed clinical prevention, mainly drugs targeted at lowering lipid levels, and referred to subjects aged 35–64 years old with at least one risk factor. Conclusion: First, this review has demonstrated the obvious lack of economic evaluations of broader health promotion interventions, when compared to clinical prevention. Second, the clear role for government to engage more actively in the economic evaluation of prevention has become very obvious, namely, to fill the gap left by private industry in terms of the evaluation of broader public health interventions and regarding clinical prevention, in light of the documented relationship between study funding and reporting of favourable results. Third, the value of greater adherence to established guidelines on economic evaluation cannot be emphasised enough. Finally, there appear to be certain methodological features in the practice of economic evaluations that might bias the choice between prevention and cure in favour of the latter

The economic benefits of health and prevention in a high-income country: the example of Germany

"This paper complements the current health policy debate, which is largely confined to the cost aspects of health systems, by considering explicitly the potential economic benefits of investing in health in general and via - chiefly primary - prevention. While concerns about high and rising health care costs are justified, we see a pressing need to also measure the benefits, ultimately enabling a complete economic assessment of the socially optimal level of resources for health. Despite the use of Germany as our point of reference, our approach and findings likely apply to a wider set of European high-income countries. Using new and already existing data, we find that in sheer health terms Germany has a lot to gain from more and better illness prevention. Assuming part of this existing burden can be reduced via effective preventive interventions, we find that the resulting economic benefits - expressed in people's willingness to pay for a reduction in mortality risk - would be substantial. We also gather Germany-specific evidence to suggest that the existing burden of ill health - whether caused by lack of prevention or treatment - negatively impacts a number of important economic outcomes at the individual and macro-economic level. Referring to work carried out in parallel to this project, we find that a number of cost-effective, primary preventive interventions exist to tackle part of the avoidable disease burden. Yet we note a deficit of economic evaluations, in particular in non-clinical interventions - a finding that underlines the role of government in the production of research on specifically non-clinical prevention. In light of the market failures discussed, from an economic perspective the role of government not only consists of research, but also - surprisingly to many - extends to actual interventions to address the health behaviour-related determinants of chronic disease. With the stakes as high and the economic justification for action in place, the case for scaling up preventive efforts in Germany, backed up by solid epidemiological and economic research, is hard to deny." (author's abstract)"Die vorliegende Studie ergänzt die gegenwärtige gesundheitspolitische Debatte, die sich vorwiegend auf Kostenaspekte des Gesundheitswesens konzentriert, indem sie den potentiellen ökonomischen Nutzen von Gesundheitsinvestitionen im allgemeinen und (Primär-)Prävention im besonderen hervorhebt. Auch wenn die Sorge um hohe und steigende Kosten des Gesundheitswesens berechtigt ist, bleibt die Notwendigkeit, auch den Nutzen der Gesundheitsausgaben zu erfassen, um somit zu einer ökonomisch vollständigen Einschätzung des sozial optimalen Niveaus der Gesundheitsausgaben zu gelangen. Trotz des Fokus auf Deutschland sind unser Ansatz und die Ergebnisse auch auf andere Mitgliedsländer der EU übertragbar. Wir zeigen anhand neuer und schon bekannter Daten, dass der Spielraum für Gesundheitsverbesserungen, vorwiegend durch Prävention, in Deutschland erheblich ist. Der ökonomische Nutzen - gemessen an der Zahlungsbereitschaft der Bevölkerung - der durch Reduktion eines Teils dieser Krankheitslast mittels Interventionen erzielt werden kann, ist nach unseren Berechnungen beachtlich. Darüber hinaus zeigen mehrere Studien, wie die aktuell gegebene Krankheitslast, ob durch einen Mangel an Prävention oder Versorgung verursacht, eine Reihe relevanter ökonomischer Größen auf individueller und gesamtwirtschaftlicher Ebene beeinträchtigt. Wie eine parallel durchgeführte Studie der Autoren ergab, existieren auch eine Reihe kosten-effektiver Interventionen im Bereich der primären Prävention. Dennoch bestehen noch Lücken in der ökonomischen Bewertung insbesondere nicht-klinischer Interventionen - ein Ergebnis, das die Rolle des Staates in der Evaluation dieser Interventionen unterstreicht. Aufgrund von Marktversagen in einigen relevanten Bereichen besteht eine ökonomische Rechtfertigung für staatliches Handeln nicht nur im Bereich der Forschung, sondern - überraschend für manche - auch im Bereich der (Primär-)Prävention der nicht-ansteckenden und mit dem individuellen Gesundheitsverhalten verbundenen Krankheiten. Aufgrund des in diesem Papier dokumentierten hohen gesundheitlichen und ökonomischen Nutzens sowie der ökonomischen Rechtfertigung der Rolle des Staates kann das Argument für eine Verstärkung der Prävention in Deutschland nur schwer bestritten werden." (Autorenreferat

A systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions to tackle cardiovascular disease in low- and middle-income countries

Background: Low-and middle-income countries are facing both a mounting burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) as well as severe resource constraints that keep them from emulating some of the extensive strategies pursued in high-income countries. There is thus an urgency to identify and implement those interventions that help reap the biggest reductions of the CVD burden, given low resource levels. What are the interventions to combat CVDs that represent good "value for money" in low-and middle-income countries? This study reviews the evidence-base on economic evaluations of interventions located in those countries. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of journal articles published until 2009, based on a comprehensive key-word based search in generic and specialized electronic databases, accompanied by manual searches of expert databases. The search strategy consisted of freetext and MeSH terms related to economic evaluation and cardiovascular disease. Two independent reviewers verified fulfillment of inclusion criteria and extracted study characteristics. Results: Thirty-three studies met the selection criteria. We find a growing research interest, in particular in most recent years, if from a very low baseline. Most interventions fall under the category primary prevention, as opposed to case management or secondary prevention. Across the spectrum of interventions, pharmaceutical strategies have been the predominant focus, and, taken at face value, these show significant positive economic evidence, specifically when compared to the counterfactual of no interventions. Only a few studies consider non-clinical interventions, at population level. Almost half of the studies have modelled the intervention effectiveness based on existing risk-factor information and effectiveness evidence from high-income countries. Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness evidence on CVD interventions in developing countries is growing, but remains scarce, and is biased towards pharmaceutical interventions. While the burden of cardiovascular disease is growing in these countries, future research should put greater emphasis on non-clinical interventions than has hitherto been the case. Significant differences in outcome measures and methodologies prohibit a direct ranking of the interventions by their degree of cost-effectiveness. Considerable caution should be exercised when transferring effectiveness estimates from developed countries for the purpose of modelling cost-effectiveness in developing countries. New local CVD risk factor and intervention follow-up studies are needed. Some pharmaceutical strategies appear cost-effective while clarifications are needed on the diagnostic approach in single high-risk factor vs. absolute risk targeting, the role of patient compliance, and the potential public health consequences of large-scale medicalization

The opportunities for and obstacles against prevention: the example of Germany in the areas of tobacco and alcohol

Background: Recent years have seen a growing research and policy interest in prevention in many developed countries. However, the actual efforts and resources devoted to prevention appear to have lagged well behind the lip service paid to the topic. Discussion: We review the evidence on the considerable existing scope for health gains from prevention as well as for greater prevention policy efforts in Germany. We also discuss the barriers to "more and better" prevention and provide modest suggestions about how some of the obstacles could be overcome. Summary: In Germany, there are substantial health gains to be reaped from the implementation of evidence-based, cost-effective preventive interventions and policies. Barriers to more prevention include social, historical, political, legal and economic factors. While there is sufficient evidence to scale up prevention efforts in some public health domains in Germany, in general there is a comparative shortage of research on non-clinical preventive interventions. Some of the existing barriers in Germany are at least in principle amenable to change, provided sufficient political will exists. More research on prevention by itself is no panacea, but could help facilitate more policy action. In particular, there is an economic efficiency-based case for public funding and promotion of research on non-clinical preventive interventions, in Germany and beyond, to confront the peculiar challenges that set this research apart from its clinical counterpart