263 research outputs found
How Physicians React to Cost-Effectiveness Information
Since 1998, the growth of health care spending has accelerated to levels not seen since the 1980s. This growth has renewed pressures on physicians to practice “cost-effective” care, since physicians’ decisions account for the vast majority of all health care spending. But little is known about what physicians think about cost containment, and how they incorporate cost-effectiveness information into their practice patterns. This Issue Brief summarizes three related studies that describe primary care physicians’ attitudes toward considering costs in their clinical decisions, and the effects of providing cost-effectiveness information on physicians’ recommendations
Up from Crisis: Overhauling Healthcare Information, Payment, and Delivery in Extraordinary Times. Dialogue with Featured Speakers from the 6th Annual Connected Health Symposium
Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78098/1/tmj.2009.9948.pd
How behavioral economics can help to avoid ‘The last mile problem’ in whole genome sequencing
Editorial summary Failure to consider lessons from behavioral economics in the case of whole genome sequencing may cause us to run into the ‘last mile problem’ - the failure to integrate newly developed technology, on which billions of dollars have been invested, into society in a way that improves human behavior and decision-making
IL-6 activated integrated BATF/IRF4 functions in lymphocytes are T-bet-independent and reversed by subcutaneous immunotherapy.
IL-6 plays a central role in supporting pathological TH2 and TH17 cell development and inhibiting the protective T regulatory cells in allergic asthma. TH17 cells have been demonstrated to regulate allergic asthma in general and T-bet-deficiency-induced asthma in particular. Here we found an inverse correlation between T-bet and Il-6 mRNA expression in asthmatic children. Moreover, experimental subcutaneous immunotherapy (SIT) in T-bet((-/-)) mice inhibited IL-6, IL-21R and lung TH17 cells in a setting of asthma. Finally, local delivery of an anti-IL-6R antibody in T-bet((-/-)) mice resulted in the resolution of this allergic trait. Noteworthy, BATF, crucial for the immunoglobulin-class-switch and TH2,TH17 development, was found down-regulated in the lungs of T-bet((-/-)) mice after SIT and after treatment with anti-IL-6R antibody, indicating a critical role of IL-6 in controlling BATF/IRF4 integrated functions in TH2, TH17 cells and B cells also in a T-bet independent fashion in allergic asthma
The equivalence of numbers: The social value of avoiding health decline: An experimental web-based study
BACKGROUND: Health economic analysis aimed at informing policy makers and supporting resource allocation decisions has to evaluate not only improvements in health but also avoided decline. Little is known however, whether the "direction" in which changes in health are experienced is important for the public in prioritizing among patients. This experimental study investigates the social value people place on avoiding (further) health decline when directly compared to curative treatments in resource allocation decisions. METHODS: 127 individuals completed an interactive survey that was published in the World Wide Web. They were confronted with a standard gamble (SG) and three person trade-off tasks, either comparing improvements in health (PTO-Up), avoided decline (PTO-Down), or both, contrasting health changes of equal magnitude differing in the direction in which they are experienced (PTO-WAD). Finally, a direct priority ranking of various interventions was obtained. RESULTS: Participants strongly prioritized improving patients' health rather than avoiding decline. The mean substitution rate between health improvements and avoided decline (WAD) ranged between 0.47 and 0.64 dependent on the intervention. Weighting PTO values according to the direction in which changes in health are experienced improved their accuracy in predicting a direct prioritization ranking. Health state utilities obtained by the standard gamble method seem not to reflect social values in resource allocation contexts. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the utility of being cured of a given health state might not be a good approximation for the societal value of avoiding this health state, especially in cases of competition between preventive and curative interventions
Trading people versus trading time: What is the difference?
BACKGROUND: Person trade-off (PTO) elicitations yield different values than standard utility measures, such as time trade-off (TTO) elicitations. Some people believe this difference arises because the PTO captures the importance of distributive principles other than maximizing treatment benefits. We conducted a qualitative study to determine whether people mention considerations related to distributive principles other than QALY-maximization more often in PTO elicitations than in TTO elicitations and whether this could account for the empirical differences. METHODS: 64 members of the general public were randomized to one of three different face-to-face interviews, thinking aloud as they responded to TTO and PTO elicitations. Participants responded to a TTO followed by a PTO elicitation within contexts that compared either: 1) two life-saving treatments; 2) two cure treatments; or 3) a life-saving treatment versus a cure treatment. RESULTS: When people were asked to choose between life-saving treatments, non-maximizing principles were more common with the PTO than the TTO task. Only 5% of participants considered non-maximizing principles as they responded to the TTO elicitation compared to 68% of participants who did so when responding to the PTO elicitation. Non-maximizing principles that emerged included importance of equality of life and a desire to avoid discrimination. However, these principles were less common in the other two contexts. Regardless of context, though, participants were significantly more likely to respond from a societal perspective with the PTO compared to the TTO elicitation. CONCLUSION: When lives are at stake, within the context of a PTO elicitation, people are more likely to consider non-maximizing principles, including the importance of equal access to a life-saving treatment, avoiding prejudice or discrimination, and in rare cases giving treatment priority based purely on the position of being worse-off
Public Response to Cost-Quality Tradeoffs in Clinical Decisions.
PURPOSE: To explore public attitudes toward the incorporation of cost-effectiveness analysis into clinical decisions.
METHODS: The authors presented 781 jurors with a survey describing 1 of 6 clinical encounters in which a physician has to choose between cancer screening tests. They provided cost-effectiveness data for all tests, and in each scenario, the most effective test was more expensive. They instructed respondents to imagine that he or she was the physician in the scenario and asked them to choose which test to recommend and then explain their choice in an open-ended manner. The authors then qualitatively analyzed the responses by identifying themes and developed a coding scheme. Two authors separately coded the statements with high overall agreement (kappa = 0.76). Categories were not mutually exclusive.
RESULTS: Overall, 410 respondents (55%) chose the most expensive option, and 332 respondents (45%) choose a less expensive option. Explanatory comments were given by 82% respondents. Respondents who chose the most expensive test focused on the increased benefit (without directly acknowledging the additional cost) (39%), a general belief that life is more important than money (22%), the significance of cancer risk for the patient in the scenario (20%), the belief that the benefit of the test was worth the additional cost (8%), and personal anecdotes/preferences (6%). Of the respondents who chose the less expensive test, 40% indicated that they did not believe that the patient in the scenario was at significant risk for cancer, 13% indicated that they thought the less expensive test was adequate or not meaningfully different from the more expensive test, 12% thought the cost of the test was not worth the additional benefit, 9% indicated that the test was too expensive (without mention of additional benefit), and 7% responded that resources were limited.
CONCLUSIONS: Public response to cost-quality tradeoffs is mixed. Although some respondents justified their decision based on the cost-effectiveness information provided, many focused instead on specific features of the scenario or on general beliefs about whether cost should be incorporated into clinical decisions
Treatment costs and priority setting in health care: A qualitative study
The aim of this study is to investigate whether the public believes high cost patients should be a lower priority for public health care than low cost patients, other things being equal, in order to maximise health gains from the health budget. Semi-structured group discussions were used to help participants reflect critically upon their own views and gain exposure to alternative views, and in this way elicit underlying values rather than unreflective preferences. Participants were given two main tasks: first, to select from among three general principles for setting health care priorities the one that comes closest to their own views; second, to allocate a limited hospital budget between two groups of imaginary patients. Forty-one people, varying in age, occupation, income and education level, participated in a total of six group discussions with each group comprising between six and eight people
The cost-effectiveness of early noninvasive ventilation for ALS patients
BACKGROUND: Optimal timing of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) initiation in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is unknown, but NIPPV appears to benefit ALS patients who are symptomatic from pulmonary insufficiency. This has prompted research proposals of earlier NIPPV initiation in the ALS disease course in an attempt to further improve ALS patient quality of life and perhaps survival. We therefore used a cost-utility analysis to determine a priori what magnitude of health-related quality of life (HRQL) improvement early NIPPV initiation would need to achieve to be cost-effective in a future clinical trial. METHODS: Using a Markov decision analytic model we calculated the benefit in health-state utility that NIPPV initiated at ALS diagnosis must achieve to be cost-effective. The primary outcome was the percent utility gained through NIPPV in relation to two common willingness-to-pay thresholds: 100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: Our results indicate that if NIPPV begun at the time of diagnosis improves ALS patient HRQL as little as 13.5%, it would be a cost-effective treatment. Tolerance of NIPPV (assuming a 20% improvement in HRQL) would only need to exceed 18% in our model for treatment to remain cost-effective using a conservative willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: If early use of NIPPV in ALS patients is shown to improve HRQL in future studies, it is likely to be a cost-effective treatment. Clinical trials of NIPPV begun at the time of ALS diagnosis are therefore warranted from a cost-effectiveness standpoint
The social value of a QALY : raising the bar or barring the raise?
Background: Since the inception of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England,
there have been questions about the empirical basis for the cost-per-QALY threshold used by NICE and whether
QALYs gained by different beneficiaries of health care should be weighted equally. The Social Value of a QALY
(SVQ) project, reported in this paper, was commissioned to address these two questions. The results of SVQ were
released during a time of considerable debate about the NICE threshold, and authors with differing perspectives
have drawn on the SVQ results to support their cases. As these discussions continue, and given the selective use of
results by those involved, it is important, therefore, not only to present a summary overview of SVQ, but also for
those who conducted the research to contribute to the debate as to its implications for NICE.
Discussion: The issue of the threshold was addressed in two ways: first, by combining, via a set of models, the
current UK Value of a Prevented Fatality (used in transport policy) with data on fatality age, life expectancy and
age-related quality of life; and, second, via a survey designed to test the feasibility of combining respondents’
answers to willingness to pay and health state utility questions to arrive at values of a QALY. Modelling resulted in
values of £10,000-£70,000 per QALY. Via survey research, most methods of aggregating the data resulted in values
of a QALY of £18,000-£40,000, although others resulted in implausibly high values. An additional survey, addressing
the issue of weighting QALYs, used two methods, one indicating that QALYs should not be weighted and the
other that greater weight could be given to QALYs gained by some groups.
Summary: Although we conducted only a feasibility study and a modelling exercise, neither present compelling
evidence for moving the NICE threshold up or down. Some preliminary evidence would indicate it could be
moved up for some types of QALY and down for others. While many members of the public appear to be open to
the possibility of using somewhat different QALY weights for different groups of beneficiaries, we do not yet have
any secure evidence base for introducing such a system
- …