¿Qué es una intervención sanitaria eficiente en España en 2020?

Hace más de 15 años que en Gaceta Sanitaria se publicó el artículo titulado «¿Qué es una tecnología sanitaria eficiente en España?». El creciente interés por fijar el precio de las nuevas tecnologías en función del valor que estas proporcionan a los sistemas de salud y la experiencia acumulada por los países de nuestro entorno hacen oportuno revisar qué es una intervención sanitaria eficiente en España en el año 2020. El análisis de coste-efectividad sigue siendo el método de referencia para maximizar los resultados en salud de la sociedad con los recursos disponibles. La interpretación de sus resultados requiere establecer unos valores de referencia que sirvan de guía sobre lo que constituye un valor razonable para el sistema sanitario. Los umbrales de eficiencia deben ser flexibles y dinámicos, y actualizarse periódicamente. Su aplicación debe estar basada en la gradualidad y la transparencia, considerando, además, otros factores que reflejen las preferencias sociales. Aunque la fijación de los umbrales corresponde a los decisores políticos, en España puede ser razonable utilizar unos valores de referencia como punto de partida que podrían estar comprendidos entre los 25.000 y los 60.000 euros por año de vida ajustado por calidad. No obstante, en la actualidad, más que la determinación de las cifras exactas de dicho umbral, la cuestión clave es si el Sistema Nacional de Salud está preparado y dispuesto a implantar un modelo de pago basado en el valor, que contribuya a lograr la gradualidad en las decisiones de financiación y, sobre todo, a mejorar la previsibilidad, la consistencia y la transparencia del proceso.Fifteen years ago, Gaceta Sanitaria published the article entitled “What is an efficient health technology in Spain?” The growing interest in setting the price of new technologies based on the value they provide to health systems and the experience accumulated by the countries in our environment make it opportune to review what constitutes an efficient health intervention in Spain in 2020. Cost-effectiveness analysis continues to be the reference method to maximize social health outcomes with the available resources. The interpretation of its results requires establishing reference values that serve as a guide on what constitutes a reasonable value for the health care system. Efficiency thresholds must be flexible and dynamic, and they need to be updated periodically. Its application should be based on and transparency, and consider other factors that reflect social preferences. Although setting thresholds is down to political decision-makers, in Spain it could be reasonable to use thresholds of 25,000 and 60,000 Euros per QALY. However, currently, in addition to determining exactfigures for the threshold,the key question is whether the Spanish National Health System is able and willing to implement a payment model based on value, towards achieving gradual financing decisions and, above all, to improve the predictability, consistency and transparency of the process

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in Spain: results for the non-squamous histology population

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness evaluation of pemetrexed compared to docetaxel in the treatment of advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for patients with predominantly non-squamous histology in the Spanish healthcare setting.MethodsA Markov model was designed consisting of stable, responsive, progressive disease and death states. Patients could also experience adverse events as long as they received chemotherapy. Clinical inputs were based on an analysis of a phase III clinical trial that identified a statistically significant improvement in overall survival for non-squamous patients treated with pemetrexed compared with docetaxel. Costs were collected from the Spanish healthcare perspective.ResultsOutcomes of the model included total costs, total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total life years gained (LYG) and total progression-free survival (PFS). Mean survival was 1.03 years for the pemetrexed arm and 0.89 years in the docetaxel arm; QALYs were 0.52 compared to 0.42. Per-patient lifetime costs were € 34677 and € 32343, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were € 23967 per QALY gained and € 17225 per LYG.ConclusionsPemetrexed as a second-line treatment option for patients with a predominantly non-squamous histology in NSCLC is a cost-effective alternative to docetaxel according to the € 30000/QALY threshold commonly accepted in Spain

A modelled economic evaluation comparing atomoxetine with methylphenidate in the treatment of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Spain

Background Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a neurobehavioural disorder, affecting 3–6% of school age children and adolescents in Spain. Methylphenidate (MPH), a mild stimulant, had long been the only approved medication available for ADHD children in Spain. Atomoxetine is a non-stimulant alternative in the treatment of ADHD with once-a-day oral dosing. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of atomoxetine compared to MPH. In addition, atomoxetine is compared to 'no medication' for patient populations who are ineligible for MPH (i.e. having stimulant-failure experience or co-morbidities precluding stimulant medication). Methods An economic model with Markov processes was developed to estimate the costs and benefits of atomoxetine versus either MPH or 'no medication'. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was calculated for atomoxetine relative to the comparators. The Markov process incorporated 14 health states, representing a range of outcomes associated with treatment options. Utility values were obtained from the utility valuation survey of 83 parents of children with ADHD. The clinical data were based on a thorough review of controlled clinical trials and other clinical literature, and validated by international experts. Costs and outcomes were estimated using Monte Carlo simulation over a 1-year duration, with costs estimated from the perspective of the National Health Service in Spain. Results For stimulant-naïve patients without contra-indications to stimulants, the incremental costs per QALY gained for atomoxetine were € 34 308 (compared to an immediate-release MPH) and € 24 310 (compared to an extended-release MPH). For those patients who have stimulant-failure experience or contra-indications to stimulants, the incremental costs per QALY gained of atomoxetine compared to 'no medication' were € 23 820 and € 23 323, respectively. Conclusion The economic evaluation showed that atomoxetine is an effective alternative across a range of ADHD populations and offers value-for money in the treatment of ADHD

¿Qué es una intervención sanitaria eficiente en España en 2020?

Hace más de 15 años que en Gaceta Sanitaria se publicó el artículo titulado «¿Qué es una tecnología sanitaria eficiente en España?». El creciente interés por fijar el precio de las nuevas tecnologías en función del valor que estas proporcionan a los sistemas de salud y la experiencia acumulada por los países de nuestro entorno hacen oportuno revisar qué es una intervención sanitaria eficiente en España en el año 2020. El análisis de coste-efectividad sigue siendo el método de referencia para maximizar los resultados en salud de la sociedad con los recursos disponibles. La interpretación de sus resultados requiere establecer unos valores de referencia que sirvan de guía sobre lo que constituye un valor razonable para el sistema sanitario. Los umbrales de eficiencia deben ser flexibles y dinámicos, y actualizarse periódicamente. Su aplicación debe estar basada en la gradualidad y la transparencia, considerando, además, otros factores que reflejen las preferencias sociales. Aunque la fijación de los umbrales corresponde a los decisores políticos, en España puede ser razonable utilizar unos valores de referencia como punto de partida que podrían estar comprendidos entre los 25.000 y los 60.000 euros por año de vida ajustado por calidad. No obstante, en la actualidad, más que la determinación de las cifras exactas de dicho umbral, la cuestión clave es si el Sistema Nacional de Salud está preparado y dispuesto a implantar un modelo de pago basado en el valor, que contribuya a lograr la gradualidad en las decisiones de financiación y, sobre todo, a mejorar la previsibilidad, la consistencia y la transparencia del proceso.Fifteen years ago, Gaceta Sanitaria published the article entitled “What is an efficient health technology in Spain?” The growing interest in setting the price of new technologies based on the value they provide to health systems and the experience accumulated by the countries in our environment make it opportune to review what constitutes an efficient health intervention in Spain in 2020. Cost-effectiveness analysis continues to be the reference method to maximize social health outcomes with the available resources. The interpretation of its results requires establishing reference values that serve as a guide on what constitutes a reasonable value for the health care system. Efficiency thresholds must be flexible and dynamic, and they need to be updated periodically. Its application should be based on and transparency, and consider other factors that reflect social preferences. Although setting thresholds is down to political decision-makers, in Spain it could be reasonable to use thresholds of 25,000 and 60,000 Euros per QALY. However, currently, in addition to determining exactfigures for the threshold,the key question is whether the Spanish National Health System is able and willing to implement a payment model based on value, towards achieving gradual financing decisions and, above all, to improve the predictability, consistency and transparency of the process