The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development

<i>Aim</i>: In a budget-constrained health care system, the decision to invest in strategies to improve the implementation of cost-effective technologies must be made alongside decisions regarding investment in the technologies themselves and investment in further research. This article presents a single, unified framework that simultaneously addresses the problem of allocating funds between these separate but linked activities. <i>Methods</i>: The framework presents a simple 4-state world where both information and implementation can be either at the current level or "perfect". Through this framework, it is possible to determine the maximum return to further research and an upper bound on the value of adopting implementation strategies. The framework is illustrated through case studies of health care technologies selected from those previously considered by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). <i>Results</i>: Through the case studies, several key factors that influence the expected values of perfect information and perfect implementation are identified. These factors include the maximum acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio, the level of uncertainty surrounding the adoption decision, the expected net benefits associated with the technologies, the current level of implementation, and the size of the eligible population. <i>Conclusions</i>: Previous methods for valuing implementation strategies have not distinguished the value of efficacy research and the value of strategies to change the level of implementation. This framework demonstrates that the value of information and the value of implementation can be examined separately but simultaneously in a single framework. This can usefully inform policy decisions about investment in health care services, further research, and adopting implementation strategies that are likely to differ between technologies

Reforming the cancer drug fund focus on drugs that might be shown to be cost effective

The Cancer Drug Fund was originally conceived as a temporary measure, until value based pricing for drugs was introduced, to give NHS cancer patients access to drugs not approved by NICE. Spending on these drugs rose from less than the £50m (€63m; $79m) budgeted for the first year in 2010-11 to well over £200m in 2013-14, and the budget for the scheme—now extended for a further two years—will reach £280m by 2016.1 The recent changes to the fund recognise the impossibility, within any sensible budget limit, of providing all the new cancer drugs that offer possible benefit to patients. More radical changes are needed to the working of the fund, given the failure to introduce value based pricing, so that it deals with the underlying problem of inadequate information on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of new cancer drugs when used in the NHS

Measuring costs and consequences in economic evaluation in asthma

AbstractFormal economic evaluation is playing an increasingly important role in health-care decision-making. This is shown by the requirement to present economic data to support applications for public reimbursement for new pharmaceuticals in Australia and the provinces of Canada, and by the appraisal process initiated by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the U.K. This growing role of economic analysis applies as much to the field of asthma as anywhere. This paper provides a detailed review of applied economic studies in asthma. The review is used to explore a range of methodological issues in the field including the choice of perspective and maximand, whether to use disease-specific or generic measures of outcome and whether decision-makers should receive disaggregated cost and consequence data or results that focus on an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. It is concluded that, given the heterogeneity in decision-makers' objectives and constraints, economic studies should be planned and executed in such a way as to maximize flexibility in how results are presented

Patients' preferences for the management of non-metastatic prostate cancer: discrete choice experiment

Objective To establish which attributes of conservative treatments for prostate cancer are most important to men. Design Discrete choice experiment. Setting Two London hospitals. Participants 129 men with non-metastatic prostate cancer, mean age 70 years; 69 of 118 (58%) with T stage 1 or 2 cancer at diagnosis. Main outcome measures Men's preferences for, and trade-offs between, the attributes of diarrhoea, hot flushes, ability to maintain an erection, breast swelling or tenderness, physical energy, sex drive, life expectancy, and out of pocket expenses. Results The men's responses to changes in attributes were all statistically significant. When asked to assume a starting life expectancy of five years, the men were willing to make trade-offs between life expectancy and side effects. On average, they were most willing to give up life expectancy to avoid limitations in physical energy (mean three months) and least willing to trade life expectancy to avoid hot flushes (mean 0.6 months to move from a moderate to mild level or from mild to none). Conclusions Men with prostate cancer are willing to participate in a relatively complex exercise that weighs up the advantages and disadvantages of various conservative treatments for their condition. They were willing to trade off some life expectancy to be relieved of the burden of troublesome side effects such as limitations in physical energy

Cost effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with standard hysterectomy: results from a randomised trial

Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with conventional hysterectomy (abdominal or vaginal). Design: Cost effectiveness analysis based on two parallel trials: laparoscopic (n = 324) compared with vaginal hysterectomy (n = 163); and laparoscopic (n = 573) compared with abdominal hysterectomy (n = 286). Participants: 1346 women requiring a hysterectomy for reasons other than malignancy. Main outcome measure: One year costs estimated from NHS perspective. Health outcomes expressed in terms of QALYs based on women's responses to the EQ-5D at baseline and at three points during up to 52 weeks' follow up. Results: Laparoscopic hysterectomy cost an average of pound401 ($708; C571) more (95$471789; E380 437). The, probability that laparoscopic hysterectomy is cost effective was below 50% for a large range of values of willingness to pay for an additional QALY. Laparoscopic hysterectomy cost an average of pound186 ($328; E265) more than abdominal hysterectomy, although 95$46 893; E37 813). If the NHS is willing to pay pound30 0 00 for an additional QALY, the probability that laparoscopic hysterectomy is cost effective is 56%. Conclusions: Laparoscopic hysterectomy is not cost effective relative to vaginal hysterectomy. Its cost effectiveness relative to the abdominal procedure is finely balanced

Methods to estimate the cost effectiveness threshold for the NHS

This presentation was delivered by Professor Mark Sculpher from the University of York, UK on 6th September 2011, as part of the HERG Seminar Series. The speaker is a Professor of Health Economics

Prevalence of working smoke alarms in local authority inner city housing: randomised controlled trial

Objectives To identify which type of smoke alarm is most likely to remain working in local authority inner city housing, and to identify an alarm tolerated in households with smokers. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Two local authority housing estates in inner London. Participants 2145 households. Intervention Installation of one of five types of smoke alarm (ionisation sensor with a zinc battery; ionisation sensor with a zinc battery and pause button; ionisation sensor with a lithium battery and pause button; optical sensor with a lithium battery; or optical sensor with a zinc battery). Main outcome measure Percentage of homes with any working alarm and percentage in which the alarm installed for this study was working after 15 months. Results 54.4% (1166/2145) of all households and 45.9% (465/1012) of households occupied by smokers had a working smoke alarm. Ionisation sensor, lithium battery, and there being a smoker in the household were independently associated with whether an alarm was working (adjusted odds ratios 2.24 (95% confidence interval 1.75 to 2.87), 2.20 (1.77 to 2.75), and 0.62 (0.52 to 0.74)). The most common reasons for non-function were missing battery (19%), missing alarm (17%), and battery disconnected (4%). Conclusions Nearly half of the alarms installed were not working when tested 15 months later. Type of alarm and power source are important determinants of whether a household had a working alarm

Screening for Down's syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies commentary: rasults may not be widely applicable authors' response

Objective: To compare the effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of antenatal screening strategies for Down's syndrome. Design: Analysis of incremental cost effectiveness. Setting: United Kingdom. Main outcome measures: Number of liveborn babies with Down's syndrome, miscarriages due to chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis, healthcare costs of screening programme, and additional costs and additional miscarriages per additional affected live birth prevented by adopting a more effective strategy. Results: Compared with no screening, the additional cost per additional liveborn baby with Down's syndrome prevented was £22 000 for measurement of nuchal translucency. The cost of the integrated test was £51 000 compared with measurement of nuchal translucency. All other strategies were more costly and less effective, or cost more per additional affected baby prevented. Depending on the cost of the screening test, the first trimester combined test and the quadruple test would also be cost effective options. Conclusions: The choice of screening strategy should be between the integrated test, first trimester combined test, quadruple test, or nuchal translucency measurement depending on how much service providers are willing to pay, the total budget available, and values on safety. Screening based on maternal age, the second trimester double test, and the first trimester serum test was less effective, less safe, and more costly than these four options