266 research outputs found

    Spending Health Care Dollars Wisely: Can Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Help? 16th Annual Herbert Lourie Memorial Lecture on Health Policy

    Get PDF
    Are we getting the most health improvement possible for our money. In other words, are all the things that we do in medicine really worth it? That is where cost-effectiveness comes in. As a nation, we have been unwilling, at least publicly, to look explicitly at the value, in terms of improved health outcome, that we get for our health care dollars. With advances in medical technology putting unsustainable pressure on health care costs, our historical reluctance to measure value for health care may have to change. I start this brief by describing cost-effectiveness analysis as a method of determining the value, measured in Quality-Adjusted Life Years, of medical technologies as they are applied to treat, diagnose, or prevent various conditions. Based on this information, I then argue that some highly beneficial, low-cost procedures are significantly underutilized, and that other medical technologies may be overutilized based on the amount of health benefit they yield in relation to their cost. Next, I give examples from current research, my own and that of colleagues, illustrating how cost-effectiveness analysis can be used to guide the use of new diagnostic testing technologies (such as DNA or RNA typing of infectious agents or identification of genomic or proteinomic markers in cancer patients).

    Spending Health Care Dollars Wisely: Can Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Help?

    Get PDF
    Are we getting the most health improvement possible for our money. In other words, are all the things that we do in medicine really worth it? That is where cost-effectiveness comes in. As a nation, we have been unwilling, at least publicly, to look explicitly at the value, in terms of improved health outcome, that we get for our health care dollars. With advances in medical technology putting unsustainable pressure on health care costs, our historical reluctance to measure value for health care may have to change. I start this brief by describing cost-effectiveness analysis as a method of determining the value, measured in Quality-Adjusted Life Years, of medical technologies as they are applied to treat, diagnose, or prevent various conditions. Based on this information, I then argue that some highly beneficial, low-cost procedures are significantly under-utilized, and that other medical technologies may be over-utilized based on the amount of health benefit they yield in relation to their cost. Next, I give examples from current research, my own and that of colleagues, illustrating how cost-effectiveness analysis can be used to guide the use of new diagnostic testing technologies (such as DNA or RNA typing of infectious agents or identification of genomic or proteomic markers in cancer patients)

    Cost-Effectiveness of Interferon Beta-1a, Interferon Beta-1b, and Glatiramer Acetate in Newly Diagnosed Non-primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

    Get PDF
    AbstractObjectiveTo perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of three immunomodulatory treatments for newly diagnosed nonprimary progressive MS: interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, and glatiramer acetate.MethodsWe developed a state-transition model to estimate the health effects and costs associated with interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, glatiramer acetate, and no treatment for hypothetical cohorts of men and women with non-primary progressive MS. We used the Expanded Disability Status Scale as the measure of disability and included both relapses and disease progression in the model. We evaluated treatment strategies assuming a 10-year treatment duration using the societal perspective. We elicited preferences for disability and treatment states using standard-gamble questions and modeled the disutility associated with treatment administration and side effects explicitly. Main outcome measures were net gains in quality-adjusted life expectancy and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.ResultsFor treatment duration of 10 years for newly diagnosed non-primary progressive MS, interferon beta-1a yielded the largest gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 2,200,000/QALYforwomenand2,200,000/QALY for women and 1,800,000/QALY for men, compared with no treatment. For a 5-year treatment duration, a “no treatment” strategy yielded more quality-adjusted life years than any of the treatment strategies. Cost-effectiveness ratios were similar for all three immunomodulatory treatments evaluated.ConclusionsCost-effectiveness results for all three immunomodulatory treatments for MS were unfavorable in the simulated study population under a wide range of assumptions. For treatment duration less than or equal to 5 years, expected benefits of treatment may not outweigh disutility associated with side effects and treatment discomfort

    Cost-effectiveness of a smoking cessation program after myocardial infarction

    Get PDF
    AbstractObjectives. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a smoking cessation program initiated after acute myocardial infarction.Background. The value of allocating health care resources to smoking cessation programs after myocardial infarction has not been compared with the value of other currently accepted interventions.Methods. A model was developed to examine the cost-effectiveness of a recently reported smoking cessation program after an acute myocardial infarction. The cost was estimated by considering the resources necessary to implement the program, and the effectiveness was expressed as discounted years of life saved. Years of life saved were estimated by modeling life expectancy using a single declining exponential approximation of life expectancy based on data from published reports.Results. The cost-effectiveness of the nurse-managed smoking cessation program was estimated to be 220/yearoflifesaved.Inaonewaysensitivityanalysis,thecosteffectivenessoftheprogramremained<220/year of life saved. In a one-way sensitivity analysis, the cost-effectiveness of the program remained <20,000/year of life saved if the program decreased the smoking rate by only 3/1,000 smokers (baseline assumption 26/100 smokers), or if the program cost as much as 8,840/smoker(baselineassumption8,840/smoker (baseline assumption 100). In a two-way sensitivity analysis, even if the cost of the program were as high as 2,000/participant,thecosteffectivenessoftheprogramwouldbe<2,000/participant, the cost-effectiveness of the program would be <10,000/year of life saved so as the an program helped an additional 12 smokers quit for every 100 enrolled.Conclusions. Over a wide range of estimates of costs and effectiveness, a nurse-managed smoking cessation program after acute myocardial infarction is an extremely cost-effective intervention. This program is more cost-elective than beta-adrenergic antagonist therapy after myocardial infarction

    Patient- and population-level health consequences of discontinuing antiretroviral therapy in settings with inadequate HIV treatment availability

    Get PDF
    Background In resource-limited settings, HIV budgets are flattening or decreasing. A policy of discontinuing antiretroviral therapy (ART) after HIV treatment failure was modeled to highlight trade-offs among competing policy goals of optimizing individual and population health outcomes. Methods In settings with two available ART regimens, we assessed two strategies: (1) continue ART after second-line failure (Status Quo) and (2) discontinue ART after second-line failure (Alternative). A computer model simulated outcomes for a single cohort of newly detected, HIV-infected individuals. Projections were fed into a population-level model allowing multiple cohorts to compete for ART with constraints on treatment capacity. In the Alternative strategy, discontinuation of second-line ART occurred upon detection of antiretroviral failure, specified by WHO guidelines. Those discontinuing failed ART experienced an increased risk of AIDS-related mortality compared to those continuing ART. Results At the population level, the Alternative strategy increased the mean number initiating ART annually by 1,100 individuals (+18.7%) to 6,980 compared to the Status Quo. More individuals initiating ART under the Alternative strategy increased total life-years by 15,000 (+2.8%) to 555,000, compared to the Status Quo. Although more individuals received treatment under the Alternative strategy, life expectancy for those treated decreased by 0.7 years (−8.0%) to 8.1 years compared to the Status Quo. In a cohort of treated patients only, 600 more individuals (+27.1%) died by 5 years under the Alternative strategy compared to the Status Quo. Results were sensitive to the timing of detection of ART failure, number of ART regimens, and treatment capacity. Although we believe the results robust in the short-term, this analysis reflects settings where HIV case detection occurs late in the disease course and treatment capacity and the incidence of newly detected patients are stable. Conclusions In settings with inadequate HIV treatment availability, trade-offs emerge between maximizing outcomes for individual patients already on treatment and ensuring access to treatment for all people who may benefit. While individuals may derive some benefit from ART even after virologic failure, the aggregate public health benefit is maximized by providing effective therapy to the greatest number of people. These trade-offs should be explicit and transparent in antiretroviral policy decisions
    corecore