Transparency in health economic modeling : options, issues and potential solutions

Economic models are increasingly being used by health economists to assess the value of health technologies and inform healthcare decision making. However, most published economic models represent a kind of black box, with known inputs and outputs but undisclosed internal calculations and assumptions. This lack of transparency makes the evaluation of the model results challenging, complicates comparisons between models, and limits the reproducibility of the models. Here, we aim to provide an overview of the possible steps that could be undertaken to make economic models more transparent and encourage model developers to share more detailed calculations and assumptions with their peers. Scenarios with different levels of transparency (i.e., how much information is disclosed) and reach of transparency (i.e., who has access to the disclosed information) are discussed, and five key concerns (copyrights, model misuse, confidential data, software, and time/resources) pertaining to model transparency are presented, along with possible solutions. While a shift toward open-source models is underway in health economics, as has happened before in other research fields, the challenges ahead should not be underestimated. Importantly, there is a pressing need to find an acceptable trade-off between the added value of model transparency and the time and resources needed to achieve such transparency. To this end, it will be crucial to set incentives at different stakeholder levels. Despite the many challenges, the many benefits of publicly sharing economic models make increased transparency a goal worth pursuing

When science is not enough: a framework towards more customer-focused drug development

The purpose of this study was to identify the key barriers to a customer-focused drug development process and develop a comprehensive framework to overcome them. METHODS: The paper draws on existing literature, both academic and practitioner, across a range of disciplines (innovation management, marketing, organizational behavior, behavioral economics, health economics, industry reports). On the basis of this extensive review, a conceptual framework is developed that offers concrete suggestions on how organizations can overcome the barriers and enable a more customer-focused development process. RESULTS: The barriers to collaboration are organized into three distinct categories (economic, behavioral, organizational), and within each category, a one-to-one mapping between barriers and solutions is developed. CONCLUSION: The framework is specifically designed with the objective of offering actionable and practical advice to executives who face these challenges in their organizations. The paper provides a unique theoretical contribution by synthesizing findings from several academic disciplines with concrete examples from the pharmaceutical industry. FUNDING: Mundipharma International Limited.Mundipharma International Limite

Estimating the health care burden of prescription opioid abuse in five European countries

Amie Shei,1 Matthew Hirst,2 Noam Y Kirson,1 Caroline J Enloe,1 Howard G Birnbaum,1 William C N Dunlop21Analysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA, USA; 2Mundipharma International Limited, Cambridge, UK Background: Opioid abuse, including abuse of prescription opioids (“RxOs”) and illicit substances like heroin, is a serious public health issue in Europe. Currently, there is limited data on the magnitude of RxO abuse in Europe, despite increasing public and scientific interest in the issue. The purpose of this study was to use the best-available data to derive comparable estimates of the health care burden of RxO abuse in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (EU5). Methods: Published data on the prevalence of problem opioid use and the share of opioid abuse patients reporting misuse of non-heroin opioids were used to estimate the prevalence of RxO abuse in the EU5 countries. The costs of RxO abuse were calculated by applying published estimates of the incremental health care costs of opioid abuse to country-specific estimates of the costs of chronic pain conditions. These estimates were input into an economic model that quantified the health care burden of RxO abuse in each of the EU5 countries. Sensitivity analyses examined key assumptions. Results: Based on best-available current data, prevalence estimates of RxO abuse ranged from 0.7 to 13.7 per 10,000 individuals across the EU5 countries. Estimates of the incremental health care costs of RxO abuse ranged from €900 to €2,551 per patient per year. The annual health care cost burden of RxO abuse ranged from €6,264 to €279,927 per 100,000 individuals across the EU5 countries. Conclusion: This study suggests that RxO abuse imposes a cost burden on health systems in the five largest European countries. The extent of RxO abuse in Europe should be monitored given the potential for change over time. Continued efforts should be made to collect reliable data on the prevalence and costs of RxO abuse in Europe to facilitate an accurate characterization of the extent of this potentially growing problem. Keywords: prescription opioids, abuse, prevalence, health care cost

Critical inhaler errors in asthma and COPD: a systematic review of impact on health outcomes

Background: Inhaled drug delivery is the cornerstone treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, use of inhaler devices can be challenging, potentially leading to critical errors in handling that can significantly reduce drug delivery to the lungs and effectiveness of treatment. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to define ‘critical’ errors and their impact on health outcomes and resource use between 2004 and 2016, using key search terms for inhaler errors in asthma and COPD (Search-1) and associated health-economic and patient burden (Search-2). Results: Search-1 identified 62 manuscripts, 47 abstracts, and 5 conference proceedings (n = 114 total). Search-2 identified 9 studies. We observed 299 descriptions of critical error. Age, education status, previous inhaler instruction, comorbidities and socioeconomic status were associated with worse handling error frequency. A significant association was found between inhaler errors and poor disease outcomes (exacerbations), and greater health-economic burden. Conclusions: We have shown wide variations in how critical errors are defined, and the evidence shows an important association between inhaler errors and worsened health outcomes. Given the negative impact diminished disease outcomes impose on resource use, our findings highlight the importance of achieving optimal inhaler technique, and a need for a consensus on defining critical and non-critical errors