Suchergebnisse

Evidence that cell phone use while driving increases the risk of being involved in a motor vehicle crash has led policymakers to consider prohibitions on this practice. However, while restrictions would reduce property loss, injuries, and fatalities, consumers would lose the convenience of using these devices while driving. Quantifying the risks and benefits associated with cell phone use while driving is complicated by substantial uncertainty in the estimates of several important inputs, including the extent to which cell phone use increases a driver's risk of being involved in a crash, the amount of time drivers spend using cell phones (and hence their aggregate contribution to crashes, injuries, and fatalities), and the incremental value to users of being able to make calls while driving. Two prominent studies that have investigated cell phone use while driving have concluded that the practice should not be banned. One finds that the benefits of calls made while driving substantially exceed their costs while the other finds that other interventions could reduce motor vehicle injuries and fatalities (measured in terms of quality adjusted life years) at a lower cost. Another issue is that cell phone use imposes increased (involuntary) risks on other roadway users. This article revises the assumptions used in the two previous analyses to make them consistent and updates them using recent data. The result is a best estimate of zero for the net benefit of cell phone use while driving, a finding that differs substantially from the previous study. Our revised cost‐effectiveness estimate for cell phone use while driving moves in the other direction, finding that the cost per quality adjusted life year increases modestly compared to the previous estimate. Both estimates are very uncertain.

The Right Price provides an accessible guide to pharmaceutical markets and analytic techniques used to measure the value of drug therapies. It unveils why the pricing of drugs continues to be so challenging and how public and private officials can create more informed policies to achieve the right balance between drug pricing and value.

We present a hypothetical case study using the Years of Potential Life Lost (YPLL) metric to compare cancer risks incurred by residents living near a Superfund site to occupational fatality risks incurred by workers employed in that site's remediation. Since cancer occurs late in life, and because we assume its mortality rate is 60%, each case results in 8.8 YPLL. Each occupational fatality, which typically occurs earlier in life, results in 38.1 YPLL. In our case study, the residential population of 5000 incurred 1.3 YPLL, compared to 5.7 YPLL incurred by the 500 workers. Several uncertain assumptions may influence our calculations; moreover, occupational risks may be viewed as more "voluntary" than risks incurred by residents. However, because the magnitude of the YPLL incurred by workers and residents may be comparable, risk managers should consider occupational risks when evaluating remedial alternatives.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine perspective and costing approaches used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and the distribution of reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). METHODS: We analyzed the Tufts Medical Center's CEA and Global Health CEA registries, containing 6907 cost-per-quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) and 698 cost-per-disability-adjusted-life-year (DALY) studies published through 2018. We examined how often published CEAs included non-health consequences and their impact on ICERs. We also reviewed 45 country-specific guidelines to examine recommended analytic perspectives. RESULTS: Study authors often mis-specified or did not clearly state the perspective used. After re-classification by registry reviewers, a healthcare sector or payer perspective was most prevalent (74%). CEAs rarely included unrelated medical costs and impacts on non-healthcare sectors. The most common non-health consequence included was productivity loss in the cost-per-QALY studies (12%) and patient transportation in the cost-per-DALY studies (21%). Of 19,946 cost-per-QALY ratios, the median ICER was $US26,000/QALY (interquartile range [IQR] 2900–110,000), and 18% were cost saving and QALY increasing. Of 5572 cost-per-DALY ratios, the median ICER was $US430/DALY (IQR 67–3400), and 8% were cost saving and DALY averting. Based on 16 cost-per-QALY studies (2017–2018) reporting 68 ICERs from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, the median ICER from a societal perspective ($US22,710/QALY [IQR 11,991–49,603]) was more favorable than from a healthcare sector perspective ($US30,402/QALY [IQR 10,486–77,179]). Most governmental guidelines (67%) recommended either a healthcare sector or a payer perspective. CONCLUSION: Researchers should justify and be transparent about their choice of perspective and costing approaches. The use of the impact inventory and reporting of disaggregate outcomes can reduce inconsistencies and confusion. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this ...