Suchergebnisse

Much evidence suggests that the US does not achieve good value for its health care spending. This book provides a unique perspective on this problem by considering the economic, social, political, and ethical factors that contribute to it, and by seeking to show how experience can guide better policy making in the future.

Much evidence suggests that the U.S. does not achieve good value for its health care spending. Analytic tools such as cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can help determine which health care services will provide the most health improvement for the dollars we spend, but American health policy makers have largely avoided using CEA. This book provides a unique perspective on this problem by considering the economic, social, political, and ethical factors that contribute to it, and by seeking to show how experience can guide better policy making in the future.

The Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry (www.cearegistry.org) is a publicly available comprehensive database of cost-utility analyses of health interventions published in the peer-reviewed medical and public health literature. This article discusses the database structure, methodology of data extraction, current trends in cost-utility analyses and impact of the Registry.

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 investigated ways of defining and measuring the value of services provided by governmental public health systems. Our data sources included literature syntheses and qualitative interviews of public health professionals. Our examination of the health economic literature revealed growing attempts to measure value of public health services explicitly, but few studies have addressed systems or infrastructure. Interview responses demonstrated no consensus on metrics and no connection to the academic literature. Key challenges for practitioners include developing rigorous, data-driven methods and skilled staff; being politically willing to base allocation decisions on economic evaluation; and developing metrics to capture "intangibles" (e.g., social justice and reassurance value). Academic researchers evaluating the economics of public health investments should increase focus on the working needs of public health professionals.

Economic analysis of life‐saving investments in both the public and private sectors has the potential to dramatically improve longevity and the quality of life, but only if the analyses on which decisions are based are done well. In this article, we analyze a data set that provides information on the content and quality of journal articles that measure the cost‐effectiveness of life‐saving investments. Our study is the first to provide a detailed multivariate analysis of factors affecting objective measures of quality. We also explore whether a series of recommendations by an expert panel convened by the U.S. Public Health Service affect the way analyses of specific life‐saving investments are done. Our results suggest that four factors are positively correlated with an index we construct to measure analytical quality: (1) having at least one author affiliated with a university, (2) publication in a journal that has experience in publishing these analyses, (3) if the life‐saving investment is located in the United States, and (4) if the analysis considers a measure of social costs or benefits. Somewhat surprisingly, a study's funding source and whether it is affiliated with industry are not significantly correlated with the quality index. Finally, neither time nor the panel guidelines had an impact on the index.

As healthcare costs rise in the United States, debate is ongoing over how to obtain better value for dollars spent. In this context, the use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is more compelling than ever. This work, written by the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, reviews key concepts and analytic challenges in CEA. The authors endorse the original panel's concept of a reference case and support its recommendation that analysts take a broad societal perspective; in addition, they recommend a healthcare sector perspective for a second reference case, as well as an important new framework, the Impact Inventory, for detailing costs and effects.

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 ...

As economic evaluation becomes increasingly essential to support universal health coverage (UHC), we aim to understand the growth, characteristics, and quality of cost‐effectiveness analyses (CEA) conducted for Africa and to assess institutional capacity and relationship patterns among authors. We searched the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registries and four databases to identify CEAs for Africa. After extracting relevant information, we examined study characteristics, cost‐effectiveness ratios, individual and institutional contribution to the literature, and network dyads at the author, institution, and country levels. The 358 identified CEAs for Africa primarily focused on sub‐Saharan Africa (96%) and interventions for communicable diseases (77%). Of 2,121 intervention‐specific ratios, 8% were deemed cost‐saving, and most evaluated immunizations strategies. As 64% of studies included at least one African author, we observed widespread collaboration among international researchers and institutions. However, only 23% of first authors were affiliated with African institutions. The top producers of CEAs among African institutions are more adherent to methodological and reporting guidelines. Although economic evidence in Africa has grown substantially, the capacity for generating such evidence remains limited. Increasing the ability of regional institutions to produce high‐quality evidence and facilitate knowledge transfer among African institutions has the potential to inform prioritization decisions for designing UHC.