Pub Date : 2025-02-01Epub Date: 2024-11-09DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01449-w
Yoojung Che, Stephen Duffield, Manuel Gomes
This paper investigates the current use of real-world data (RWD) for estimating relative treatment effects in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) health technology assessment (HTA) submissions. This review included 64 HTA submissions, which accounted for approximately 11% of the total NICE HTA submissions between January 2016 and December 2023. The main sources of RWD considered in the submissions were disease registries and electronic health records. RWD were primarily used to provide an external control arm to enable comparisons within single-arm trials and to inform long-term treatment effects when extrapolating survival data beyond the trial follow-up. Adjustments for potential systematic differences between treatment groups have improved over time; however, approximately one-third of the submissions still relied on unadjusted treatment comparisons. We found that approximately 10% of NICE HTA submissions used RWD to directly inform treatment effects estimation. Over one-third of the submissions relied on naïve and/or unadjusted treatment comparisons, which may have introduced biases. To ensure that RWD provide sound evidence for HTA, submissions should follow published guidelines, including the NICE real-world evidence (RWE) framework.
{"title":"The Use of Real-World Data for Estimating Relative Treatment Effects in NICE Health Technology Assessment Submissions: A Review.","authors":"Yoojung Che, Stephen Duffield, Manuel Gomes","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01449-w","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40273-024-01449-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper investigates the current use of real-world data (RWD) for estimating relative treatment effects in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) health technology assessment (HTA) submissions. This review included 64 HTA submissions, which accounted for approximately 11% of the total NICE HTA submissions between January 2016 and December 2023. The main sources of RWD considered in the submissions were disease registries and electronic health records. RWD were primarily used to provide an external control arm to enable comparisons within single-arm trials and to inform long-term treatment effects when extrapolating survival data beyond the trial follow-up. Adjustments for potential systematic differences between treatment groups have improved over time; however, approximately one-third of the submissions still relied on unadjusted treatment comparisons. We found that approximately 10% of NICE HTA submissions used RWD to directly inform treatment effects estimation. Over one-third of the submissions relied on naïve and/or unadjusted treatment comparisons, which may have introduced biases. To ensure that RWD provide sound evidence for HTA, submissions should follow published guidelines, including the NICE real-world evidence (RWE) framework.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"123-131"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11782325/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142625480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-02-01Epub Date: 2024-11-12DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01451-2
Ya'nan Wu, Yanjiao Xu, Zhao Shi, Junchao Feng, Zhihao Yang, Zhuxin Mao, Lei Dou, Shunping Li
Objective: This study aimed to assess and compare the measurement properties of EQ-5D-Y-3L utilities derived from available countries' value sets (Chinese, Japanese, Slovenian, German, Spanish, Hungarian, Netherlandish, Belgian, and Indonesian), among Chinese adolescents.
Methods: From July to September 2021, a large-scale cross-sectional survey was administered across 16 cities in Shandong, China, with the objective of assessing the health status of junior high school students aged 10-18 years. Supported by the educational authorities, quick response (QR) codes and questionnaire links were disseminated to schools. A total of 97,413 junior high school students completed the questionnaire. Agreement, convergent validity, and known-group validity were determined in the nine country-specific value sets.
Results: The Indonesian value set demonstrated the highest mean health utility score (0.970), followed by the Japanese (0.961), Chinese (0.960), Netherlandish (0.948), Hungarian (0.942), German (0.938), Belgian (0.932), Slovenian (0.926), and Spanish (0.926) value sets, respectively. The utility scores derived from Asian value sets were higher than those from Europe. Good or excellent agreements (intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.7) were found between each paired value set. In Bland-Altman plots, the 95% limits of agreement for any two value sets were 0.046-0.348. A strong relationship (Spearman's correlation coefficients > 0.99) between any two value sets was found. The EQ-5D-Y-3L utility scores discriminated equally well for the nine value sets across three known groups. The effect size and the relative efficiency statistics showed the Chinese value sets were more sensitive in general. Referring to the Chinese value set, all the relative efficiency values in each value set were similar across three known groups, ranging from 0.9 to 1.0.
Conclusions: A total of nine country-specific EQ-5D-Y-3L value sets showed an overall high level of agreement, strong correlation, and good known-group validity. However, the utility scores derived from nine EQ-5D-Y-3L value sets were different and the country-specific value sets were not interchangeable.
{"title":"Comparison of EQ-5D-Y-3L Utility Scores Using Nine Country-Specific Value Sets in Chinese Adolescents.","authors":"Ya'nan Wu, Yanjiao Xu, Zhao Shi, Junchao Feng, Zhihao Yang, Zhuxin Mao, Lei Dou, Shunping Li","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01451-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40273-024-01451-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to assess and compare the measurement properties of EQ-5D-Y-3L utilities derived from available countries' value sets (Chinese, Japanese, Slovenian, German, Spanish, Hungarian, Netherlandish, Belgian, and Indonesian), among Chinese adolescents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From July to September 2021, a large-scale cross-sectional survey was administered across 16 cities in Shandong, China, with the objective of assessing the health status of junior high school students aged 10-18 years. Supported by the educational authorities, quick response (QR) codes and questionnaire links were disseminated to schools. A total of 97,413 junior high school students completed the questionnaire. Agreement, convergent validity, and known-group validity were determined in the nine country-specific value sets.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Indonesian value set demonstrated the highest mean health utility score (0.970), followed by the Japanese (0.961), Chinese (0.960), Netherlandish (0.948), Hungarian (0.942), German (0.938), Belgian (0.932), Slovenian (0.926), and Spanish (0.926) value sets, respectively. The utility scores derived from Asian value sets were higher than those from Europe. Good or excellent agreements (intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.7) were found between each paired value set. In Bland-Altman plots, the 95% limits of agreement for any two value sets were 0.046-0.348. A strong relationship (Spearman's correlation coefficients > 0.99) between any two value sets was found. The EQ-5D-Y-3L utility scores discriminated equally well for the nine value sets across three known groups. The effect size and the relative efficiency statistics showed the Chinese value sets were more sensitive in general. Referring to the Chinese value set, all the relative efficiency values in each value set were similar across three known groups, ranging from 0.9 to 1.0.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A total of nine country-specific EQ-5D-Y-3L value sets showed an overall high level of agreement, strong correlation, and good known-group validity. However, the utility scores derived from nine EQ-5D-Y-3L value sets were different and the country-specific value sets were not interchangeable.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"209-221"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142625477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-02-01Epub Date: 2024-11-11DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01445-0
Jessica R Burton, Kate Halsby, Graciela Sáinz de la Fuente, Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard, Rebecca Sloan, Thomas Porter, Gareth John, Andrew Warburton, Jennifer Selby, Gail Povey, Ruhe Chowdhury, Catherine Bale, Mark Davies, Emma Clifton-Brown, Hamish Laing
<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop a sustainable, scalable methodology for the design of outcome-based agreements (OBAs) that works on the ground and dynamically overcomes historical challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Project IDEATE co-created solutions to known (and emergent) challenges via iterative workshops and real-world data analysis to develop and refine a hypothetical model for an OBA in a trusted research environment. A cross-disciplinary collaboration between National Health Service (NHS) Wales, industry and academia was developed. Data were collected from Welsh national datasets and used to construct a novel linked dataset. OBA scenarios, with different contract parameters, were analysed to assess impact on the proportion of contract payment due and the volatility of payments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An approved, in market, locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer treatment was selected as the test case. The total number of patients in the treatment cohort (2017-2020) was n = 99, and 286 in the control cohort (2014-2016). The final outcome variables selected were: (1) 1-year survival,( 2) intolerance to treatment (deferral), and (3) the total days disrupted by care. The primary scenario included all three outcomes measured at the population level and used a linear payment model. Volatility analyses demonstrated contract parameters can dramatically alter the contract output with greatest risk from a single, binary outcome contract design.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The design of an OBA is a complex process that requires a multi-disciplinary approach. By assessing solutions to data, outcomes and contracting challenges, IDEATE provides a strong foundation for future success of OBAs in the UK. Outcome-based agreements (OBAs) are a way to pay for medicines if they help patient health in a specific way over time. These agreements can make it faster for people to get new medicines, but they also have challenges, like needing a lot of time and effort to manage them. A team from the NHS Wales, life sciences, and Swansea University created Project IDEATE to find a better way to design OBAs and solve some of these problems. Welsh datasets were used to create a new breast cancer dataset to test different OBAs and see how payments would change. A breast cancer treatment was used for the project. The project had 99 patients who got the medicine (2017-2020) and 286 patients who had breast cancer but did not get the medicine (2014-2016). Three health outcomes were measured: (1) living for one year after treatment, (2) patients needing to stop the medicine, and (3) days spent in care. The main OBA option we tested used all three health outcomes; the more the outcomes improved, the more the payments could go up until they hit the highest amount agreed. The analysis showed that the way an OBA is designed can make a big difference in how stable or risky it is, especially if one of the health outcomes has only two opti
目标:为设计基于成果的协议(OBAs)制定一种可持续、可扩展的方法:为基于成果的协议(OBAs)的设计开发一种可持续、可扩展的方法,这种方法能够在实地发挥作用,并动态地克服历史挑战:方法:IDEATE 项目通过迭代研讨会和真实世界数据分析,共同创建已知(和新出现)挑战的解决方案,以开发和完善可信研究环境中 OBA 的假设模型。威尔士国家医疗服务系统(NHS)、行业和学术界开展了跨学科合作。数据收集自威尔士国家数据集,并用于构建新型链接数据集。分析了具有不同合同参数的 OBA 方案,以评估其对到期合同付款比例和付款波动的影响:我们选择了一种已获批上市的局部晚期和转移性乳腺癌治疗方法作为测试案例。治疗队列(2017-2020 年)的患者总数为 99 人,对照队列(2014-2016 年)的患者总数为 286 人。最终选定的结果变量为(1)1 年生存期;(2)治疗不耐受(延期);(3)护理中断总天数。主要方案包括在人口水平上测量的所有三个结果,并使用线性支付模型。波动性分析表明,合同参数可显著改变合同产出,单一的二元结果合同设计风险最大:OBA 的设计是一个复杂的过程,需要采用多学科方法。通过对数据、成果和合同挑战的解决方案进行评估,IDEATE 为英国未来的开放式预算编制协议的成功奠定了坚实的基础。基于成果的协议(OBAs)是一种支付药物费用的方式,前提是这些药物在一段时间内对患者的健康有特定的帮助。这些协议可以让人们更快地获得新药,但也存在一些挑战,比如需要花费大量的时间和精力来管理这些协议。来自威尔士国家医疗服务系统、生命科学和斯旺西大学的一个团队创建了 "IDEATE 项目",旨在找到一种更好的方法来设计 OBAs 并解决其中的一些问题。威尔士数据集被用来创建一个新的乳腺癌数据集,以测试不同的 OBAs,并了解支付方式会发生怎样的变化。该项目使用了一种乳腺癌治疗方法。该项目有 99 名获得药物的患者(2017-2020 年)和 286 名患有乳腺癌但未获得药物的患者(2014-2016 年)。对三种健康结果进行了测量:(1)治疗后一年内的生活状况;(2)需要停药的患者;(3)在护理中花费的天数。我们测试的主要 OBA 方案使用了所有三种健康结果;结果改善得越多,支付的金额就越高,直至达到商定的最高金额。分析表明,OBA 的设计方式会对其稳定性或风险性产生很大影响,尤其是当其中一种健康结果只有两种选择时。IDEATE 项目表明,制定 OBA 可能很难,但如果来自不同领域的人们共同努力,就能克服许多挑战并取得成功。
{"title":"Value-Based Healthcare in Practice: IDEATE, a Collaboration to Design and Test an Outcomes-Based Agreement for a Medicine in Wales.","authors":"Jessica R Burton, Kate Halsby, Graciela Sáinz de la Fuente, Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard, Rebecca Sloan, Thomas Porter, Gareth John, Andrew Warburton, Jennifer Selby, Gail Povey, Ruhe Chowdhury, Catherine Bale, Mark Davies, Emma Clifton-Brown, Hamish Laing","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01445-0","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40273-024-01445-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop a sustainable, scalable methodology for the design of outcome-based agreements (OBAs) that works on the ground and dynamically overcomes historical challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Project IDEATE co-created solutions to known (and emergent) challenges via iterative workshops and real-world data analysis to develop and refine a hypothetical model for an OBA in a trusted research environment. A cross-disciplinary collaboration between National Health Service (NHS) Wales, industry and academia was developed. Data were collected from Welsh national datasets and used to construct a novel linked dataset. OBA scenarios, with different contract parameters, were analysed to assess impact on the proportion of contract payment due and the volatility of payments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An approved, in market, locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer treatment was selected as the test case. The total number of patients in the treatment cohort (2017-2020) was n = 99, and 286 in the control cohort (2014-2016). The final outcome variables selected were: (1) 1-year survival,( 2) intolerance to treatment (deferral), and (3) the total days disrupted by care. The primary scenario included all three outcomes measured at the population level and used a linear payment model. Volatility analyses demonstrated contract parameters can dramatically alter the contract output with greatest risk from a single, binary outcome contract design.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The design of an OBA is a complex process that requires a multi-disciplinary approach. By assessing solutions to data, outcomes and contracting challenges, IDEATE provides a strong foundation for future success of OBAs in the UK. Outcome-based agreements (OBAs) are a way to pay for medicines if they help patient health in a specific way over time. These agreements can make it faster for people to get new medicines, but they also have challenges, like needing a lot of time and effort to manage them. A team from the NHS Wales, life sciences, and Swansea University created Project IDEATE to find a better way to design OBAs and solve some of these problems. Welsh datasets were used to create a new breast cancer dataset to test different OBAs and see how payments would change. A breast cancer treatment was used for the project. The project had 99 patients who got the medicine (2017-2020) and 286 patients who had breast cancer but did not get the medicine (2014-2016). Three health outcomes were measured: (1) living for one year after treatment, (2) patients needing to stop the medicine, and (3) days spent in care. The main OBA option we tested used all three health outcomes; the more the outcomes improved, the more the payments could go up until they hit the highest amount agreed. The analysis showed that the way an OBA is designed can make a big difference in how stable or risky it is, especially if one of the health outcomes has only two opti","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"191-207"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11782430/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142625499","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background and objective: In Germany, all new drugs undergo an early benefit assessment (EBA) by the decision-making body (G-BA). Due to limited access to clinical data in pediatric healthcare since 2017, evidence transfer has allowed for data from adult studies to be used in the EBA of pediatric drugs. This study examines the acceptance of evidence transfer, aiming to understand its correlation with granted added benefit.
Methods: By searching the G-BA database, relevant EBAs were identified. In addition to descriptive statistics, agreement statistics regarding binary and ordinal extent of added benefit and binary logistic regression with and without intercept were performed to investigate acceptance of evidence transfer, juxtaposing it with manufacturers' claims, and to evaluate the impact of identified factors on evidence transfer.
Results: In 14 of 36 identified EBAs, the evidence transfer was accepted by the G-BA. They referred to four therapeutic areas, received a non-quantifiable added benefit and were subject to a pediatric investigation program. Non-quantifiable added benefit implies an added value in itself which can range from minor to major added benefit and is considering the genuine uncertainty mainly induced in theese EBAs due to evidence transfer, which is not allowing a quantification of an added benefit. The binary agreement between manufacturers' claims and G-BA's appraisals was less than by chance [kappa - 0.054 (- 0.158 to 0.050)] whereas the ordinal agreement became fair [kappa 0.333 (0.261-0.406)]. Congruence of the mechanism of action, alignment of disease pattern, transferability of efficacy and safety, and same comparator were fundamental for evidence transfer. Additionally, supportive evidence, therapeutic breakthroughs, and small-scale approval enhanced the acceptance of evidence transfer. The regression models yielded similar results showing different model fit and explained variance.
Conclusions: Evidence transfer hinges upon fulfilling various minimum criteria and additional supportive evidence. Availability of study data from adult or older patients and the pediatric group under evaluation is crucial.
{"title":"Acceptance of Evidence Transfer Within German Early Benefit Assessment of New Drugs for Pediatric and Adolescents Target Populations.","authors":"Georgia Pick, Dirk Müller, Charalabos-Markos Dintsios","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01467-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01467-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>In Germany, all new drugs undergo an early benefit assessment (EBA) by the decision-making body (G-BA). Due to limited access to clinical data in pediatric healthcare since 2017, evidence transfer has allowed for data from adult studies to be used in the EBA of pediatric drugs. This study examines the acceptance of evidence transfer, aiming to understand its correlation with granted added benefit.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>By searching the G-BA database, relevant EBAs were identified. In addition to descriptive statistics, agreement statistics regarding binary and ordinal extent of added benefit and binary logistic regression with and without intercept were performed to investigate acceptance of evidence transfer, juxtaposing it with manufacturers' claims, and to evaluate the impact of identified factors on evidence transfer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 14 of 36 identified EBAs, the evidence transfer was accepted by the G-BA. They referred to four therapeutic areas, received a non-quantifiable added benefit and were subject to a pediatric investigation program. Non-quantifiable added benefit implies an added value in itself which can range from minor to major added benefit and is considering the genuine uncertainty mainly induced in theese EBAs due to evidence transfer, which is not allowing a quantification of an added benefit. The binary agreement between manufacturers' claims and G-BA's appraisals was less than by chance [kappa - 0.054 (- 0.158 to 0.050)] whereas the ordinal agreement became fair [kappa 0.333 (0.261-0.406)]. Congruence of the mechanism of action, alignment of disease pattern, transferability of efficacy and safety, and same comparator were fundamental for evidence transfer. Additionally, supportive evidence, therapeutic breakthroughs, and small-scale approval enhanced the acceptance of evidence transfer. The regression models yielded similar results showing different model fit and explained variance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Evidence transfer hinges upon fulfilling various minimum criteria and additional supportive evidence. Availability of study data from adult or older patients and the pediatric group under evaluation is crucial.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143009453","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-11DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01466-9
Adam Fridhammar, Oskar Frisell, Karin Wahlberg, Emelie Berglund, Pontus Röbeck, Sofie Persson
Background: The Prostatype score (P-score) is a prognostic biomarker that integrates a three-gene (IGFBP3, F3, and VGLL3) signature derived from prostate biopsy samples, with key clinical parameters, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, Gleason grade, and tumor stage at diagnosis. The test has demonstrated superior predictive accuracy for prostate cancer outcomes compared with traditional risk categorization systems such as D'Amico. Notably, it reclassifies a higher proportion of patients into the low-risk category, making them eligible for active surveillance. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the P-score in comparison with D'Amico and the Swedish National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) risk categorization systems.
Methods: A two-step decision analytic model was developed. The model consisted of a decision tree-informed Markov structure estimating the lifetime outcomes of 60-year-old men with diagnosed prostate cancer. Prostate cancer was classified as low-risk, intermediate-risk, or high-risk using either the P-score or D'Amico. Initial therapy was based on observed treatment patterns from the Swedish NPCR. Costs (SEK, year 2022) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from a healthcare perspective and discounted at 3% per year; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the primary outcome.
Results: The P-score led to cost savings and generated an additional 0.19 QALYs compared with D'Amico. The added costs of the genetic test and higher costs of active surveillance and radiotherapy were counterbalanced by savings from reduced costs of surgery, treatment-related side-effects, and metastatic disease. The gain in QALYs was primarily due to the avoidance of metastatic disease and a reduction in treatment-related side-effects.
Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the P-score is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to D'Amico for prognostic evaluation of newly diagnosed prostate cancer in Sweden and compared with NPCR when health-related quality of life was included.
{"title":"Prognostic Testing for Prostate Cancer-A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing a Prostatype P-Score Biomarker Approach to Standard Clinical Practice.","authors":"Adam Fridhammar, Oskar Frisell, Karin Wahlberg, Emelie Berglund, Pontus Röbeck, Sofie Persson","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01466-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01466-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Prostatype score (P-score) is a prognostic biomarker that integrates a three-gene (IGFBP3, F3, and VGLL3) signature derived from prostate biopsy samples, with key clinical parameters, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, Gleason grade, and tumor stage at diagnosis. The test has demonstrated superior predictive accuracy for prostate cancer outcomes compared with traditional risk categorization systems such as D'Amico. Notably, it reclassifies a higher proportion of patients into the low-risk category, making them eligible for active surveillance. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the P-score in comparison with D'Amico and the Swedish National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) risk categorization systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A two-step decision analytic model was developed. The model consisted of a decision tree-informed Markov structure estimating the lifetime outcomes of 60-year-old men with diagnosed prostate cancer. Prostate cancer was classified as low-risk, intermediate-risk, or high-risk using either the P-score or D'Amico. Initial therapy was based on observed treatment patterns from the Swedish NPCR. Costs (SEK, year 2022) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from a healthcare perspective and discounted at 3% per year; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the primary outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The P-score led to cost savings and generated an additional 0.19 QALYs compared with D'Amico. The added costs of the genetic test and higher costs of active surveillance and radiotherapy were counterbalanced by savings from reduced costs of surgery, treatment-related side-effects, and metastatic disease. The gain in QALYs was primarily due to the avoidance of metastatic disease and a reduction in treatment-related side-effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of this study suggest that the P-score is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to D'Amico for prognostic evaluation of newly diagnosed prostate cancer in Sweden and compared with NPCR when health-related quality of life was included.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142966116","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-11DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01465-w
Irina Odnoletkova, Patrice X Chalon, Stephan Devriese, Irina Cleemput
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Forecasting future public pharmaceutical expenditure is a challenge for healthcare payers, particularly owing to the unpredictability of new market introductions and their economic impact. No best-practice forecasting methods have been established so far. The literature distinguishes between the top-down approach, based on historical trends, and the bottom-up approach, using a combination of historical and horizon scanning data. The objective of this review is to describe the methods for projections of pharmaceutical expenditure that apply the "bottom-up" approach and to synthesize the knowledge of their predictive accuracy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Projections of public pharmaceutical expenditure applicable to Western economies including a comprehensive method description and published 2000-2024 were searched in scientific databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EconLit) and in gray literature (websites of international health organizations and national healthcare authorities). The data sources, assumptions about the future market dynamics, analytical approaches, and the projection results are summarized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-four out of 3492 screened publications were included, associated with nine expenditure projection models. Four models were developed for all reimbursable drugs in the USA, the UK, the Stockholm region (Sweden), and seven European Union (EU) countries: France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, and the UK, respectively. The other five models concerned specific groups of medicines: orphan drugs in Belgium, the Eurozone plus the UK, and Canada, respectively; psychotropic medications in the USA; and outpatient intravenous cancer medicines in the Province of Ontario (Canada). For trend analysis, drug coverage claims or sales data were used, applying linear and/or nonlinear models. The budget impact of new launches and patent expirations was estimated through (a form of) horizon scanning, i.e., a systematic monitoring of the pharmaceutical pipeline, with engagement of clinical expert judgment. Projections with a predictive time window greater than 3 years largely relied on previously observed trends to model new market introductions. Four models were validated through an ex post comparison of projected and observed expenditure. The absolute difference between the forecasted and actual percentual change in pharmaceutical expenditure was: 0.3% ("UK model"), 1.9% ("Stockholm model"), and 2% (nonfederal hospitals, "US model"). The "Ontario cancer drug model" overestimated the actual expenditure by 1%. Overall, the largest errors were attributable to new market launches and unforeseen policy reforms. Prediction accuracy decreased substantially for forecasts beyond 1 year in the future. For two not validated projections, a face validity check was feasible. One of the models forecasted a decrease in pharmaceutical expenditure from 2012 to 2016 in six European countries, contrasti
{"title":"Projections of Public Spending on Pharmaceuticals: A Review of Methods.","authors":"Irina Odnoletkova, Patrice X Chalon, Stephan Devriese, Irina Cleemput","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01465-w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01465-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Forecasting future public pharmaceutical expenditure is a challenge for healthcare payers, particularly owing to the unpredictability of new market introductions and their economic impact. No best-practice forecasting methods have been established so far. The literature distinguishes between the top-down approach, based on historical trends, and the bottom-up approach, using a combination of historical and horizon scanning data. The objective of this review is to describe the methods for projections of pharmaceutical expenditure that apply the \"bottom-up\" approach and to synthesize the knowledge of their predictive accuracy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Projections of public pharmaceutical expenditure applicable to Western economies including a comprehensive method description and published 2000-2024 were searched in scientific databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EconLit) and in gray literature (websites of international health organizations and national healthcare authorities). The data sources, assumptions about the future market dynamics, analytical approaches, and the projection results are summarized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-four out of 3492 screened publications were included, associated with nine expenditure projection models. Four models were developed for all reimbursable drugs in the USA, the UK, the Stockholm region (Sweden), and seven European Union (EU) countries: France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, and the UK, respectively. The other five models concerned specific groups of medicines: orphan drugs in Belgium, the Eurozone plus the UK, and Canada, respectively; psychotropic medications in the USA; and outpatient intravenous cancer medicines in the Province of Ontario (Canada). For trend analysis, drug coverage claims or sales data were used, applying linear and/or nonlinear models. The budget impact of new launches and patent expirations was estimated through (a form of) horizon scanning, i.e., a systematic monitoring of the pharmaceutical pipeline, with engagement of clinical expert judgment. Projections with a predictive time window greater than 3 years largely relied on previously observed trends to model new market introductions. Four models were validated through an ex post comparison of projected and observed expenditure. The absolute difference between the forecasted and actual percentual change in pharmaceutical expenditure was: 0.3% (\"UK model\"), 1.9% (\"Stockholm model\"), and 2% (nonfederal hospitals, \"US model\"). The \"Ontario cancer drug model\" overestimated the actual expenditure by 1%. Overall, the largest errors were attributable to new market launches and unforeseen policy reforms. Prediction accuracy decreased substantially for forecasts beyond 1 year in the future. For two not validated projections, a face validity check was feasible. One of the models forecasted a decrease in pharmaceutical expenditure from 2012 to 2016 in six European countries, contrasti","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142966121","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-04DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01458-9
Kathleen Manipis, Paula Cronin, Deborah Street, Jody Church, Rosalie Viney, Stephen Goodall
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cost-utility analyses commonly use two primary methods to value productivity: the human capital approach (HCA) and the friction cost approach (FCA). Another less frequently used method is the willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach, which estimates the monetary value individuals assign to avoiding an illness. In the context of foodborne illnesses (FBI), productivity loss represents one of the most significant economic impacts, particularly in developed nations. These losses arise from factors such as missed workdays, reduced workplace efficiency due to illness, and long-term health complications that can limit an individual's ability to work. As a result, accurately quantifying productivity loss is critical in understanding the broader economic burden of FBI.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>Our aim was to compare the impact of valuation methods used to measure productivity loss in an economic evaluation, using a hypothetical intervention for FBI caused by campylobacter as a case study. Cost effectiveness from three perspectives is examined: health care system, employee, and employer.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was developed to evaluate the morbidity and productivity impacts of FBI caused by campylobacter. The model included four health states: 'healthy', 'acute gastroenteritis', 'irritable bowel syndrome and being unable to work some of the time', and 'irritable bowel syndrome and unable to work'. Five approaches to valuing productivity loss were compared: model 1 (cost-utility analysis), model 2 (HCA), model 3 (FCA), model 4 (FCA+WTP to avoid illness with paid sick leave), and model 5 (WTP to avoid illness without paid sick leave). Health outcomes and costs were discounted using a 5% discount rate. Costs were reported in 2024 Australian dollars ($AUD).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Model 1, which did not include productivity losses, yielded the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at $56,467 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The inclusion of productivity costs (models 2-5) significantly increased the total costs in both arms of the models but led to a marked reduction in the ICERs. For example, model 2 (HCA) resulted in an ICER of $11,174/QALY gained, whereas model 3 (FCA) resulted in $21,136/QALY gained. Models 4 and 5, which included WTP approaches, had ICERs of $19,661/QALY gained and $24,773/QALY gained, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings underscore the significant impact of different modelling approaches to productivity loss on ICER estimates and consequently the decision to adopt a new policy or intervention. The choice of perspective in the analysis is critical, as it determines how the short-term and long-term productivity losses are accounted for and valued. This highlights the importance of carefully selecting and justifying the perspective and valuation methods used in economic evaluations to ensure informed a
{"title":"Examination of Methods to Estimate Productivity Losses in an Economic Evaluation: Using Foodborne Illness as a Case Study.","authors":"Kathleen Manipis, Paula Cronin, Deborah Street, Jody Church, Rosalie Viney, Stephen Goodall","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01458-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01458-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cost-utility analyses commonly use two primary methods to value productivity: the human capital approach (HCA) and the friction cost approach (FCA). Another less frequently used method is the willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach, which estimates the monetary value individuals assign to avoiding an illness. In the context of foodborne illnesses (FBI), productivity loss represents one of the most significant economic impacts, particularly in developed nations. These losses arise from factors such as missed workdays, reduced workplace efficiency due to illness, and long-term health complications that can limit an individual's ability to work. As a result, accurately quantifying productivity loss is critical in understanding the broader economic burden of FBI.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>Our aim was to compare the impact of valuation methods used to measure productivity loss in an economic evaluation, using a hypothetical intervention for FBI caused by campylobacter as a case study. Cost effectiveness from three perspectives is examined: health care system, employee, and employer.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was developed to evaluate the morbidity and productivity impacts of FBI caused by campylobacter. The model included four health states: 'healthy', 'acute gastroenteritis', 'irritable bowel syndrome and being unable to work some of the time', and 'irritable bowel syndrome and unable to work'. Five approaches to valuing productivity loss were compared: model 1 (cost-utility analysis), model 2 (HCA), model 3 (FCA), model 4 (FCA+WTP to avoid illness with paid sick leave), and model 5 (WTP to avoid illness without paid sick leave). Health outcomes and costs were discounted using a 5% discount rate. Costs were reported in 2024 Australian dollars ($AUD).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Model 1, which did not include productivity losses, yielded the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at $56,467 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The inclusion of productivity costs (models 2-5) significantly increased the total costs in both arms of the models but led to a marked reduction in the ICERs. For example, model 2 (HCA) resulted in an ICER of $11,174/QALY gained, whereas model 3 (FCA) resulted in $21,136/QALY gained. Models 4 and 5, which included WTP approaches, had ICERs of $19,661/QALY gained and $24,773/QALY gained, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings underscore the significant impact of different modelling approaches to productivity loss on ICER estimates and consequently the decision to adopt a new policy or intervention. The choice of perspective in the analysis is critical, as it determines how the short-term and long-term productivity losses are accounted for and valued. This highlights the importance of carefully selecting and justifying the perspective and valuation methods used in economic evaluations to ensure informed a","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142927650","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-03DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01463-y
Olena Mandrik, Chloe Thomas, Edifofon Akpan, James W F Catto, Jim Chilcott
Background: Testing high-risk populations for non-visible haematuria may enable earlier detection of bladder cancer, potentially decreasing mortality. This research aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of urine dipstick screening for bladder cancer in high-risk populations in England.
Methods: A microsimulation model developed in R software was calibrated to national incidence data by age, sex and stage, and validated against mortality data. Individual risk factors included age, sex, smoking status and factory employment. We evaluated three one-time screening scenarios: (1) current and former smokers of different ages within the 55-70 years range, (2) a mixed-age cohort of smokers aged 55-80 years and (3) individuals aged 65-79 years from high-risk regions. Probabilistic and scenario analyses evaluated uncertainty. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and compared with the standard £20,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) threshold using payer's perspective and 2022 year of evaluation with 3.5% discounting for both costs and effects.
Results: Screening all current and former smokers (scenario 1) and both mixed-age cohorts (scenarios 2 and 3) was not cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000/QALY. Screening at age 58 years had a 33% probability of being cost-effective at £20,000/QALY threshold and a 64% probability at £30,000/QALY threshold. Screening current and former smoking men aged 58 and 60 years was cost-effective, with ICERs of £18,181 and £18,425 per QALY, respectively. Scenario results demonstrated the high impact of assumptions on lead time, diagnostic pathway, and screening efficacy on predictions.
Conclusions: Screening smoking men aged 58 or 60 years for bladder cancer using urine dipstick tests may be cost-effective.
{"title":"Home Urine Dipstick Screening for Bladder and Kidney Cancer in High-Risk Populations in England: A Microsimulation Study of Long-Term Impact and Cost-Effectiveness.","authors":"Olena Mandrik, Chloe Thomas, Edifofon Akpan, James W F Catto, Jim Chilcott","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01463-y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01463-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Testing high-risk populations for non-visible haematuria may enable earlier detection of bladder cancer, potentially decreasing mortality. This research aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of urine dipstick screening for bladder cancer in high-risk populations in England.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> A microsimulation model developed in R software was calibrated to national incidence data by age, sex and stage, and validated against mortality data. Individual risk factors included age, sex, smoking status and factory employment. We evaluated three one-time screening scenarios: (1) current and former smokers of different ages within the 55-70 years range, (2) a mixed-age cohort of smokers aged 55-80 years and (3) individuals aged 65-79 years from high-risk regions. Probabilistic and scenario analyses evaluated uncertainty. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and compared with the standard £20,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) threshold using payer's perspective and 2022 year of evaluation with 3.5% discounting for both costs and effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Screening all current and former smokers (scenario 1) and both mixed-age cohorts (scenarios 2 and 3) was not cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000/QALY. Screening at age 58 years had a 33% probability of being cost-effective at £20,000/QALY threshold and a 64% probability at £30,000/QALY threshold. Screening current and former smoking men aged 58 and 60 years was cost-effective, with ICERs of £18,181 and £18,425 per QALY, respectively. Scenario results demonstrated the high impact of assumptions on lead time, diagnostic pathway, and screening efficacy on predictions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong> Screening smoking men aged 58 or 60 years for bladder cancer using urine dipstick tests may be cost-effective.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142927656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background and objective: Approximately half of lung adenocarcinomas in East Asia harbor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. EGFR testing followed by tissue-based next-generation sequencing (NGS), upfront tissue-based NGS, and complementary NGS approaches have emerged on the front line to guide personalized therapy. We study the cost effectiveness of exclusionary EGFR testing for Taiwanese patients newly diagnosed with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.
Methods: This economic evaluation was conducted from the perspective of the healthcare sector with a lifetime horizon. Simulated patients were entered into a joint model combining decision trees and partitioned survival models upon diagnosis of advanced lung adenocarcinoma. We compared exclusionary EGFR testing with upfront tissue-based NGS and complementary NGS approaches. The model inputs were derived from regional estimates (prevalence of targetable gene alterations), trials (testing accuracy, survival outcomes, and adverse events), ACT Genomics (testing costs), National Health Insurance payments, retail prices (drug costs), and hospital cohorts (utility values). All costs were made equivalent to 2023 US dollars. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied. We adopted a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$70,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. One-way deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed.
Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of exclusionary EGFR testing versus upfront tissue-based NGS was US$15,521 per quality-adjusted life-year, whereas the incremental net monetary benefit was US$2530. The costs of osimertinib and pembrolizumab were the major determinants. The incremental net monetary benefit of exclusionary EGFR testing versus complementary NGS approach was US$2174, and its major determinants included the true-negative rate of EGFR testing and the prevalence rate of an EGFR mutation. Given the willingness-to-pay thresholds of US$35,000, US$70,000, and US$105,000 (1, 2, and 3 per capita gross domestic product) per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that exclusionary EGFR testing would be cost effective were 79.1%, 95.6%, and 91.2%, respectively.
Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that exclusionary EGFR testing is a cost-effective strategy for Taiwanese patients newly diagnosed with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.
{"title":"Cost Effectiveness of Exclusionary EGFR Testing for Taiwanese Patients Newly Diagnosed with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma.","authors":"Huang-Tz Ou, Jui-Hung Tsai, Yi-Lin Chen, Tzu-I Wu, Li-Jun Chen, Szu-Chun Yang","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01462-z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01462-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Approximately half of lung adenocarcinomas in East Asia harbor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. EGFR testing followed by tissue-based next-generation sequencing (NGS), upfront tissue-based NGS, and complementary NGS approaches have emerged on the front line to guide personalized therapy. We study the cost effectiveness of exclusionary EGFR testing for Taiwanese patients newly diagnosed with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This economic evaluation was conducted from the perspective of the healthcare sector with a lifetime horizon. Simulated patients were entered into a joint model combining decision trees and partitioned survival models upon diagnosis of advanced lung adenocarcinoma. We compared exclusionary EGFR testing with upfront tissue-based NGS and complementary NGS approaches. The model inputs were derived from regional estimates (prevalence of targetable gene alterations), trials (testing accuracy, survival outcomes, and adverse events), ACT Genomics (testing costs), National Health Insurance payments, retail prices (drug costs), and hospital cohorts (utility values). All costs were made equivalent to 2023 US dollars. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied. We adopted a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$70,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. One-way deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of exclusionary EGFR testing versus upfront tissue-based NGS was US$15,521 per quality-adjusted life-year, whereas the incremental net monetary benefit was US$2530. The costs of osimertinib and pembrolizumab were the major determinants. The incremental net monetary benefit of exclusionary EGFR testing versus complementary NGS approach was US$2174, and its major determinants included the true-negative rate of EGFR testing and the prevalence rate of an EGFR mutation. Given the willingness-to-pay thresholds of US$35,000, US$70,000, and US$105,000 (1, 2, and 3 per capita gross domestic product) per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that exclusionary EGFR testing would be cost effective were 79.1%, 95.6%, and 91.2%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our analysis suggests that exclusionary EGFR testing is a cost-effective strategy for Taiwanese patients newly diagnosed with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142922433","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01Epub Date: 2024-10-25DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01441-4
Laura Vallejo-Torres
Background: Knowing the health opportunity costs of funding decisions is crucial to assess whether the health gains associated with new interventions are larger than the health losses imposed by the displacement of resources. Empirical estimates based on the effect of health spending on health outcomes have been proposed in several countries, including Spain, as a proxy to capture these opportunity costs. However, there is a need to regularly update existing health opportunity cost estimates and to explore the role of omitted variable bias in these estimations.
Objective: The aim of this paper is to provide an updated and refined estimate of the causal impact of health spending on health in Spain that can be translated into an estimate of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year produced by the Spanish national health system.
Methods: We applied fixed-effect models using data for 17 Spanish regions from 2002 until 2022 to estimate the impact of public health spending on health outcomes and explored the extent of omitted variable bias. Changes in these estimates over time were assessed and alternative specifications were tested.
Results: Based on fixed-effect models with control variables, the estimated spending elasticity was 0.061, which translated into an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of approximately €34,000. The bias-corrected elasticity was 0.075, with a corresponding incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of €27,000. We found that the estimated impact of spending on health decreases when recent years of data are added, and that the extent of omitted variable bias appears to increase, particularly when adding the COVID-19 pandemic period.
Conclusions: This study provides an updated estimation of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year produced by the Spanish national health system. The estimates provided can be easily updatable as new data become accessible, and the methods applied might be transferable to other settings with similar available data.
{"title":"Estimating the Incremental Cost Per QALY Produced by the Spanish NHS: A Fixed-Effect Econometric Approach.","authors":"Laura Vallejo-Torres","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01441-4","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40273-024-01441-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Knowing the health opportunity costs of funding decisions is crucial to assess whether the health gains associated with new interventions are larger than the health losses imposed by the displacement of resources. Empirical estimates based on the effect of health spending on health outcomes have been proposed in several countries, including Spain, as a proxy to capture these opportunity costs. However, there is a need to regularly update existing health opportunity cost estimates and to explore the role of omitted variable bias in these estimations.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this paper is to provide an updated and refined estimate of the causal impact of health spending on health in Spain that can be translated into an estimate of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year produced by the Spanish national health system.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied fixed-effect models using data for 17 Spanish regions from 2002 until 2022 to estimate the impact of public health spending on health outcomes and explored the extent of omitted variable bias. Changes in these estimates over time were assessed and alternative specifications were tested.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on fixed-effect models with control variables, the estimated spending elasticity was 0.061, which translated into an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of approximately €34,000. The bias-corrected elasticity was 0.075, with a corresponding incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of €27,000. We found that the estimated impact of spending on health decreases when recent years of data are added, and that the extent of omitted variable bias appears to increase, particularly when adding the COVID-19 pandemic period.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study provides an updated estimation of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year produced by the Spanish national health system. The estimates provided can be easily updatable as new data become accessible, and the methods applied might be transferable to other settings with similar available data.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"109-122"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11724785/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142505503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}