Applied Health Economics and Health Policy最新文献

Objective: This study aimed to estimate the societal cost of racial disparities in pneumococcal disease among US adults aged ≥  50 years.

Methods: In a model-based analysis, societal costs of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and hospitalized nonbacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia (NBP) were estimated using (1) direct medical costs plus indirect costs of acute illness; (2) indirect costs of pneumococcal mortality; and (3) direct and indirect costs of related disability. Disparities costs were calculated as differences in average per-person pneumococcal disease cost between Black and non-Black adults aged ≥  50 years multiplied by the Black population aged ≥  50 years. Costs were in 2019 US dollars (US$), with future costs discounted at 3% per year.

Results: Total direct and indirect costs per IPD case were US$186,791 in Black populations and US$182,689 in non-Black populations; total hospitalized NBP costs per case were US$100,632 (Black) and US$96,781 (non-Black). The difference in population per-person total pneumococcal disease costs between Black and non-Black adults was US$47.85. Combined societal costs of disparities for IPD and hospitalized NBP totaled US$673.2 million for Black adults aged ≥  50 years. Disease and disability risks, life expectancy, and case-fatality rates were influential in one-way sensitivity analyses, but the lowest cost across all analyses was US$194 million. The 95% probability range of racial disparity costs were US$227.2-US$1156.9 million in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions: US societal cost of racial pneumococcal disease disparities in persons aged ≥ 50 years is substantial. Successful pneumococcal vaccination policy and programmatic interventions to mitigate these disparities could decrease costs and improve health.

Objective: We explored the monetary value of the end-of-life (EoL) health gains, that is, the value of a life-year (VOLY) gained at the end of a patient's life in Croatia. We tested whether the nature of the illness under valuation (cancer and/or rare disease) is a factor in the valuation of EoL-VOLYs. The aim was for our results to contribute to the health and longevity valuation literature and more particularly to the debate on the appropriate cost-effectiveness threshold for EoL treatments as well as to provide input into the debate on the justifiability of a cancer and/or a rare disease premium when evaluating therapies.

Methods: A contingent valuation was conducted in an online survey using a representative sample of the Croatian population (n = 1500) to calculate the willingness to pay for gains in the remaining life expectancy at the EoL, from the social-inclusive-individual perspective, using payment scales and an open-ended payment vehicle. Our approach mimics the actual decision-making problem of deciding whether to reimburse therapies targeting EoL conditions such as metastatic cancer whose main purpose is to extend life (and not add quality to life).

Results: Average EoL-VOLY across all scenarios was estimated at €67,000 (median €40,000). In scenarios that offered respondents 1 full year of life extension, EoL-VOLY was estimated at €33,000 (median €22,000). Our results show that the type of illness is irrelevant for EoL-VOLY evaluations.

Conclusions: The pressure to reimburse expensive therapies targeting EoL conditions will continue to increase. Delivering "value for money" in healthcare, both in countries with relatively higher and lower budget restrictions, requires the valuation of different types of health gains, which should, in turn, affect our ability to evaluate their cost effectiveness.

Background: Health interventions contribute to the production of greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, reducing carbon footprint is essential in supporting the UK National Health Service (NHS) pathway to net zero. This study explores the approach in which carbon footprint can be included when applying Health Technology Assessment (HTA) modelling using obesity intervention in the United Kingdom (UK) as a case study.

Methods: Using decision analytic modelling, we conducted an HTA incorporating the impacts of obesity-related treatment decisions on UK carbon emissions. A cohort Markov model was used to track the emissions of the UK population after receiving one of two obesity treatments: semaglutide and bariatric surgery.

Results: This study introduced two new carbon measurement tools that may be useful for future policymaking, incremental carbon footprint effectiveness ratio (ICFER) and incremental carbon footprint cost ratio (ICFCR), which made it possible to assess the emission impacts of proposed health policies. Using the obesity intervention case study, we found that both treatments have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of < £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. This is below the UK threshold, indicating that these are cost-effective treatments for obesity, but could increase the NHS carbon footprint. However, it could reduce the overall UK societal carbon footprint by reducing the number of people with obesity. The ICFCR shows a reduction of 1.13-4.51 kgCO₂e (kilogram of carbon dioxide equivalent) for every pound spent on obesity treatment.

Conclusion: This study illustrates a case study for estimating the effect of health policies on carbon emissions and provides a quantitative measure for obesity-related treatment decisions.

Background and objective: In pursuit of universal health coverage, India has launched the world's largest government-sponsored health insurance scheme, Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY) in 2018. This study aims to provide a holistic review of the scheme's impact since its inception.

Methods: We reviewed studies (based on interviews or surveys) published from September 2018 to January 2023, which were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus database. The main outcomes studied were: (1) awareness; (2) utilization of scheme; (3) experiences; (4) financial protection; and (5) challenges encountered by both beneficiaries and healthcare providers.

Results: A total of 18 studies conducted across 14 states and union territories of India were reviewed. The findings revealed that although PM-JAY has become a familiar name, there remains a low level of awareness regarding various facets of the scheme such as benefits entitled, hospitals empanelled, and services covered. The scheme is benefitting the poor and vulnerable population to access healthcare services that were previously unaffordable to them. However, financial protection provided by the scheme exhibited mixed results. Several challenges were identified, including continued spending by beneficiaries on drugs and diagnostic tests, delays in issuance of beneficiary cards, and co-payments demanded by healthcare providers. Additionally, private hospitals expressed dissatisfaction with low health package rates and delays in claims reimbursement.

Conclusions: Concerted efforts such as population-wide dissemination of clear and complete knowledge of the scheme, providing training to healthcare providers, addressing infrastructural gaps and concerns of healthcare providers, and ensuring appropriate stewardship are imperative to achieve the desired objectives of the scheme in the long-run.

Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness of the second COVID-19 booster vaccination with different age groups.

Methods: We developed a decision-analytic Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered (SEIR)-Markov model by five age groups (0-4 years, 5-11 years 12-17 years, 18-49 years, and 50+ years) and calibrated the model by actual mortality in each age group in the USA. We conducted five scenarios to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the second booster strategy and incremental benefits if the strategy would expand to 18-49 years and 12-17 years, from a health care system perspective. The analysis was reported according to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 statement.

Results: Implementing the second booster strategy for those aged ≥ 50 years cost $823 million but reduced direct medical costs by $1166 million, corresponding to a benefit-cost ratio of 1.42. Moreover, the strategy also resulted in a gain of 2596 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) during the 180-day evaluation period, indicating it was dominant. Further, vaccinating individuals aged 18-49 years with the second booster would result in an additional gain of $1592 million and 8790 QALYs. Similarly, expanding the vaccination to individuals aged 12-17 years would result in an additional gain of $16 million and 403 QALYs. However, if social interaction between all age groups was severed, vaccination expansion to ages 18-49 and 12-17 years would no longer be dominant but cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $37,572 and $26,705/QALY gained, respectively.

Conclusion: The second booster strategy was likely to be dominant in reducing the disease burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. Expanding the second booster strategy to ages 18-49 and 12-17 years would remain dominant due to their social contacts with the older age group.