China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Real-World Evidence from Population-Based Cancer Registry Data
Published in Harry Yang, Binbing Yu, Real-World Evidence in Drug Development and Evaluation, 2021
The clinical trial data may provide evidence for the efficacy of the innovative treatment during the study period, but it cannot provide the estimate of long-term cost-effectiveness of the treatment. Cost-effectiveness analysis is an important tool to compare the relative cost and effects of different health technologies and to provide a method of prioritizing the allocation of limited resources for more effective healthcare. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is a commonly used measure of cost-effectiveness, where
Balancing Quality with Costs in Managed Care Settings
Published in A.F. Al-Assaf, Managed Care Quality, 2020
James C. Benneyan, Vivian Valdmanis
Cost-effectiveness analysis compares the dollar value spent to achieve an outcome; for example, the dollar value per immunization. The objective is to determine the least costly way of providing immunizations to a patient base. This analysis is relevant in meeting an objective with the lowest cost. The essential features of a cost-effectiveness analysis are that (1) the objective is pre-specified, (2) the organization is committed to meeting this objective, and (3) the organization compares the intervention with its next best alternative. (Eddy, 1996)
Healthcare Politics
Published in Kant Patel, Mark Rushefsky, Healthcare Politics and Policy in America, 2019
The field of economics offers several analytic tools that can be useful in health policymaking/decision-making as well as evaluation of health programs to determine its impact, effectiveness, and efficiency. Some of these tools include the following: cost–benefit analysis in the healthcare field can provide an analysis of expenditure of health resources relative to benefits. Such analysis can help determine whether the cost of a given program can be justified compared to the benefit it provides. It can also help in setting priorities when decisions or choices must be made in the face of limited resources. Risk–benefit analysis can allow policymakers to weigh the potential for undesirable outcomes and side-effects against the potential positive outcome of a policy/program or a medical treatment. Cost-effectiveness analysis involves comparing several different intervention strategies using common units of costs and benefits. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) utilizes cost analysis, economic evaluation, regulatory and budget impact analysis, and health impact assessment in public health programs (“Public Health Economics and Methods” n.d.). Almost all state governments conduct cost–benefit analysis but the quality and impact of such analysis vary. At the federal level, the use of cost–benefit analysis is required in many federal agencies particularly with respect to regulatory decision-making (White and Silloway 2016).
Cost-effectiveness analysis of arthroscopic injection of a bioadhesive hydrogel implant in conjunction with microfracture for the treatment of focal chondral defects of the knee – an Australian perspective
Published in Journal of Medical Economics, 2022
George Papadopoulos, Sarah Griffin, Hemant Rathi, Amit Gupta, Bhavna Sharma, Dirk van Bavel
Cost-effectiveness analysis is a comparative assessment of relative costs and health benefits of healthcare interventions, that can inform reimbursement decisions. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a combination of JointRep with microfracture surgery compared to microfracture surgery alone, over a 3-year time horizon, and was conducted from the Australian healthcare system perspective. Although Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies in Australia (e.g. PBAC, MSAC or PLAC) do not recommend an explicit cost-effectiveness threshold in their respective guidelines or in their decision-making criteria, it has been observed that ICERs in the range of AU$45,000-AU$75,000 are usually considered cost-effective36–39. The base-case analysis showed that JointRep with microfracture surgery led to an incremental QALY gain of 0.95, at an additional cost of $6,022 compared with microfracture surgery alone, resulting in an ICER of $6,328 per QALY gained. Hence, JointRep with microfracture surgery may be considered highly cost-effective compared to microfracture surgery alone.
Criteria for oral appliance and/or supine avoidance therapy selection based on outcome optimization and cost-effectiveness
Published in Journal of Medical Economics, 2021
Daniel J. Levendowski, Richard Olmstead, Edward Sall, Philip R. Westbrook, Bretton Beine, Dominic Munafo
To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the cost-benefit of SAT. We identified 36% of patients diagnosed with OSA as potential beneficiaries of SAT, either as a first-line therapy or in combination with OAT. SAT should be the first treatment choice in the 21% of cases with pre-treatment non-supine AHI values in the normal range, given negative ICERs associated with SAT being both more effective and less expensive than OAT in this group. The ICER estimates also advocated for the use of SAT as an adjuvant to OAT in the 15% of cases with a post-OAT AHI ≥10 events/h with residual positional-OSA. While the consideration of health in monetary terms can be controversial, cost-effectiveness analysis is an important tool that can be used by both clinicians and third parties payers to evaluate the allocation of resources between different therapy options28,29. The ICERs from this study, supporting increased utilization of SAT, were below the $50,000 threshold typically used by United States third-party payers when considering reimbursement for a new therapy11.
A cost-effectiveness analysis of the prophylaxis versus on-demand regimens in severe hemophilia A patients under 12 years old in southern Iran
Published in Hematology, 2021
Zohreh Zahedi, Mehran Karimi, Khosro Keshavarz, Sezaneh Haghpanah, Ramin Ravangard
Regarding the time horizon, which was more than one year, the economic and clinical outcomes were discounted with an annual rate of 5% and 3%, respectively. These rates have also been used in other published economic evaluation studies in Iran [25]. Key assumptions of the model: o All participants entered the model as ‘alive’.o At the end of the first cycle, the patient either stays ‘alive’ or enters the states of ‘with target joint’ or ‘dead’.o Those who entered ‘with target joint’ can either enter ‘alive’ or ‘dead’ states, or stay in the ‘with target joint’ state.o According to Colombo et al.'s study, it is assumed that the life expectancy of the severe hemophilia A patients is equal to that of the general population of Iran [4].o According to the clinical expert's opinion, having ‘target joint’ does not affect the death.Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: