scholarly journals MC2 CORRECTING FOR COMPENSATING MECHANISMS RELATED TO PRODUCTIVITY COSTS IN ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS OF HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS

2004 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 640
Author(s):  
JL Severens ◽  
MA Koopmanschap ◽  
W Meerding
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Productivity Costs

Correcting for compensating mechanisms related to productivity costs in economic evaluations of health care programmes

2005 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 435-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin H. M. Jacob-Tacken ◽  
Marc A. Koopmanschap ◽  
Willem Jan Meerding ◽  
Johan L. Severens
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Productivity Costs

scholarly journals PRM11 Learning Effect in Economic Evaluations of Health Care Interventions

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (7) ◽  
pp. A422-A423
Author(s):  
S. Chang ◽  
D. Sungher ◽  
A. Diamantopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Learning Effect ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Health Care Interventions

Mental health economics: current methodological issues

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. McCrone
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Mental Health Care ◽  
Health Care Services ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Mental Health Economics

Background:Investment in innovative mental health care services requires the use of scarce resources that could be used in alternative ways. Economic evaluation is essential to ensure that such an investment is appropriately compared with investment elsewhere.Method:A non-systematic review of mental health evaluations identifies key methodological issues pertaining to economic studies.Results:Economic evaluations require the measurement and combination of costs and outcomes, and clarity about how this measurement is undertaken is required. Regarding costs, important considerations relate to the perspective to be taken (e.g., health service or societal), method of measurement (patient self-report or use of databases) and valuation (actual costs, fees or expenditure). Decision makers frequently need to compare evidence both within and between clinical areas and therefore there is a tension between the use of condition specific and generic outcome measures. Quality-adjusted life years are frequently used in economic evaluations, but their appropriateness in mental health care studies is still debated.Conclusions:Economic evaluations in the area of mental health care are increasing in number and it is essential that researchers continue to develop and improve methods used to conduct such studies.

Self-reports of health-care utilization: Diary or questionnaire?

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 298-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mandy van den Brink ◽  
Wilbert B. van den Hout ◽  
Anne M. Stiggelbout ◽  
Hein Putter ◽  
Cornelis J. H. van de Velde ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Utilization ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Cost Diary ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
More Care

Objectives:The feasibility and convergent validity of a cost diary and a cost questionnaire was investigated.Methods:Data were obtained as part of a cost-utility analysis alongside a multicenter clinical trial in patients with resectable rectal cancer. A sample of 107 patients from 30 hospitals was asked to keep a weekly diary during the first 3 months after surgery, and a monthly diary from 3 to 12 months after surgery. A second sample of seventy-two patients from twenty-eight hospitals in the trial received a questionnaire at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, referring to the previous 3 or 6 months. Format and items of the questions were similar and included a wide range of medical and nonmedical items and costs after hospitalization for surgery.Results:Small differences were found with respect to nonresponse (range, 79 to 86 percent) and missing questions (range, 1 to 6 percent between the diary and questionnaire). For most estimates of volumes of care and of costs, the diary and questionnaire did not differ significantly. Total 3-month nonhospital costs were €1,860, €1,280, and €1,050 in the diary sample and €1,860, €1,090, and €840 in the questionnaire sample at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, respectively (p=.50). However, with respect to open questions, the diary sample tended to report significantly more care.Conclusions:For the assessment of health-care utilization in economic evaluations alongside clinical trials, a cost questionnaire with structured closed questions may replace a cost diary for recall periods up to 6 months.

scholarly journals Which BRCA genetic testing programs are ready for implementation in health care? A systematic review of economic evaluations

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 1171-1180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elvira D’Andrea ◽  
Carolina Marzuillo ◽  
Corrado De Vito ◽  
Marco Di Marco ◽  
Erica Pitini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Brca Genetic Testing

scholarly journals Comparison of (Partial) economic evaluations of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis: A systematic review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0245963
Author(s):  
Inge J. M. H. Caelers ◽  
Suzanne L. de Kunder ◽  
Kim Rijkers ◽  
Wouter L. W. van Hemert ◽  
Rob A. de Bie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Introduction The demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed. Methods Searches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. Results Of a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from $8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and $21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from $5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and $50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low. Conclusions This systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results. Trial registration Prospero-database registration number: CRD42020196869.

Technology assessment, priority setting and appropriate care in Dutch health care

2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 564-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Berg ◽  
Tom van der Grinten ◽  
Niek Klazinga
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Technol Assess Health ◽  
Appropriate Care ◽  
Dutch Health ◽  
Dutch Health Care

References 8, 29, and 32 are incorrect as they appear in the article entitled “Technology assessment, priority setting, and appropriate care in Dutch health care,” by Marc Berg, Tom van der Grinten, and Niek Klazinga (Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20[1]:35-43). They should appear as follows: 8. Burgers JS, Bailey JV, Klazinga NS, et al. Inside guidelines: comparative analysis of recommendations and evidence in diabetes guidelines from 13 countries. Diabetes Care 2002;11:1933-1939.29. Zwart-van Rijkom JE, Leufkens HG, Busschbach JJ, et al. Differences in attitudes, knowledge and use of economic evaluations in decision-making in The Netherlands. The Dutch results from the EUROMET Project. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;2:149-160.32. Van der Grinten TED. Hervorming van de gezondheidszorg. Zal het deze keer wel lukken? Beleid & Maatschappij 2002;3:172-176.

scholarly journals From Flying Doctor to Virtual Doctor: An Economic Perspective on Australia's Telemedicine Experience

2002 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 249-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
K van Gool ◽  
M R Haas ◽  
R Viney
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Resource Allocation ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Efficient Allocation ◽  
Allocation Of Resources ◽  
Economic Perspective ◽  
Funding Mechanisms ◽  
Funding Environment

Current funding mechanisms can impede the efficient use and integration of telemedicine services. Telemedicine has developed in Australia against a background of complex funding arrangements and interwoven health-care responsibilities. These impediments are not unique to telemedicine but are accentuated by its ability to cover different locations, clinical areas and purposes. There is also a link between economic evaluation and funding mechanisms for telemedicine. While economic evaluations provide important information for the efficient allocation of resources, the funding environment in which telemedicine is established is also crucial in ensuring that services are efficient. Given these complexities, should telemedicine be funded? We conclude that this will depend on: the objectives and priorities of the health system; the efficiency of telemedicine relative to that of other forms of health-care delivery; and the funding environment. In terms of resource allocation processes, the optimum scenario is likely to be where the decision to invest in telemedicine services is made taking local needs into account, but where considerations such as market structure and network compatibility are examined on a broader scale and balanced against the principles of efficiency and equity.

The purpose and scope of this book

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Brazier ◽  
Julie Ratcliffe ◽  
Joshua A. Salomon ◽  
Aki Tsuchiya
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Governmental Agencies ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Intangible Benefits ◽  
Private Research ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

This book provides the reader with an in-depth knowledge of one of the two key elements of economic evaluation in health care. It is written as a textbook which aims to include a comprehensive coverage of topics, while also being up-to-date at the time of going to press. It helps meet an important need that has been generated by the establishment of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and similar international bodies requiring cost-effectiveness evidence in the form of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). It is aimed at academics and students of health economics as well as others concerned with the valuation of intangible benefits, such as: health practitioners from economics and other disciplines engaged in generating economic evaluations for research bodies; governmental agencies in health care (such as NICE); non-health care agencies whose programmes affect health; and pharmaceutical companies and private research consultancies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document