EXPRESS: Health economic evaluations of medical tests: translating laboratory information into value- a case study example

Author(s):  
Paul Jülicher ◽  
Maurice O'Kane ◽  
Christopher P. Price ◽  
Robert H Christenson ◽  
Andrew St John

Healthcare providers and funders are focused on identifying value in all their services and that includes laboratories. This means that in order to gain a share of scarce resources laboratory professionals must also understand and assess the value of tests and that includes their economic impact. This can be assessed using health economic modelling tools which, when used in conjunction with a detailed value proposition for the test, can translate laboratory information into value. While a variety of health economic assessment tools are available this review will focus on the use of decision analytic models which essentially compare the outcomes from pathways with and without the new test, the value of which is being assessed. A step-by-step framework is provided to guide laboratory professionals through the essential steps of conducting the evaluation. Initial steps include mapping the clinical pathway, understanding the goal of the evaluation, identifying the key stakeholders and their needs and determining a suitable analytical model. Following collection of the actual data, the validity of the model must be checked, and the robustness of the outcomes tested through sensitivity analysis. The last step is to translate the findings into measures of value which can then inform appropriate decisions by the stakeholders. This review of basic health economic modelling should enable laboratory professionals to have an understanding of how modelling can be applied to tests in their own environment and help deliver their potential value.

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 2950-2959 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tommy S. de Windt ◽  
Juliette C. Sorel ◽  
Lucienne A. Vonk ◽  
Michelle M. A. Kip ◽  
Maarten J. Ijzerman ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Andrew Partington ◽  
Jonathan Karnon

In a review recently published in this journal, Grutters et al outline the scope and impact of their early health economic modelling of healthcare innovations. Their reflections shed light on ways that health economists can shift-away from traditional reimbursement decision-support, towards a broader role of facilitating the exploration of existing care pathways, and the design of options to implement or discontinue healthcare services. This is a crucial role in organisations that face constant pressure to react and adapt with changes to their existing service configurations, but where there may exist significant disagreement and uncertainty on the extent to which change is warranted. Such dynamics are known to create complex implementation environments, where changes risk being poorly implemented or fail to be sustained. In this commentary, we extend the discussion by Grutters et al on early health economic modelling, to the evaluation of complex interventions and systems. We highlight how early health economic modelling can contribute to a participatory approach for ongoing learning and development within healthcare organisations.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 312-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Gustavsson ◽  
Colin Green ◽  
Roy W. Jones ◽  
Hans Förstl ◽  
Deniz Simsek ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. A696
Author(s):  
MJ Nuijten ◽  
M Krol ◽  
WK Redekop

2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2021-107668
Author(s):  
Jacob Zionts ◽  
Joseph Millum

Several influential organisations have attempted to quantify the costs and benefits of expanding access to interventions—like contraceptives—that are expected to decrease the number of pregnancies. Such health economic evaluations can be invaluable to those making decisions about how to allocate scarce resources for health. Yet how the benefits should be measured depends on controversial value judgments. One such value judgment is found in recent analyses from the Disease Control Priority Network (DCPN) and the Study Group for the Global Investment Framework for Women’s and Children’s Health. Noting the decrease in the number of pregnancies expected to result from providing access to family planning, DCPN and the Study Group claim that a substantial benefit of such interventions is averting the stillbirths and child deaths that would have resulted from those pregnancies. We argue that health economic analyses should not count such averted deaths as benefits in the same way as saved lives. First, by counting averted stillbirths and child deaths as a benefit but not counting as a cost the lives of babies who survive, DCPN and the Study Group implicitly commit themselves to antinatalism. Second, this method for calculating the benefits of family planning interventions implies that infertility treatments are harmful. Determining how potential people should be treated in health economic analyses will require grappling with population ethics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document