Health economics and health promotion

2018 ◽  
pp. 113-140
Author(s):  
Colin Palfrey
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Economics ◽  
Conjoint Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Value For Money ◽  
Cost Minimisation ◽  
The Cost

This chapter examines the techniques used by health economists to evaluate the value for money of health promotion initiatives. It first provides an overview of concepts related to economics and health economics, including efficiency, equality, equity and accessibility. Efficiency can be evaluated in terms of cost-minimisation, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and cost-utility. The chapter then considers the various rationing strategies by which the NHS can try to reduce expenditure, the use of QALYs to compare the cost-effectiveness of health promotion projects, and conjoint analysis. It also explains how health economists calculate the cost to society of unhealthy lifestyles such as obesity and smoking, and goes on to tackle the question of prevention vs cure in health promotion, the expenditure on the NHS, and the limitations of health economics in evaluation of health promotion endeavours. The chapter concludes with an assessment of how to estimate the costs of health promotion.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with coronary heart disease, chronic heart failure and associated risk factors: A systematic review of economic evaluations of randomized clinical trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (10) ◽  
pp. 1045-1055 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Oldridge ◽  
Rod S Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Intermittent Claudication ◽  
Exercise Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Value For Money ◽  
The Cost

Aims Prescribed exercise is effective in adults with coronary heart disease (CHD), chronic heart failure (CHF), intermittent claudication, body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2, hypertension or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the evidence for its cost-effectiveness is limited, shows large variations and is partly contradictory. Using World Health Organization and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology value for money thresholds, we report the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy, exercise training and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. Methods Electronic databases were searched for incremental cost-effectiveness and incremental cost–utility ratios and/or the probability of cost-effectiveness of exercise prescribed as therapy in economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1 July 2008 and 28 October 2018. Results Of 19 incremental cost–utility ratios reported in 15 RCTs in patients with CHD, CHF, intermittent claudication or BMI ≥25 kg/m2, 63% met both value for money thresholds as ‘highly cost-effective’ or ‘high value’, with 26% ‘not cost-effective’ or of ‘low value’. The probability of intervention cost-effectiveness ranged from 23 to 100%, probably due to the different populations, interventions and comparators reported in the individual RCTs. Confirmation with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting checklist varied widely across the included studies. Conclusions The findings of this review support the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with CHD, CHF, BMI ≥25 kg/m2 or intermittent claudication, but, with concerns about reporting standards, need further confirmation. No eligible economic evaluation based on RCTs was identified in patients with hypertension or T2DM.

scholarly journals Systematic Review of the Economic Evaluation of Returning Incidental Findings in Genomic Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayara Fontes Marx ◽  
John E. Ataguba ◽  
Jantina de Vries ◽  
Ambroise Wonkam
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Incidental Findings ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Genomic Sequencing ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Objectives: Discussions regarding who and how incidental findings (IFs) should be returned and the ethics behind returning IFs have increased dramatically over the years. However, information on the cost and benefits of returning IFs to patients remains scanty.Design: This study systematically reviews the economic evaluation of returning IFs in genomic sequencing. We searched for published articles on the cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, and cost-utility of IFs in Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar.Results: We found six published articles that met the eligibility criteria of this study. Two articles used cost analysis only, one used cost-benefit analysis only, two used both cost analysis and cost-effectiveness, and one used both cost-benefit analysis and cost-utility to describe the cost of returning IFs in genomic sequencing.Conclusion: While individuals value the IF results and are willing to pay for them, the cost of returning IFs depends on the primary health condition of the patient. Although patients were willing to pay, there was no clear evidence that returning IFs might be cost-effective. More rigorous economic evaluation studies of IFs are needed to determine whether or not the cost of returning IFs is beneficial to the patient.

Economic evaluation and priority setting: an overview

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Abel Olsen
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Evaluation Techniques

This chapter provides an overview of the methodologies that come under the umbrella term of economic evaluation in healthcare. Economic evaluations seek to identify, measure, value, and compare alternative programmes. A taxonomy is developed to distinguish economic evaluation techniques depending on whether benefits have been measured in money terms or not, and whether benefits are based on preferences or not. When benefits are measured in money terms, it is referred to as a cost–benefit analysis (CBA). If benefits are measured in health terms, some sort of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is being used. An important class of CEA is what has come to be labelled ‘cost-utility-analysis’ (CUA). The chapter explains the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and illustrates the cost-effectiveness plane. Finally, the idea of discounting health is discussed.

Cost-Effectiveness of Adherence-Enhancing Interventions: A Quality Assessment of the Evidence

2005 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 508-515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A Elliott ◽  
Nick Barber ◽  
Rob Horne
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
English Language ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
The Cost

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the current cost-effectiveness evidence on adherence-enhancing interventions (AEIs) was of sufficient quality to aid in decision-making regarding medication adherence policies. DATA SOURCES: A computerized search of Embase, MEDLINE, Cinahl, Econlit, NHSEED, Psychlit, EPIC, and Cochrane databases (1980–April 2004) was performed. English-language human subject articles were identified using the key words compliance, adherence, concordance, patient assistance, therapeutic alliance, costs, economics, efficiency, resource use/utilization, cost-of illness, cost-effectiveness, cost-minimization, cost-utility, and cost-benefit. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies that appeared to assess the cost-effectiveness of medication AEIs were included. Methodologic rigor was assessed using 15 minimum quality criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found 45 comparative studies in 43 publications. Asthma (14 studies) and psychiatric illness (12 studies) were most commonly investigated. In 33 studies, interventions were educational, 18 had multiple components, and 23 did not appear to be linked to proven reasons for nonadherence. Reporting of adherence and outcome results was often unclear. Cost data were poorer quality than outcome data, using average or estimated costs and omitting some cost elements. Nine studies carried out incremental economic analysis. No study met all quality criteria. CONCLUSIONS: We were not able to make definitive conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of AEIs due to the heterogeneity of the studies found and incomplete reporting of results. Important policy decisions need to be made about nonadherence; however, they are currently being made in a vacuum of adequate information. AEIs must be based on reasons for nonadherence and be evaluated using accepted clinical and economic quality criteria.

The Cost-Effectiveness of 5-ALA in High-Grade Glioma Surgery: A Quality-Based Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 793-799 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nebras M. Warsi ◽  
Rahel Zewude ◽  
Brij Karmur ◽  
Neda Pirouzmand ◽  
Laureen Hachem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Economics ◽  
White Light ◽  
Aminolevulinic Acid ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Glioma Surgery ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Cost

ABSTRACT:Background:High-grade gliomas (HGGs) are aggressive tumors that inevitably recur due to their diffusely infiltrative nature. Intraoperative adjuncts such as 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) have shown promise in increasing extent of resection. As the prospect of increased use of 5-ALA rises, a systematic overview of the health economics of this adjunct is critical.Methods:Medline, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, EconPapers, and Cochrane databases were searched for keywords relating to glioma, cost-effectiveness, and 5-ALA. Primary studies reporting on the health economics or cost-effectiveness of 5-ALA compared to white light surgery in HGG were included. Quality was assessed using the British Medical Journal guidelines.Results:Three studies were identified. All were European and conducted from the perspective of national healthcare systems. Two studies demonstrated the cost-utility of 5-ALA compared to white light (C$12,817 and C$13,508/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)). One assessed the cost-utility per gross total resection (C$6,813). Both these values were below the national cost-effectiveness thresholds for each respective study. The third study demonstrated no significant difference in cost of 5-ALA in glioblastoma resection (C$14,732) compared to prior to its routine use (C$15,936). The quality of these studies ranged from moderate to average. None of these studies considered patient perspective or indirect costs in their analysis.Conclusions:Growing evidence exists examining the health economic benefit of 5-ALA as an intraoperative adjunct for HGG resection. Additional studies within the Canadian context using 5-ALA, specifically incorporating patient and societal perspectives into the cost-utility analyses, are necessary to solidify this line of evidence.

Should we change the focus of health promotion in sexual health clinics?

Sexual Health ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudiger Pittrof ◽  
Elizabeth Goodburn
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Health Promotion ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Reproductive Health ◽  
Sexual Health ◽  
Sexual And Reproductive Health ◽  
Health Clinics ◽  
Unknown Risk ◽  
Sexual Health Clinics ◽  
The Cost

The effectiveness of sexual behaviour change interventions in sexual health clinics is unknown. Risk factors for poor sexual and reproductive health such as depression, violence, alcohol and smoking in sexual health clinics are all common and can be identified easily in sexual health services. Targeting these risk factors could be as effective as traditional sexual health promotion and could have additional benefits. The authors propose a pilot to assess the cost-effectiveness and acceptability of incorporating screening and interventions for these risk factors.

scholarly journals Cost-utility analysis of a consensus and evidence-based medication review to optimize and potentially reduce psychotropic drug prescription in institutionalized dementia patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mireia Massot Mesquida ◽  
Frans Folkvord ◽  
Gemma Seda ◽  
Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva ◽  
Pere Torán Monserrat
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Psychotropic Drugs ◽  
Medication Review ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Dementia Patients ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Growing evidence shows the effects of psychotropic drugs on the evolution of dementia. Until now, only a few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of psychotropic drugs in institutionalized dementia patients. This study aims to assess the cost-utility of intervention performed in the metropolitan area of Barcelona (Spain) (MN) based on consensus between specialized caregivers involved in the management of dementia patients for optimizing and potentially reducing the prescription of inappropriate psychotropic drugs in this population. This analysis was conducted using the Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (MAFEIP) tool. Methods The MAFEIP tool builds up from a variety of surrogate endpoints commonly used across different studies in order to estimate health and economic outcomes in terms of incremental changes in quality adjusted life years (QALYs), as well as health and social care utilization. Cost estimates are based on scientific literature and expert opinion; they are direct costs and include medical visits, hospital care, medical tests and exams and drugs administered, among other concepts. The healthcare costs of patients using the intervention were calculated by means of a medication review that compared patients’ drug-related costs before, during and after the use of the intervention conducted in MN between 2012 and 2014. The cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of a health care system with a time horizon of 12 months. Results The tool calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention, revealing it to be dominant, or rather, better (more effective) and cheaper than the current (standard) care. The ICER of the intervention was in the lower right quadrant, making it an intervention that is always accepted even with the lowest given Willingness to Pay (WTP) threshold value (€15,000). Conclusions The results of this study show that the intervention was dominant, or rather, better (more effective) and cheaper than the current (standard) care. This dominant intervention is therefore recommended to interested investors for systematic application.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of treatment optimisation with biomarkers for immunotherapy in solid tumours: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e048141
Author(s):  
Sara Mucherino ◽  
Valentina Lorenzoni ◽  
Valentina Orlando ◽  
Isotta Triulzi ◽  
Marzia Del Re ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Solid Tumours ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Monetary Benefit ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Net Monetary Benefit

IntroductionThe combination of biomarkers and drugs is the subject of growing interest both from regulators, physicians and companies. This study protocol of a systematic review is aimed to describe available literature evidences about the cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or net-monetary benefit of the use of biomarkers in solid tumour as tools for customising immunotherapy to identify what further research needs.Methods and analysisA systematic review of the literature will be carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. PubMed and Embase will be queried from June 2010 to June 2021. The PICOS model will be applied: target population (P) will be patients with solid tumours treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the interventions (I) will be test of the immune checkpoint predictive biomarkers; the comparator (C) will be any other targeted or non-targeted therapy; outcomes (O) evaluated will be health economic and clinical implications assessed in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, net health benefit, net monetary benefit, life years gained, quality of life, etc; study (S) considered will be economic evaluations reporting cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, net-monetary benefit. The quality of the evidence will be graded according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will assess the cost-effectiveness implications of using biomarkers in the immunotherapy with ICIs, which may help to understand whether this approach is widespread in real clinical practice. This research is exempt from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. We will disseminate this protocol in a related peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020201549.

Exploring the Cost-Effectiveness of Unit-Based Health Promotion Activities for Nurses

2013 ◽  
Vol 61 (12) ◽  
pp. 514-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Val Palumbo ◽  
Evelyn A. Sikorski ◽  
Barbara C. Liberty
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
The Cost
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document