Parents' Time Is Worth Money

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 466-466
Author(s):  
DOUGLAS RICHARDSON

To the Editor.— I was delighted to see Donn's letter about the cost effectiveness of home management of bronchopulmonary dysplasia.1 Such contributions are vital in helping to curb the rapidly rising costs of neonatal intensive care. However, his economic analysis is flawed. By tacit assumption, he omits any consideration of the opportunity costs to the parents. To omit this presumes that the parents' time is worth little or nothing, as we often seem to indicate by the long patient waiting times in our offices.

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 330-331
Author(s):  
Steven Donn

Improved technology and care have resulted in an increased number of survivors of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Although the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia has remained fairly stable,1 the absolute number of infants requiring prolonged hospitalization for oxygen therapy has increased in our nursery. Several reports2-4 have documented the feasibility and efficacy of home management of infants with chronic lung disease. Our own experience with such a program began in August 1978. It is the purpose of this communication to document the cost effectiveness of our home management program.


2004 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Guat Sim Cheah ◽  
Anna Padma Soosai ◽  
Swee Lan Wong ◽  
Teck Onn Lim

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (5) ◽  
pp. 805-805
Author(s):  
JEFFREY D. HORBAR

Dr Sepkowitz suggests that differences in patterns of antenatal transfers may account for center variations in neonatal outcome. He raises the question in particular with respect to Dartmouth and Northside Hospital, two centers included in our study. The outcomes at these centers do not support his argument. The two centers had identical predicted outcomes for both survival and survival without supplemental O2 after adjusting for the effects of birth weight, gender, and race. Antenatal transfer is only one of many factors that may lead to population differences at neonatal intensive care centers.


2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (14) ◽  
pp. 1-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Claxton ◽  
Steve Martin ◽  
Marta Soares ◽  
Nigel Rice ◽  
Eldon Spackman ◽  
...  

BackgroundCost-effectiveness analysis involves the comparison of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a new technology, which is more costly than existing alternatives, with the cost-effectiveness threshold. This indicates whether or not the health expected to be gained from its use exceeds the health expected to be lost elsewhere as other health-care activities are displaced. The threshold therefore represents the additional cost that has to be imposed on the system to forgo 1 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of health through displacement. There are no empirical estimates of the cost-effectiveness threshold used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.Objectives(1) To provide a conceptual framework to define the cost-effectiveness threshold and to provide the basis for its empirical estimation. (2) Using programme budgeting data for the English NHS, to estimate the relationship between changes in overall NHS expenditure and changes in mortality. (3) To extend this mortality measure of the health effects of a change in expenditure to life-years and to QALYs by estimating the quality-of-life (QoL) associated with effects on years of life and the additional direct impact on QoL itself. (4) To present the best estimate of the cost-effectiveness threshold for policy purposes.MethodsEarlier econometric analysis estimated the relationship between differences in primary care trust (PCT) spending, across programme budget categories (PBCs), and associated disease-specific mortality. This research is extended in several ways including estimating the impact of marginal increases or decreases in overall NHS expenditure on spending in each of the 23 PBCs. Further stages of work link the econometrics to broader health effects in terms of QALYs.ResultsThe most relevant ‘central’ threshold is estimated to be £12,936 per QALY (2008 expenditure, 2008–10 mortality). Uncertainty analysis indicates that the probability that the threshold is < £20,000 per QALY is 0.89 and the probability that it is < £30,000 per QALY is 0.97. Additional ‘structural’ uncertainty suggests, on balance, that the central or best estimate is, if anything, likely to be an overestimate. The health effects of changes in expenditure are greater when PCTs are under more financial pressure and are more likely to be disinvesting than investing. This indicates that the central estimate of the threshold is likely to be an overestimate for all technologies which impose net costs on the NHS and the appropriate threshold to apply should be lower for technologies which have a greater impact on NHS costs.LimitationsThe central estimate is based on identifying a preferred analysis at each stage based on the analysis that made the best use of available information, whether or not the assumptions required appeared more reasonable than the other alternatives available, and which provided a more complete picture of the likely health effects of a change in expenditure. However, the limitation of currently available data means that there is substantial uncertainty associated with the estimate of the overall threshold.ConclusionsThe methods go some way to providing an empirical estimate of the scale of opportunity costs the NHS faces when considering whether or not the health benefits associated with new technologies are greater than the health that is likely to be lost elsewhere in the NHS. Priorities for future research include estimating the threshold for subsequent waves of expenditure and outcome data, for example by utilising expenditure and outcomes available at the level of Clinical Commissioning Groups as well as additional data collected on QoL and updated estimates of incidence (by age and gender) and duration of disease. Nonetheless, the study also starts to make the other NHS patients, who ultimately bear the opportunity costs of such decisions, less abstract and more ‘known’ in social decisions.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research-Medical Research Council Methodology Research Programme.


2018 ◽  
Vol 98 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Schwendicke ◽  
J. Krois ◽  
M. Robertson ◽  
C. Splieth ◽  
R. Santamaria ◽  
...  

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes were reported for carious primary molars treated with the Hall technique (HT) as compared with conventional carious tissue removal and restorations (i.e., conventional restoration [CR]) in a 5-y randomized controlled practice-based trial in Scotland. We interrogated this data set further to investigate the cost-effectiveness of HT versus CR. A total of 132 children who had 2 matched occlusal/occlusal-proximal carious lesions in primary molars ( n = 264 teeth) were randomly allocated to HT or CR, provided by 17 general dental practitioners. Molars were followed up for a mean 5 y. A societal perspective was taken for the economic analysis. Direct dental treatment costs were estimated from a Scottish NHS perspective (an NHS England perspective was taken for a sensitivity analysis). Initial, maintenance, and retreatment costs, including rerestorations, endodontic treatments, and extractions, were estimated with fee items. Indirect/opportunity costs were estimated with time and travel costs from a UK perspective. The primary outcome was tooth survival. Secondary outcomes included 1) not having pain or needing endodontic treatments/extractions and 2) not needing rerestorations. Cost-effectiveness and acceptability were estimated from bootstrapped samples. Significantly more molars in HT survived (99%, 95% CI: 98% to 100%) than in CR (92%; 87% to 97%). Also, the proportion of molars retained without pain or requiring endodontic treatment/extraction was significantly higher in HT than CR. In the base case analysis (NHS Scotland perspective), cumulative direct dental treatment costs (Great British pound [GBP]) of HT were 24 GBP (95% CI: 23 to 25); costs for CR were 29 (17 to 46). From an NHS England perspective, the cost advantage of HT (29 GBP; 95% CI: 25 to 34) over CR (107; 86 to 127) was more pronounced. Indirect/opportunity costs were significantly lower for HT (8 GBP; 95% CI: 7 to 9) than CR (19; 16 to 23). Total cumulative costs were significantly lower for HT (32 GBP; 95% CI: 31 to 34) than CR (49; 34 to 69). Based on a long-term practice-based trial, HT was more cost-effective than CR with HT retained for longer and experiencing less complications at lower costs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document