Will Cost Effectiveness Analysis Worsen the Cost Effectiveness of Health Care?

1988 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
David U. Himmelstein ◽  
Steffie Woolhandler ◽  
David H. Bor
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Policy Analysts ◽  
Policy Cost ◽  
The Cost

Cost effectiveness analysis is increasingly advocated as a basis for health policy. Analysts often compare expensive interventions with highly cost-effective programs such as hypertension screening, implying that if the former were curtailed resources would be reallocated to the latter and the efficiency of health care would improve. However, in practice, savings are unlikely to be targeted in this way. We present refined policy models that take into account actual patterns of resource allocation in the United States, and provide more realistic estimates of the likely uses of savings. We illustrate the implications of these models in an analysis of the effects of diverting funds from an expensive but effective practice. Eliminating such a practice would actually worsen the overall cost-effectiveness of U.S. health care unless there are radical changes in health policy. Cost effectiveness analysis incorrectly predicts health and cost outcomes of policy initiatives because it ignores the political constraints to health care decision-making.

scholarly journals Health Care Costs and Cost-effectiveness in Laryngotracheal Stenosis

2018 ◽  
Vol 160 (4) ◽  
pp. 679-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda X. Yin ◽  
William V. Padula ◽  
Shekhar Gadkaree ◽  
Kevin Motz ◽  
Sabrina Rahman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Tracheal Resection ◽  
Laryngotracheal Stenosis ◽  
Endoscopic Dilation ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Objective Laryngotracheal stenosis (LTS) is resource-intensive disease. The cost-effectiveness of LTS treatments has not been adequately explored. We aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing open reconstruction (cricotracheal/tracheal resection [CTR/TR]) with endoscopic dilation in the treatment of LTS. Study Design Retrospective cohort. Setting Tertiary referral center (2013-2017). Subjects and Methods Thirty-four LTS patients were recruited. Annual costs were derived from the Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University. Cost-effectiveness analysis compared CTR/TR versus endoscopic dilation at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) over 5- and 10-year time horizons. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with deterministic analysis and tested for sensitivity with univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results Mean LTS costs were $4080.09 (SE, $569.29) annually for related health care visits. The major risk factor for increased cost was etiology of stenosis. As compared with idiopathic patients, patients with intubation-related stenosis had significantly higher annual costs ($5286.56 vs $2873.62, P = .03). The cost of CTR/TR was $8583.91 (SE, $2263.22). Over a 5-year time horizon, CTR/TR gained $896 per QALY over serial dilations and was cost-effective. Over a 10-year time horizon, CTR/TR dominated dilations with a lower cost and higher QALY. Conclusion The cost of treatment for LTS is significant. Patients with intubation-related stenosis have significantly higher annual costs than do idiopathic patients. CTR/TR contributes significantly to cost in LTS but is cost-effective versus endoscopic dilations for appropriately selected patients over a 5- and 10-year horizon.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Submandibular Gland Preservation With Sialendoscopy for the Management of Sialolithiasis

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110268
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Acevedo ◽  
Ashley C. Hsu ◽  
Jeffrey C. Yu ◽  
Dale H. Rice ◽  
Daniel I. Kwon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Submandibular Gland ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Probability Of Success ◽  
Markov Decision Model ◽  
The Cost

Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy with gland excision for the management of submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Study Design Cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting Outpatient surgery centers. Methods A Markov decision model compared the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy versus gland excision for managing submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Surgical outcome probabilities were found in the primary literature. The quality of life of patients was represented by health utilities, and costs were estimated from a third-party payer’s perspective. The effectiveness of each intervention was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental costs and effectiveness of each intervention were compared, and a willingness-to-pay ratio of $150,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. One-way, multivariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to challenge model conclusions. Results Over 10 years, sialendoscopy yielded 9.00 QALYs at an average cost of $8306, while gland excision produced 8.94 QALYs at an average cost of $6103. The ICER for sialendoscopy was $36,717 per QALY gained, making sialendoscopy cost-effective by our best estimates. The model was sensitive to the probability of success and the cost of sialendoscopy. Sialendoscopy must meet a probability-of-success threshold of 0.61 (61%) and cost ≤$11,996 to remain cost-effective. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed sialendoscopy to be cost-effective 60% of the time. Conclusion Sialendoscopy appears to be a cost-effective management strategy for sialolithiasis of the submandibular gland when certain thresholds are maintained. Further studies elucidating the clinical factors that determine successful sialendoscopy may be aided by these thresholds as well as future comparisons of novel technology.

Principles of Cost-Effective Resource Allocation in Health Care organizations

1990 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milton C. Weinstein
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Care Organizations ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Common Understanding ◽  
Analytical Errors

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a method of economic evaluation that can be used to assess the efficiency with which health care technologies use limited resources to produce health outputs. However, inconsistencies in the way that such ratios are constructed often lead to misleading conclusions when CEAs are compared. Some of these inconsistencies, such as failure to discount or to calculate incremental ratios correctly, reflect analytical errors that, if corrected, would resolve the inconsistencies. Others reflect fundamental differences in the viewpoint of the analysis. The perspectives of different decision-making entities can properly lead to different items in the numerator and denominator of the cost-effectiveness (C/E) ratio. Producers and consumers of CEA need to be more conscious of the perspectives of analysis, so that C/E comparisons from a given perspective are based upon a common understanding of the elements that are properly included.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Non-Mydriatic Ultrawide- Field Fundus Photography versus Pharmacological Pupil Dilatation in Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program

2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (5) ◽  
pp. 818-824
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Fundus Photography ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy Screening ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Retinopathy Screening

Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) causes blindness of the population in many countries worldwide. Early detection and treatment of this disease via a DR screening program is the best way to secure the vision. An annual screening program using pharmacological pupil dilatation becomes the standard method. Recently, non-mydriatic ultrawide-field fundus photography (UWF) has been proposed as a choice for DR screening. However, there was no cost-effectiveness study between the standard DR screening and this UWF approach. Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness between UWF and pharmacological pupil dilatation in terms of hospital and societal perspectives. Materials and Methods: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that visited the ophthalmology clinic at Chulabhorn Hospital for DR screening were randomized using simple randomization method. The patients were interviewed by a trained interviewer for general and economic information. The clinical characteristics of DR and staging were recorded. Direct medical costs, direct non-medical costs, and informal care costs due to DR screening were recorded. Cost analyses were calculated for the hospital and societal perspectives. Results: The present study presented the cost-effectiveness analyses of UWF versus pharmacological pupil dilatation. Cost-effectiveness analysis from the hospital perspective showed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UWF to be –13.87. UWF was a cost-effective mean in DR screening in the societal perspective when compared with pharmacologically pupil dilatation with the ICER of 76.46, under the threshold of willingness to pay. Conclusion: The UWF was a cost-effective mean in DR screening. It can reduce screening duration and bypass post-screening blurred vision. The results suggested that UWF could be a viable option for DR screening. Keywords: Diabetic retinopathy, Diabetic retinopathy screening, Non-mydriatic ultrawide-field fundus photography, Cost-effectiveness analysis

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of acupuncture compared with usual care for acute non-specific low back pain: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 096452842110557
Author(s):  
Trygve Skonnord ◽  
Arne Fetveit ◽  
Holgeir Skjeie ◽  
Mette Brekke ◽  
Margreth Grotle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Care Costs

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a single treatment session of acupuncture, when applied in addition to usual care for acute low back pain (ALBP). Methods: Secondary analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial in Norwegian general practice. In total, 171 participants with ALBP ⩽14 days were randomised to a control group (CG) receiving usual care or to an acupuncture group (AG) receiving one additional session of Western medical acupuncture alongside usual care. Primary outcome measures for this cost-effectiveness analysis were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), health care costs and societal costs at days 28 and 365, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB). The NMB was calculated on the basis of the Norwegian cost-effectiveness threshold of NOK 275,000 (USD 35,628) per QALY gained. Missing data were replaced by multiple chained imputation. Results: Eighty-six participants in the CG and 81 in the AG were included in the analysis. We found no QALY gain at day 28. At day 365, the incremental QALY of 0.035 was statistically significant. The differences in health care costs and societal costs were not statistically significant. Three out of four calculations led to negative ICERs (cost saving) and positive NMBs. For the health care perspective at day 365, the ICER was USD –568 per QALY and the NMB was USD 1265, with 95.9% probability of acupuncture being cost-effective. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first cost-effectiveness analysis of acupuncture for ALBP. The findings indicate that acupuncture may be cost-effective from a 1-year perspective, but more studies are needed. Trial registration number: NCT01439412 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Cost-effectiveness analysis for preventing hepatitis B virus reactivation-related death in Japan

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Fujita ◽  
S Kusumoto ◽  
M Sugiyama ◽  
T Fujisawa ◽  
M Mizokami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Hbv Dna ◽  
Hbv Reactivation ◽  
Monitoring Strategy ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
B Virus ◽  
Tenofovir Alafenamide ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background There is no worldwide standard recommendation for preventing hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation for patients with resolved infection treated with an anti-CD20 antibody for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness between two commonly used strategies to prevent HBV reactivation-related death. Methods The two strategies compared were prophylactic antiviral therapy (Pro NAT) and HBV DNA monitoring followed by on-demand antiviral therapy (HBV DNA monitoring) using entecavir (Entecavir, a generic drug for Baraclude). Effectiveness was defined as the prevention of death due to HBV reactivation and costs were calculated under the health insurance system of Japan as of April 2018 using Markov model. A cost-minimization analysis, one of the cost-effectiveness analyses, was applied, since the effectiveness was the same between the two strategies according to a meta-analysis. To consider the effect of uncertainty for each parameter, probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed. In the scenario analysis, costs were calculated using lamivudine (Zefix) or tenofovir alafenamide (Vemlidy) instead of entecavir. All analyses were done using TreeAge Pro 2019 (TreeAge Software, Inc., MA, USA). Results Estimated costs per patient during the 30 months after initiation of chemotherapy for lymphoma were 1,513 USD with Pro NAT and 1,265 USD with HBV DNA monitoring. A PSA revealed that HBV DNA monitoring was more consistently cost-effective compared with Pro NAT when some parameters were set randomly according to probability distributions. In our scenario analysis, costs of Pro NAT and HBV DNA monitoring were calculated as 2,762 and 1,401 USD using lamivudine, 4,857 and 1,629 USD using tenofovir alafenamide. Conclusions Our cost-effectiveness analysis shows that an HBV DNA monitoring strategy using entecavir should be recommended for preventing HBV reactivation-related death in Japan. Key messages Cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that HBV DNA monitoring was more cost-effective compared to Pro NAT; this result was consistent with PSA. HBV DNA monitoring strategy should be recommended to prevent HBV reactivation-related death for the patients with resolved HBV infection in Japan.

Cost-effectiveness analysis: role and implications

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 135-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Marsden ◽  
D Wonderling
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Varicose Vein ◽  
Varicose Veins ◽  
Health Gain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Background: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is often misperceived to be a cost-cutting exercise. The intention of CEA is not to identify and implement cheap technologies, but rather those which offer maximum health gain, subject to available funds. Such analysis is crucial for decision making in health care, as tight budget constraints mean spending in one area of healthcare displaces spending elsewhere. Therefore in order to achieve the greatest health gain for the overall population, treatments must be selected which provide the greatest health gain within the available funds. Summary: The relevance of CEA in health care systems is explained, using varicose vein treatment in the UK NHS as an example. Treatment for varicose veins is often not commissioned to at a local level, most likely because it is misperceived to be a cosmetic problem. However, this view does not take into account the impact of quality of life. CEA balances costs against a quantitative measure of health related quality of life, and could therefore be used to determine whether it is cost-effective to provide varicose vein treatment. The current literature on the cost-effectiveness of varicose vein treatment is reviewed, and an overview of cost-effectiveness principles is provided. Concepts such as economic modelling, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), net monetary benefit (NMB) and sensitivity analysis are explained, using examples relevant to varicose veins where appropriate. Conclusion: This article explains how, far from cutting costs and sacrificing patient health, CEA provides a useful tool to maximise the health of the population in the face of ever tightening budget constraints. CEA could be used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the various treatment options for varicose veins, and efficiencies realised.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document