Economic Evaluation of CAM Use

2017 ◽  
pp. 232-271
Author(s):  
Li-Chia Chen ◽  
Mayuree Tangkiatkumjai
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Conventional Medicine ◽  
Kidney Diseases ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Healthcare Interventions

Economic evaluation (EE) of health care interventions has been used to inform and affect policy decision-making by considering both costs and outcomes of the interventions. National guidelines in many countries consider cost-effectiveness evidence for making recommendations of healthcare interventions. In such case, EE of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is crucial to guide reimbursement decision-making. However, there is currently a lack of cost-effectiveness evidence of using CAM for kidney diseases. There are three types of full EEs, including a cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analysis, of which, results of cost-utility analysis is preferred and widely used by healthcare authorities in several developed countries. General approaches for EE of conventional medicine are likely to be applied to assess economic outcomes of CAM for kidney diseases. This chapter depicts the overall principles of EEs, interpretations of economic results and summaries the currently available EE for CAM.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of dose–response resistance training in older women: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis

2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 1355-1366 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. C. Davis ◽  
C. A. Marra ◽  
M. C. Robertson ◽  
K. M. Khan ◽  
M. Najafzadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Older Women ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis

Cost‐effectiveness in surgery: concepts of cost‐utility analysis explained

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravi Vissapragada ◽  
Norma Bulamu ◽  
Jonathan Karnon ◽  
Roger Yazbek ◽  
David I. Watson
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis

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 Health economic measures in schizophrenia research

2007 ◽  
Vol 191 (S50) ◽  
pp. s42-s45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul McCrone
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

BackgroundIt is essential in economic evaluations of schizophrenia interventions that all relevant costs are identified and measured appropriately Also of importance is the way in which cost data are combined with information on outcomesAimsTo examine the use of health economicsin evaluations of interventions for schizophreniaMethodsAreview of the key methods used to estimate costs and to link costs and outcomes was conductedResultsCosts fall on a number of different agencies and can be short term or long term. Cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis are the most appropriate methods for combing cost and outcome dataConclusionsSchizophrenia poses a number of challenges for economic evaluation

scholarly journals A one-year cost–utility analysis of REBOA versus RTACC for non-compressible torso haemorrhage

Trauma ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxwell S Renna ◽  
Cristiano van Zeller ◽  
Farah Abu-Hijleh ◽  
Cherlyn Tong ◽  
Jasmine Gambini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
One Year ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Introduction Major trauma is a leading cause of death and disability in young adults, especially from massive non-compressible torso haemorrhage. The standard technique to control distal haemorrhage and maximise central perfusion is resuscitative thoracotomy with aortic cross-clamping (RTACC). More recently, the minimally invasive technique of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been developed to similarly limit distal haemorrhage without the morbidity of thoracotomy; cost–utility studies on this intervention, however, are still lacking. The aim of this study was to perform a one-year cost–utility analysis of REBOA as an intervention for patients with major traumatic non-compressible abdominal haemorrhage, compared to RTACC within the U.K.’s National Health Service. Methods A retrospective analysis of the outcomes following REBOA and RTACC was conducted based on the published literature of survival and complication rates after intervention. Utility was obtained from studies that used the EQ-5D index and from self-conducted surveys. Costs were calculated using 2016/2017 National Health Service tariff data and supplemented from further literature. A cost–utility analysis was then conducted. Results A total of 12 studies for REBOA and 20 studies for RTACC were included. The mean injury severity scores for RTACC and REBOA were 34 and 39, and mean probability of death was 9.7 and 54%, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of REBOA when compared to RTACC was £44,617.44 per quality-adjusted life year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, by exceeding the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness’s willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/quality-adjusted life year, suggests that this intervention is not cost-effective in comparison to RTACC. However, REBOA yielded a 157% improvement in utility with a comparatively small cost increase of 31.5%. Conclusion Although REBOA has not been found to be cost-effective when compared to RTACC, ultimately, clinical experience and expertise should be the main factor in driving the decision over which intervention to prioritise in the emergency context.

An Economic Evaluation of Treatments for HIV-Associated Facial Lipoatrophy: A Cost-Utility Analysis

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 386-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sirianong Peyasantiwong ◽  
Mona R. Loutfy ◽  
Audrey Laporte ◽  
Peter C. Coyte
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Facial Lipoatrophy
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document