A guide to extending and implementing generalized risk-adjusted cost-effectiveness (GRACE)

The generalized risk-adjusted cost-effectiveness (GRACE) model generalizes conventional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) by introducing diminishing returns to Health-Related Quality of Life (QoL). This changes CEA practice in three ways: (1) Willingness to pay (WTP) increases exponentially with untreated illness severity or pre-existing permanent disability, and WTP ends up lower for mild diseases but higher for severe diseases compared with conventional CEA; (2) Average treatment effectiveness should be adjusted for uncertainty in outcomes; and (3) The marginal rate of substitution between life expectancy and QoL varies with health state. Implementing GRACE requires new parameters describing risk preferences over QoL, the marginal rate of substitution between life expectancy (LE) and QoL, and the variance and skewness of treatment outcomes distributions. In this paper, we provide: (1) a generalized WTP threshold incorporating the possibility of permanent disability; (2) a simpler method to estimate the tradeoff rate between QoL and LE, eliminating the need to carry out treatment-by-treatment estimates; (3) a more-general method to adjust WTP for illness severity that permits non-constant relative risk-aversion in QoL; (4) a new approach to estimating risk-preferences over QoL, leveraging established empirical methods from “happiness” economics; and (5) a step-by-step guide for practitioners wishing to implement multi-period GRACE analyses.

International Tax Planning: The Preacquisition Surplus Election: More Than Meets the Eye?

Regulation 5901(2)(b) permits a corporation resident in Canada (CRIC) to make an election in respect of a dividend paid by a foreign affiliate of the CRIC such that the dividend will be treated as a reduction to the adjusted cost base of the foreign affiliate shares on which it is paid, rather than as a distribution from the foreign affiliate's surplus pools. Making this "preacquisition surplus election" is often perceived as a straightforward, and administratively simple, way for the CRIC to ensure that the dividend does not result in the unwanted, and potentially adverse, distribution of the foreign affiliate's surplus pools. However, as this article points out, it is important that a CRIC undertake a detailed analysis before deciding to make the election, in order to avoid potential exposure to unintended consequences. This article provides an overview of the legislative history of the election and its underlying policy rationale, and describes the limitations of and restrictions on its use. The authors present some conceptual guidelines (along with examples of their application) for identifying certain circumstances in which the making of the election may be particularly favourable or unfavourable. They also compare and contrast this election with the "qualifying return of capital" (QROC) election under subsection 90(3), which may be available in some circumstances as an alternative mechanism for achieving a similar result.

Comparison of PICU Cost and Severity-Adjusted Cost Between Patients With SIRS-Defined Sepsis and Those With Age-Adapted SOFA-Defined Sepsis

Background: The 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus definition is considered to lack specificity and may lead to the admission of low-risk patients to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). The aim of this study was to compare the PICU cost and the severity-adjusted cost between patients with sepsis defined by the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus and those diagnosed using the age-adapted Sepsis-3 criteria.Methods: Septic children identified by the 2005 Consensus were screened for enrollment. The enrolled children were stratified into two subgroups using the age-adapted Sepsis 3.0 definition. A comparison was made between the subgroups of sepsis 3.0-defined children and non-sepsis 3.0-defined septic children. The Severity Adjusted ICU Cost (SAIC) was used to evaluate the case-mixed severity-adjusted costs of the study population. Coefficients in linear regression analyses in subgroups were calculated for presenting variation of PICU costs for every unit change of PRISM score.Results: A total of 397 children were enrolled. The PICU length of stay was longer in the sepsis 3.0 group than in the non-sepsis 3.0 group [median (IQR), 9.0 (5.0, 15.0) vs. 6.0 (3.0, 9.0); P < 0.001]. Pediatric risk of mortality (PRISM) scores and mortality were significantly higher in sepsis 3.0-defined septic patients. The total costs and daily costs in the PICU were both significantly lower in the non-sepsis 3.0 group (P < 0.001). The severity-adjusted ICU cost in the non-sepsis 3.0 group was lower than that in the sepsis 3.0 group [median (IQR), 7,125 (3,588, 11,134) vs. 9,364 (5,680, 15,876); P = 0.001]. There was no significant difference among the regression coefficients.Conclusions: The 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus definition does not lead to more PICU costs after considering illness severity.Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03598127.

Trends of Expenditures and Utilization of Facet Joint Interventions in Fee-For-Service (FFS) Medicare Population from 2009-2018

Background: The trends of the expenditures of facet joint interventions have not been specifically assessed in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population since 2009 Objectives: The objective of this investigation is to assess trends of expenditures and utilization of facet joint interventions in FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. Study Design: The study was designed to analyze trends of expenditures and utilization of facet joint interventions in FFS Medicare population from 2009-2018 in the United States. In this manuscript: • A patient was considered as undergoing facet joint interventions throughout the year. • A visit included all regions treated during the visit. • An episode was considered as one per region utilizing primary codes only. • Services or procedures were considered all procedures (multiple levels). Data for the analysis was obtained from the standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims for those enrolled in the FFS Medicare program from 2009 to 2018. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and also were inflation adjusted to 2018 US dollars. Results: This analysis showed expenditures increased by 79% from 2009 to 2018 in the form of total cost for facet joint interventions, at an annual rate of 6.7%. Cervical and lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy procedures increased 185% and 169%. However, inflation-adjusted expenditures with 2018 US dollars showed an overall increase of 53% with an annual increase of 4.9%. In addition, using inflation-adjusted expenditures per procedures increased, the overall 6% with an annual increase of 0.7%. Overall, per patient costs, with inflation adjustment, decreased from $1,925 to $1,785 with a decline of 7% and an annual decline of 0.8%. Allowed charges per visit also declined after inflation adjustment from $951.76 to $849.86 with an overall decline of 11% and an annual decline of 1.3%. Staged episodes of radiofrequency neurotomy were performed in 23.9% of patients and more than 2 episodes for radiofrequency neurotomy in 6.9%, in lumbar spine and 19.6% staged and 5.1% more than 2 episodes in cervical spine of patients in 2018. Limitations: This analysis is limited by inclusion of only the FFS Medicare population, without adding utilization patterns of Medicare Advantage plans, which constitutes almost 30% of the Medicare population. Conclusions: Even after adjusting for inflation, there was a significant increase for the expenditures of facet joint interventions with an overall 53% increase. Costs per patient and cost per visit declined. Inflation-adjusted cost per year declined 7% overall and 0.8% annually from $1,925 to $1,785, and inflation-adjusted cost per visit also declined 11% annually and 1.3% per year from $952 in 2009 to $850 in 2018. Key words: Facet joint interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, facet joint neurolysis, facet joint injections, Medicare expenditures