Value-based pricing of cognitive behavioral therapy for depression in primary care: an economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Value-based pricing (VBP) determines product prices based on their perceived benefits. In healthcare, VBP prices medical technologies considering health outcomes and other relevant factors. This study applies VBP using economic evaluation to provider-patient communication, taking cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for adult primary care patients with depressive disorders as a case study. METHODS: A 12-week decision-tree model was developed from the German social health insurance system's perspective, comparing CBT against the standard of care. The influence of an extended time horizon on VBP was assessed using a theoretical model and long-term data spanning 46 months. RESULTS: Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €88,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, the base-case 50-minute compensation rate for CBT was €45. Assuming long-term effects of CBT significantly affected the value-based compensation, increasing it to €226. CONCLUSIONS: This study showcases the potential of applying VBP to CBT. However, significant price variability is highlighted, contingent upon assumptions regarding CBT's long-term impacts.

Long COVID: Costs for the German economy and health care and pension system.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute COVID-19 can develop persistent symptoms (long/post COVID-19 syndrome). This study aimed to project the economic, health care, and pension costs due to long/post-COVID-19 syndrome with new onset in Germany in 2021. METHODS: Using secondary data, economic costs were calculated based on wage rates and the loss of gross value-added. Pension payments were determined based on the incidence, duration, and amount of disability pensions. Health care expenditure was calculated based on rehabilitation expenses. RESULTS: The analysis estimated a production loss of 3.4 billion euros. The gross value-added loss was calculated to be 5.7 billion euros. The estimated financial burden on the health care and pension systems due to SARS-CoV-2 infection was approximately 1.7 billion euros. Approximately 0.4 percent of employees are projected to be wholly or partially withdrawn from the labor market in the medium term due to long/post-COVID with new onset in 2021. CONCLUSION: Costs of long/post-COVID-19 syndrome with new onset in 2021 are not negligible for the German economy and health care and pension systems but may still be manageable.

A Model-Based Estimate of the Cost-Effectiveness Threshold in Germany.

PURPOSE: Value-based pricing of new, innovative health technologies defined as pricing through economic evaluation requires the use of a basic cost-effectiveness threshold. This study presents a cost-effectiveness model that determines the cost-effectiveness threshold for life-extending new, innovative technologies based on health system opportunity costs. METHODS: To estimate health system opportunity costs, the study used German data and examined the period between 1896 and 2014. To this end, it determined intertemporal differences in the remaining lifetime spending and life expectancy by age and gender. To account for the age composition of the population, it weighted age-specific intertemporal changes in the remaining lifetime spending and life expectancy by the age-specific population size. To estimate life expectancy gains solely attributable to the health care system, it used aggregated data on amenable mortality. It calculated the cost-effectiveness ratio of health care spending in the German health care system on average and at the margin. RESULTS: Based on the cost-effectiveness ratio of health care spending at the margin, the threshold value for life-prolonging new, innovative technologies was at least €42,634 per life-year gained, with a point estimate of €88,107 per life-year gained. Based on the average ratio, the threshold value dropped below €34,000 per life-year gained. CONCLUSION: This study provides new evidence on the cost-effectiveness threshold for value-based pricing of new, innovative technologies. Data from Germany suggest that a threshold value based on health care spending at the margin is considerably higher than that based on the average ratio.

Cost-effectiveness of future lockdown policies against the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIM: While the European Union (EU) has approved several COVID-19 vaccines, new variants of concern may be able to escape immunity. The purpose of this study is to project the cost-effectiveness of future lockdown policies in conjunction with a variant-adapted vaccine booster. The exemplary scenario foresees a 25% decline in the vaccine protection against severe disease. METHODS: A decision model was constructed using, for example, information on age-specific fatality rates, intensive care unit (ICU) costs and outcomes, and herd protection threshold. The costs and benefits of a future lockdown strategy were determined from a societal viewpoint under three future scenarios-a booster shot's efficacy of 0%, 50%, and 95%. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness ratio of a lockdown policy in conjunction with a booster dose with 95% efficacy is €44,214 per life year gained. A lockdown is cost-effective when the probability of approving a booster dose with 95% efficacy is at least 48% (76% when considering uncertainty in input factors). CONCLUSION: In this exemplary scenario, a future lockdown policy appears to be cost-effective if the probability of approving a variant-adapted vaccine booster with an efficacy of 95% is at least 48%.

COVID-19 and the forgone health benefits of elective operations.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The first SARS-CoV-2 pandemic wave in Germany involved a tradeoff between saving the lives of COVID-19 patients by providing sufficient intensive care unit (ICU) capacity and foregoing the health benefits of elective procedures. This study aims to quantify this tradeoff. METHODS: The analysis is conducted at both the individual and population levels. The analysis calculates quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to facilitate a comparison between the health gains from saving the lives of COVID-19 patients in the ICU and the health losses associated with postponing operative procedures. The QALYs gained from saving the lives of COVID-19 patients are calculated based on both the real-world ICU admissions and deaths averted from flattening the first wave. Scenario analysis was used to account for variation in input factors. RESULTS: At the individual level, the resource-adjusted QALY gain of saving one COVID-19 life is predicted to be 3 to 15 times larger than the QALY loss of deferring one operation (the average multiplier is 9). The real-world QALY gain at the population level is estimated to fall within the range of the QALY loss due to delayed procedures. The modeled QALY gain by flattening the first wave is 3 to 31 times larger than the QALY loss due to delayed procedures (the average multiplier is 17). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of the pandemic, the resource-adjusted health gain from treating one COVID-19 patient in the ICU was found to be much larger than the health loss from deferring one operation. At the population level, flattening the first wave led to a much larger health gain than the health loss from delaying operative procedures.

Was EU's COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy irrational? A re-analysis based on cost-effectiveness considerations.

AIM: The European Union (EU) has received criticism for being slow to secure coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine contracts in 2020 before the approval of the first COVID-19 vaccine. This study aimed to retrospectively analyze the EU's COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy. To this end, the study retrospectively determined the minimum vaccine efficacy that made vaccination cost-effective from a societal perspective in Germany before clinical trial announcements in late 2020. The results were compared with the expected vaccine efficacy before the announcements. METHODS: Two strategies were analyzed: vaccination followed by the complete lifting of mitigation measures and a long-term mitigation strategy. A decision model was constructed using, for example, information on age-specific fatality rates, intensive care unit costs and outcomes, and herd protection thresholds. The base-case time horizon was 5 years. Cost-effectiveness of vaccination was determined in terms of the costs per life-year gained. The value of an additional life-year was borrowed from new, innovative oncological drugs, as cancer is a condition with a perceived threat similar to that of COVID-19. RESULTS: A vaccine with 50% efficacy against death due to COVID-19 was not clearly cost-effective compared with a long-term mitigation strategy if mitigation measures were planned to be lifted after vaccine rollout. The minimum vaccine efficacy required to achieve cost-effectiveness was 40% in the base case. The sensitivity analysis showed considerable variation around the minimum vaccine efficacy, extending above 50% for some of the input variables. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that vaccine efficacy levels expected before clinical trial announcements did not clearly justify lifting mitigation measures from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. Hence, the EU's sluggish procurement strategy still appeared to be rational at the time of decision making.

Benefits, risks, and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 self-tests from a consumer's perspective.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to quantify the health benefits, risks, and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 self-tests from a consumer's perspective in Germany. METHODS: The analysis is based on a modelling approach using secondary data. The clinical endpoints considered in this analysis are avoided SARS-CoV-2 infections and secondary severe clinical events (death, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and long COVID syndrome). The study determines the number of self-tests that need to be conducted under a 7-day incidence of 75 per 100,000 population to prevent one infection or severe clinical event. Furthermore, the study calculates the cost of testing per avoided clinical event and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from a consumer perspective. RESULTS: Disregarding the rate of unreported COVID-19 cases, 4556 self-tests need to be conducted (over 12 years) in order to avoid one undesirable event (death, intensive care unit stay, or long COVID syndrome). Ninety percent of infections are not avoided among direct contacts but along the chain of infection. The costs per quality-adjusted life year gained from a consumer's perspective are €5870. This ratio is particularly sensitive to the 7-day incidence, effective reproduction number, and the age of contacts. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of self-testing in the general population at a 7-day incidence rate of 75 per 100,000 appear to be minor. Nevertheless, cost-effectiveness may still be acceptable in the presence of higher-risk contacts given the low costs of self-test kits in Germany.

Value-based pricing of a COVID-19 vaccine.

AIM: The purpose of this study is to determine the value-based price of a COVID-19 vaccine from a societal perspective in Germany. METHODS: A decision model was constructed using, e.g., information on age-specific fatality rates, intensive care unit (ICU) costs and outcomes, and the full vaccination rate. Three strategies were analysed: vaccination (with 95 % and 50 % efficacy against death), a mitigation strategy, and no intervention. The base-case time horizon was 5 years. The value of a vaccine includes savings from avoiding COVID-19 mitigation measures and productivity loss, as well as health benefits from preventing COVID-19 related mortality. The value of an additional life year was borrowed from new, innovative oncological drugs, as cancer reflects a condition with a similar morbidity and mortality burden in the general population in the short term as COVID-19. RESULTS: A vaccine with a 95 % efficacy dominates the mitigation strategy strictly. The value-based price (€6,431) is thus determined by the comparison between vaccination and no intervention. The price is particularly sensitive to the full vaccination rate and the duration of vaccine protection. In contrast, the value of a vaccine with 50 % efficacy is more ambiguous. CONCLUSION: This study yields a value-based price for a COVID-19 vaccine with 95 % efficacy, which is considerably greater than the purchasing price.

The clinical and economic value of a successful shutdown during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Germany.

Background and aim: A shutdown of businesses enacted during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic can serve different goals, e.g., preventing the intensive care unit (ICU) capacity from being overwhelmed ('flattening the curve') or keeping the reproduction number substantially below one ('squashing the curve'). The aim of this study was to determine the clinical and economic value of a shutdown that is successful in 'flattening' or 'squashing the curve' in Germany. Methods: In the base case, the study compared a successful shutdown to a worst-case scenario with no ICU capacity left to treat COVID-19 patients. To this end, a decision model was developed using, e.g., information on age-specific fatality rates, ICU outcomes, and the herd protection threshold. The value of an additional life year was borrowed from new, innovative oncological drugs, as cancer reflects a condition with a similar morbidity and mortality burden in the general population in the short term as COVID-19. Results: A shutdown that is successful in 'flattening the curve' is projected to yield an average health gain between 0.01 and 0.05 life years (0.1 to 0.6 months) per capita in the German population. The corresponding economic value ranges between €616 and €4797 per capita or, extrapolated to the total population, 1%-12% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2019. A shutdown that is successful in 'squashing the curve' is expected to yield a minimum health gain of 0.08 life years (1 month) per capita, corresponding to 19 % of the GDP in 2019. Results are particularly sensitive to mortality data and the prevalence of undetected cases. Conclusion: A successful shutdown is forecasted to yield a considerable gain in life years in the German population. Nevertheless, questions around the affordability and underfunding of other parts of the healthcare system emerge.

The price of curing cancer.

BACKGROUND: Health care systems around the world struggle with high prices for new cancer drugs. The purpose of this study was to conduct a gedankenexperiment and calculate how much health expenditures would change if a cure for cancer through pharmaceutical treatment were made available. The cancer cure was conceived to eliminate both cancer deaths and the underlying morbidity burden of cancer. Furthermore, the cure was hypothesized to arrive in incremental steps but at infinitesimally small time intervals (resulting, effectively, in an immediate cure). METHODS: The analysis used secondary data and was conducted from the viewpoint of the German social health insurance. As its underlying method, it used a cause-elimination life-table approach. To account for the age distribution of the population, the study weighted age-specific increases in remaining life expectancy by age-specific population sizes. It considered drug acquisition costs as well as savings and life extension costs from eliminating cancer. All cancer drugs that underwent a mandatory early benefit assessment in Germany between 2011 and 2015/16 and were granted an added benefit were included. Data on age- and gender-specific probabilities of survival, population sizes, causes of death, and health expenditures, as well as data on cancer costs were taken from the German Federal Office of Statistics and the German Federal Social Insurance Office. RESULTS: Based on the cause-elimination life-table approach and accounting for the age structure of the German population, curing cancer in Germany yields an increase in average remaining life expectancy by 2.66 life years. Based on the current incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of new cancer drugs, which is on average €101,493 per life year gained (€39,751/0.39 life years), the German social health insurance would need to pay €280,497 per insuree to eliminate cancer. Dividing this figure by current average remaining lifetime health expenditures yields a ratio of 2.07, which represents a multiplier of current health expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Eliminating cancer at current price levels would more than triple total health expenditures in Germany. As the current price of a cure requires a drastic reduction of non-health consumption, it appears that current prices for cancer drugs already on the market (i.e., small steps towards a cure) need careful reconsideration.

A parsimonious model to validate cost-effectiveness analyses on preventive health care.

BACKGROUND: The effect of preventive health care on health expenditures is ambiguous. On the one hand, prevention reduces the costs of future morbidity. On the other hand, prevention leads to costs of life extension. The purpose of this paper is to develop a parsimonious model that determines for a preventive measure of interest whether savings from preventing morbidity are more than offset by the costs of living longer, resulting in a net expenditure increase. METHODS: A theoretical model was built based on a Weibull survival function. It includes savings and life extension costs over the remaining lifetime. The model was applied to the example of obesity prevention. RESULTS: The model shows that the cost consequences of prevention are essentially driven by two factors: i) the relative reduction of morbidity-related costs, which determines the amount of savings from avoiding morbidity; and ii) the hazard ratio of death, which determines the amount of life extension costs. In the application example, the model is able to validate the results of a more complex cost-effectiveness model on obesity prevention. CONCLUSIONS: This work provides new insight into the lifetime cost consequences of prevention. The model can be used both to check plausibility of the results of other models and to conduct an independent analysis.

How Many Intensive Care Beds are Justifiable for Hospital Pandemic Preparedness? A Cost-effectiveness Analysis for COVID-19 in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Germany is experiencing the second COVID-19 pandemic wave. The intensive care unit (ICU) bed capacity is an important consideration in the response to the pandemic. The purpose of this study was to determine the costs and benefits of maintaining or expanding a staffed ICU bed reserve capacity in Germany. METHODS: This study compared the provision of additional capacity to no intervention from a societal perspective. A decision model was developed using, e.g. information on age-specific fatality rates, ICU costs and outcomes, and the herd protection threshold. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated based upon the willingness to pay for new medicines for the treatment of cancer, a condition with a similar disease burden in the near term. RESULTS: The marginal cost-effectiveness ratio (MCER) of the last bed added to the existing ICU capacity is €21,958 per life-year gained assuming full bed utilization. The NMB decreases with an additional expansion but remains positive for utilization rates as low as 2%. In a sensitivity analysis, the variables with the highest impact on the MCER were the mortality rates in the ICU and after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: This article demonstrates the applicability of cost-effectiveness analysis to policies of hospital pandemic preparedness and response capacity strengthening. In Germany, the provision of a staffed ICU bed reserve capacity appears to be cost-effective even for a low probability of bed utilization.