Better transport accessibility, better health: a health economic impact assessment study for Melbourne, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is a global public health problem, partly due to urbanization and increased use of passive modes of transport such as private motor vehicles. Improving accessibility to public transport could be an effective policy for Governments to promote equity and efficiency within transportation systems, increase population levels of physical activity and reduce the negative externalities of motor vehicle use. Quantitative estimates of the health impacts of improvements to public transport accessibility may be useful for resource allocation and priority-setting, however few studies have been published to inform this decision-making. This paper aims to estimate the physical activity, obesity, injury, health and healthcare cost-saving outcomes of scenario-based improvements to public transport accessibility in Melbourne, Australia. METHODS: Baseline and two hypothetical future scenario estimates of improved public transport accessibility for Melbourne, Australia, were derived using a spatial planning and decision tool designed to simulate accessibility performance (the Spatial Network Analysis for Multimodal Urban Transport Systems (SNAMUTS)). Public transport related physical activity was quantified by strata of age group and sex from Melbourne travel survey data (VISTA survey) and used with the SNAMUTS Composite Index to estimate input data for health impact modelling for the Melbourne population aged 20-74 years. A proportional multi-state, multiple cohort lifetable Markov model quantified the potential health gains and healthcare cost-savings from estimated changes in physical activity, body weight and injuries related to walking to access/egress public transport under two scenarios: (S1) public transport accessibility under current policy directions, and (S2) multi-directional, high-frequency network improvements. RESULTS: Multi-directional, high-frequency improvements to the public transport network (S2) resulted in significantly greater health and economic gains than current policy directions (S1) in relation to physical activity (mean 6.4 more MET minutes/week), body weight (mean 0.05 kg differential), health-adjusted life years gained (absolute difference of 4878 HALYs gained) and healthcare cost-savings (absolute difference of AUD43M), as compared to business as usual under both scenarios (n = 2,832,241 adults, over the lifecourse). CONCLUSIONS: Based on our conservative analyses, improving accessibility to public transport will improve population health by facilitating physical activity and lead to healthcare cost savings compared with business-as-usual. These wider health benefits should be better considered in transport planning and policy decisions.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Utility Values of Patients and Partners Between 2007 and 2016.

Background. There is widespread agreement that both the length and quality of life matter when assessing new technologies and/or models of care in the treatment for cancer patients. Quality of life for partners/carers also matters, particularly for prostate cancer. Purpose. This systematic review aims to provide up-to-date utility values along the prostate cancer care continuum (i.e., from prescreening through to palliative care) for use where future trial-based or modelled economic evaluations cannot collect primary data from men and/or partners. Data Sources. A protocol was developed and registered on the international register of systematic reviews-PROSPERO. Databases searched included EBSCO Information Services (CINAHL, EconLit, Global Health, HEED, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Embase. Study Selection. Study selection terms included health-related quality of life, prostate cancer, and partners or carers. Data Extraction. The authors identified articles published between 2007 and 2016 that provided health state utility values, with statistical uncertainty, for men with or at risk of prostate cancer and/or their partner/carers. Data Synthesis and Results. Study quality and generalizability of utilities was evaluated and meta-analysis conducted against prespecified criteria. From 906 original articles, 29 recent primary studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. We tabulate all the utility values with uncertainty, along with considerable methodological detail and patient population characteristics. Limitations. Utility values pertaining to carers/partners were limited to one study. Conclusions. Studies varied in design, measurement instruments utilized, quality, and generalizability. There is sufficient qualitative and quantitative detail for the reported utility values to be readily incorporated into economic evaluations. More research is needed with carers/partners and with newly developing prostate cancer-specific quality of life tools.

The cost-effectiveness of a 20% price discount on fruit, vegetables, diet drinks and water, trialled in remote Australia to improve Indigenous health.

This paper estimates the cost-effectiveness of a 20% price discount on healthy food and beverages with and without consumer nutrition education, as trialled in remote Northern Australia. Changes in actual store sales, from the pre-discount baseline period, were analysed for population impact on consumption of fruit and vegetables, water and artificially sweetened soft drinks, in addition with total dietary weight (grams), energy (Mega Joules), and sodium (milligrams). Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs), arising from changes in dietary risk factor prevalence in the population, were estimated as the primary health outcome in a multi health-state Markov model. The costs of the strategies were sourced from paid invoices and time estimates of staff providing store-based discount promotion and consumer education. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio adopted a partial societal perspective, (including health and retail sector costs), as cost per DALY averted and was presented in 2011 Australian dollars. The price discount, helped address a gap in food price equity for residents of remote communities. However, the discount strategy, with or without consumer education led to a net loss of population health -36 95%CI (-47,-25) or -21(-28, -15) DALYs respectively, at increased cost to the retail and health sectors, of AUD860000 95%CI (710000, 1million) or AUD500000 (410000, 590000). The strategies trialled were thereby categorised as dominated by current practice while acknowledging considerable uncertainty surrounding the health outcome estimates. The 20% discount on limited targeted products appeared to need to be considered in conjunction with other marketing strategies to support healthy food choices, if remote Australian Indigenous population health is to be improved.

Effect of a price discount and consumer education strategy on food and beverage purchases in remote Indigenous Australia: a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is mounting that price discounts can be effective in improving diet. This study examined the effectiveness of a 20% price discount on food and drink purchases with and without consumer education in remote Indigenous Australia. METHODS: A 20% discount on fruit, vegetables, water, and artificially sweetened soft drinks was applied for 24 weeks in 20 communities in remote Indigenous Australia where the community store was managed by the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation (ALPA) or Outback Stores (OBS) in a stepped-wedge randomised trial. Communities were randomly allocated to a fixed framework of five sets of four stratified by store association; ten stores (two in each set) were randomly assigned to receive consumer education. A store from each of the ALPA and OBS store groups (contained in separate opaque envelopes) was selected, and stores in turn continued to be consecutively allocated to the fixed store set framework, starting with the first store slot in the first store set, until all stores had been allocated. The effect of the discount on the weight of fruit and vegetables purchased (the primary endpoint) was assessed using weekly store sales data and mixed models per protocol. We did sensitivity analyses by repeating the analyses with the outliers included and repeating the analyses for the primary outcome measure removing each store one at a time. This trial was registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12613000694718. FINDINGS: Weekly store sales data on all food and drink products sold in 20 stores were collected from July 1, 2012, to Dec 28, 2014. Price discount alone was associated with a 12·7% (95% CI 4·1-22·1) increase in purchases in grams of fruit and vegetables combined (primary outcome), and a 19·8% (6·2-35·1) increase post discount (after vs before); an effect of 12 g and 18 g per capita per day. Sensitivity analyses did not modify the results for the primary outcome measure. INTERPRETATION: A 20% discount can only increase fruit and vegetable purchases to help protect against obesity and diet related disease to a certain extent. Large discounts might have a greater impact than small discounts. Creative merchandising approaches to consumer education could also be considered alongside fiscal interventions to achieve marked improvements in diet. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Cost of high prevalence mental disorders: Findings from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to detail the costs associated with the high prevalence mental disorders (depression, anxiety-related and substance use) in Australia, using community-based, nationally representative survey data. METHODS: Respondents diagnosed, within the preceding 12 months, with high prevalence mental disorders using the Confidentialised Unit Record Files of the 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing were analysed. The use of healthcare resources (hospitalisations, consultations and medications), productivity loss, income tax loss and welfare benefits were estimated. Unit costs of healthcare services were obtained from the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Labour participation rates and unemployment rates were determined from the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Daily wage rates adjusted by age and sex were obtained from Australian Bureau of Statistics and used to estimate productivity losses. Income tax loss was estimated based on the Australian Taxation Office rates. The average cost of commonly received Government welfare benefits adjusted by age was used to estimate welfare payments. All estimates were expressed in 2013-2014 AUD and presented from multiple perspectives including public sector, individuals, private insurers, health sector and societal. RESULTS: The average annual treatment cost for people seeking treatment was AUD660 (public), AUD195 (individual), AUD1058 (private) and AUD845 from the health sector's perspective. The total annual healthcare cost was estimated at AUD974m, consisting of AUD700m to the public sector, AUD168m to individuals, and AUD107m to the private sector. The total annual productivity loss attributed to the population with high prevalence mental disorders was estimated at AUD11.8b, coupled with the yearly income tax loss at AUD1.23b and welfare payments at AUD12.9b. CONCLUSION: The population with high prevalence mental disorders not only incurs substantial cost to the Australian healthcare system but also large economic losses to society.

The economic feasibility of price discounts to improve diet in Australian Aboriginal remote communities.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of fiscal measures applied in remote community food stores for Aboriginal Australians. METHODS: Six price discount strategies on fruit, vegetables, diet drinks and water were modelled. Baseline diet was measured as 12 months' actual food sales data in three remote Aboriginal communities. Discount-induced changes in food purchases were based on published price elasticity data while the weight of the daily diet was assumed constant. Dietary change was converted to change in sodium and energy intake, and body mass index (BMI) over a 12-month period. Improved lifetime health outcomes, modelled for the remote population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, were converted to disability adjusted life years (DALYs) saved using a proportional multistate lifetable model populated with diet-related disease risks and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rates of disease. RESULTS: While dietary change was small, five of the six price discount strategies were estimated as cost-effective, below a $50,000/DALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders are committed to finding ways to reduce important inequalities in health status between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and non-Indigenous Australians. Price discounts offer potential to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. Verification of these results by trial-based research coupled with consideration of factors important to all stakeholders is needed.

The health and economic benefits of reducing intimate partner violence: an Australian example.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) has important impacts on the health of women in society. Our aim was to estimate the health and economic benefits of reducing the prevalence of IPV in the 2008 Australian female adult population. METHODS: Simulation models were developed to show the effect of a 5 percentage point absolute feasible reduction target in the prevalence of IPV from current Australian levels (27%). IPV is not measured in national surveys. Levels of psychological distress were used as a proxy for exposure to IPV since psychological conditions represent three-quarters of the disease burden from IPV. Lifetime cohort health benefits for females were estimated as fewer incident cases of violence-related disease and injury; deaths; and Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). Opportunity cost savings were estimated for the health sector, paid and unpaid production and leisure from reduced incidence of IPV-related disease and deaths. Workforce production gains were estimated by comparing surveyed participation and absenteeism rates of females with moderate psychological distress (lifetime IPV exposure) against high or very high distress (current IPV exposure), and valued using the friction cost approach (FCA). The impact of improved health status on unpaid household production and leisure time were modelled from time use survey data. Potential costs associated with interventions to reduce IPV were not considered. Multivariable uncertainty analyses and univariable sensitivity analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: A 5 percentage point absolute reduction in the lifetime prevalence of IPV in the 2008 Australian female population was estimated to produce 6000 fewer incident cases of disease/injury, 74 fewer deaths, 5000 fewer DALYs lost and provide gains of 926,000 working days, 371,000 days of home-based production and 428,000 leisure days. Overall, AUD371 million in opportunity cost savings could be achievable. The greatest economic savings would be home-based production (AUD147 million), followed by leisure time (AUD98 million), workforce production (AUD94 million) and reduced health sector costs (AUD38 million). CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes new knowledge about the economic impact of IPV in females. The findings provide evidence of large potential opportunity cost savings from reducing the prevalence of IPV and reinforce the need to reduce IPV in Australia, and elsewhere.

Is implementation of the 2013 Australian treatment guidelines for posttraumatic stress disorder cost-effective compared to current practice? A cost-utility analysis using QALYs and DALYs.

OBJECTIVE: To assess, from a health sector perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness of three treatment recommendations in the most recent Australian Clinical Practice Guidelines for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The interventions assessed are trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for the treatment of PTSD in adults and TF-CBT in children, compared to current practice in Australia. METHOD: Economic modelling, using existing databases and published information, was used to assess cost-effectiveness. A cost-utility framework using both quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted was used. Costs were tracked for the duration of the respective interventions and applied to the estimated 12 months prevalent cases of PTSD in the Australian population of 2012. Simulation modelling was used to provide 95% uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Consideration was also given to factors not considered in the quantitative analysis but could determine the likely uptake of the proposed intervention guidelines. RESULTS: TF-CBT is highly cost-effective compared to current practice at $19,000/QALY, $16,000/DALY in adults and $8900/QALY, $8000/DALY in children. In adults, 100% of uncertainty iterations fell beneath the $50,000/QALY or DALY value-for-money threshold. Using SSRIs in people already on medications is cost-effective at $200/QALY, but has considerable uncertainty around the costs and benefits. While there is a 13% chance of health loss there is a 27% chance of the intervention dominating current practice by both saving dollars and improving health in adults. CONCLUSION: The three Guideline recommended interventions evaluated in this study are likely to have a positive impact on the economic efficiency of the treatment of PTSD if adopted in full. While there are gaps in the evidence base, policy-makers can have considerable confidence that the recommendations assessed in the current study are likely to improve the efficiency of the mental health care sector.

Stores Healthy Options Project in Remote Indigenous Communities (SHOP@RIC): a protocol of a randomised trial promoting healthy food and beverage purchases through price discounts and in-store nutrition education.

BACKGROUND: Indigenous Australians suffer a disproportionate burden of preventable chronic disease compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts--much of it diet-related. Increasing fruit and vegetable intakes and reducing sugar-sweetened soft-drink consumption can reduce the risk of preventable chronic disease. There is evidence from some general population studies that subsidising healthier foods can modify dietary behaviour. There is little such evidence relating specifically to socio-economically disadvantaged populations, even though dietary behaviour in such populations is arguably more likely to be susceptible to such interventions.This study aims to assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of a price discount intervention with or without an in-store nutrition education intervention on purchases of fruit, vegetables, water and diet soft-drinks among remote Indigenous communities. METHODS/DESIGN: We will utilise a randomised multiple baseline (stepped wedge) design involving 20 communities in remote Indigenous Australia. The study will be conducted in partnership with two store associations and twenty Indigenous store boards. Communities will be randomised to either i) a 20% price discount on fruit, vegetables, water and diet soft-drinks; or ii) a combined price discount and in-store nutrition education strategy. These interventions will be initiated, at one of five possible time-points, spaced two-months apart. Weekly point-of-sale data will be collected from each community store before, during, and for six months after the six-month intervention period to measure impact on purchasing of discounted food and drinks. Data on physical, social and economic factors influencing weekly store sales will be collected in order to identify important covariates. Intervention fidelity and mediators of behaviour change will also be assessed. DISCUSSION: This study will provide original evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of price discounts with or without an in-store nutrition education intervention on food and drink purchasing among a socio-economically disadvantaged population in a real-life setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12613000694718.

Which interventions offer best value for money in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?

BACKGROUND: Despite many decades of declining mortality rates in the Western world, cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death worldwide. In this research we evaluate the optimal mix of lifestyle, pharmaceutical and population-wide interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In a discrete time Markov model we simulate the ischaemic heart disease and stroke outcomes and cost impacts of intervention over the lifetime of all Australian men and women, aged 35 to 84 years, who have never experienced a heart disease or stroke event. Best value for money is achieved by mandating moderate limits on salt in the manufacture of bread, margarine and cereal. A combination of diuretic, calcium channel blocker, ACE inhibitor and low-cost statin, for everyone with at least 5% five-year risk of cardiovascular disease, is also cost-effective, but lifestyle interventions aiming to change risky dietary and exercise behaviours are extremely poor value for money and have little population health benefit. CONCLUSIONS: There is huge potential for improving efficiency in cardiovascular disease prevention in Australia. A tougher approach from Government to mandating limits on salt in processed foods and reducing excessive statin prices, and a shift away from lifestyle counselling to more efficient absolute risk-based prescription of preventive drugs, could cut health care costs while improving population health.

Improving the cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular disease prevention in Australia: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide. Like many countries, Australia is currently changing its guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention from drug treatment for everyone with 'high blood pressure' or 'high cholesterol', to prevention based on a patient's absolute risk. In this research, we model cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular disease prevention with blood pressure and lipid drugs in Australia under three different scenarios: (1) the true current practice in Australia; (2) prevention as intended under the current guidelines; and (3) prevention according to proposed absolute risk levels. We consider the implications of changing to absolute risk-based cardiovascular disease prevention, for the health of the Australian people and for Government health sector expenditure over the long term. METHODS: We evaluate cost-effectiveness of statins, diuretics, ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers and beta-blockers, for Australian men and women, aged 35 to 84 years, who have never experienced a heart disease or stroke event. Epidemiological changes and health care costs are simulated by age and sex in a discrete time Markov model, to determine total impacts on population health and health sector costs over the lifetime, from which we derive cost-effectiveness ratios in 2008 Australian dollars per quality-adjusted life year. RESULTS: Cardiovascular disease prevention based on absolute risk is more cost-effective than prevention under the current guidelines based on single risk factor thresholds, and is more cost-effective than the current practice, which does not follow current clinical guidelines. Recommending blood pressure-lowering drugs to everyone with at least 5% absolute risk and statin drugs to everyone with at least 10% absolute risk, can achieve current levels of population health, while saving $5.4 billion for the Australian Government over the lifetime of the population. But savings could be as high as $7.1 billion if Australia could match the cheaper price of statin drugs in New Zealand. CONCLUSIONS: Changing to absolute risk-based cardiovascular disease prevention is highly recommended for reducing health sector spending, but the Australian Government must also consider measures to reduce the cost of statin drugs, over and above the legislated price cuts of November 2010.

The economic gains of achieving reduced alcohol consumption targets for Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To inform prevention policy, we estimated the economic benefits to health, production, and leisure in the 2008 Australian population of a realistic target reduction in per capita annual adult alcohol consumption. METHODS: We chose a target of 6.4 liters annually per capita on average. We modeled lifetime health benefits as fewer incident cases of alcohol-related disease, deaths, and disability adjusted life years. We estimated production gains with surveyed participation and absenteeism rates. We valued gains with friction cost and human capital methods. We estimated and valued household production and leisure gains from time-use surveys. RESULTS: A reduction of 3.4 liters of alcohol consumed annually per capita would result in one third fewer incident cases of disease (98000), deaths (380), working days lost (5 million), days of home-based production lost (54000), and a A$789-million health sector cost reduction. Workforce production had a A$427 million gain when we used the friction cost method. By contrast, we estimated a loss of 28000 leisure days and 1000 additional early retirements. CONCLUSIONS: Economic savings and health benefits from reduced alcohol consumption may be substantial-particularly in the health sector with reduced alcohol-related disease and injury.

The economic benefits of reducing physical inactivity: an Australian example.

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity has major impacts on health and productivity. Our aim was to estimate the health and economic benefits of reducing the prevalence of physical inactivity in the 2008 Australian adult population. The economic benefits were estimated as 'opportunity cost savings', which represent resources utilized in the treatment of preventable disease that are potentially available for re-direction to another purpose from fewer incident cases of disease occurring in communities. METHODS: Simulation models were developed to show the effect of a 10% feasible, reduction target for physical inactivity from current Australian levels (70%). Lifetime cohort health benefits were estimated as fewer incident cases of inactivity-related diseases; deaths; and Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) by age and sex. Opportunity costs were estimated as health sector cost impacts, as well as paid and unpaid production gains and leisure impacts from fewer disease events associated with reduced physical inactivity. Workforce production gains were estimated by comparing surveyed participation and absenteeism rates of physically active and inactive adults, and valued using the friction cost approach. The impact of an improvement in health status on unpaid household production and leisure time were modeled from time use survey data, as applied to the exposed and non-exposed population subgroups and valued by suitable proxy. Potential costs associated with interventions to increase physical activity were not included. Multivariable uncertainty analyses and univariate sensitivity analyses were undertaken to provide information on the strength of the conclusions. RESULTS: A 10% reduction in physical inactivity would result in 6,000 fewer incident cases of disease, 2,000 fewer deaths, 25,000 fewer DALYs and provide gains in working days (114,000), days of home-based production (180,000) while conferring a AUD96 million reduction in health sector costs. Lifetime potential opportunity cost savings in workforce production (AUD12 million), home-based production (AUD71 million) and leisure-based production (AUD79 million) was estimated (total AUD162 million 95% uncertainty interval AUD136 million, AUD196 million). CONCLUSIONS: Opportunity cost savings and health benefits conservatively estimated from a reduction in population-level physical inactivity may be substantial. The largest savings will benefit individuals in the form of unpaid production and leisure gains, followed by the health sector, business and government.

The societal benefits of reducing six behavioural risk factors: an economic modelling study from Australia.

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of disease burden is attributed to behavioural risk factors. However, funding for public health programs in Australia remains limited. Government and non-government organisations are interested in the productivity effects on society from reducing chronic diseases. We aimed to estimate the potential health status and economic benefits to society following a feasible reduction in the prevalence of six behavioural risk factors: tobacco smoking; inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption; high risk alcohol consumption; high body mass index; physical inactivity; and intimate partner violence. METHODS: Simulation models were developed for the 2008 Australian population. A realistic reduction in current risk factor prevalence using best available evidence with expert consensus was determined. Avoidable disease, deaths, Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) and health sector costs were estimated. Productivity gains included workforce (friction cost method), household production and leisure time. Multivariable uncertainty analyses and correction for the joint effects of risk factors on health status were undertaken. Consistent methods and data sources were used. RESULTS: Over the lifetime of the 2008 Australian adult population, total opportunity cost savings of AUD2,334 million (95% Uncertainty Interval AUD1,395 to AUD3,347; 64% in the health sector) were found if feasible reductions in the risk factors were achieved. There would be 95,000 fewer DALYs (a reduction of about 3.6% in total DALYs for Australia); 161,000 less new cases of disease; 6,000 fewer deaths; a reduction of 5 million days in workforce absenteeism; and 529,000 increased days of leisure time. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in common behavioural risk factors may provide substantial benefits to society. For example, the total potential annual cost savings in the health sector represent approximately 2% of total annual health expenditure in Australia. Our findings contribute important new knowledge about productivity effects, including the potential for increased household and leisure activities, associated with chronic disease prevention. The selection of targets for risk factor prevalence reduction is an important policy decision and a useful approach for future analyses. Similar approaches could be applied in other countries if the data are available.

Economic benefits of achieving realistic smoking cessation targets in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: We estimated the economic impact of reductions in the prevalence of tobacco smoking on health, production, and leisure in the 2008 Australian population. METHODS: We selected a prevalence target of 15%. Cohort lifetime health benefits were modeled as fewer incident cases of tobacco-related diseases, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years. We estimated production gains by comparing surveyed participation and absenteeism rates of adult smokers and ex-smokers valued according to the human capital and friction cost approaches. We estimated household production and leisure gains from time use surveys and valued these gains with the appropriate proxy. RESULTS: In the 2008 Australian population, an absolute reduction in smoking prevalence of 8% would result in 158,000 fewer incident cases of disease, 5000 fewer deaths, 2.2 million fewer lost working days, and 3000 fewer early retirements and would reduce health sector costs by AUD 491 million. The gain in workforce production was AUD 415 million (friction cost) or AUD 863 million (human capital), along with gains of 373,000 days of household production and 23,000 days of leisure time. CONCLUSIONS: Lowering smoking prevalence rates can lead to substantial economic savings and health benefits.

Assessing cost-effectiveness in obesity (ACE-obesity): an overview of the ACE approach, economic methods and cost results.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the ACE-Obesity study was to determine the economic credentials of interventions which aim to prevent unhealthy weight gain in children and adolescents. We have reported elsewhere on the modelled effectiveness of 13 obesity prevention interventions in children. In this paper, we report on the cost results and associated methods together with the innovative approach to priority setting that underpins the ACE-Obesity study. METHODS: The Assessing Cost Effectiveness (ACE) approach combines technical rigour with 'due process' to facilitate evidence-based policy analysis. Technical rigour was achieved through use of standardised evaluation methods, a research team that assembles best available evidence and extensive uncertainty analysis. Cost estimates were based on pathway analysis, with resource usage estimated for the interventions and their 'current practice' comparator, as well as associated cost offsets. Due process was achieved through involvement of stakeholders, consensus decisions informed by briefing papers and 2nd stage filter analysis that captures broader factors that influence policy judgements in addition to cost-effectiveness results. The 2nd stage filters agreed by stakeholders were 'equity', 'strength of the evidence', 'feasibility of implementation', 'acceptability to stakeholders', 'sustainability' and 'potential for side-effects'. RESULTS: The intervention costs varied considerably, both in absolute terms (from cost saving [6 interventions] to in excess of AUD50m per annum) and when expressed as a 'cost per child' estimate (from

Priority setting in health: origins, description and application of the Australian Assessing Cost-Effectiveness initiative.

This article reports on the 'Assessing Cost-Effectiveness' (ACE) initiative in priority setting from Australia. It commences with why priority setting is topical and notes that a wide variety of approaches are available. In assessing these various approaches, it is argued that a useful first step is to consider what constitutes an 'ideal' approach to priority setting. A checklist to guide priority setting is presented based on guidance from economic theory, ethics and social justice, lessons from empirical experience and the needs of decision-makers. The checklist is seen as an important contribution because it is the first time that criteria from such a broad range of considerations have been brought together to develop a framework for priority setting that endeavors to be both realistic and theoretically sound. The checklist will then be applied to a selection of existing approaches in order to illustrate their deficiencies and to provide the platform for explaining the unique features of the ACE approach. A case study (ACE-Cancer) will then be presented and assessed against the checklist, including reaction from stakeholders in the cancer field. The article concludes with an overview of the full body of ACE research completed to date, together with some reflections on the ACE experience.

Assessing cost-effectiveness in mental health: helping policy-makers prioritize and plan health services.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed, from a health sector perspective, options for change that could improve the efficiency of Australia's current mental health services by directing available resources toward 'best practice' cost-effective services. METHOD: We summarize cost-effectiveness results of a range of interventions for depression, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and anxiety disorders that have been presented in previous papers in this journal. Recommendations for change are formulated after taking into account 'second-filter criteria' of equity, feasibility of implementing change, acceptability to stakeholders and the strength of the evidence. In addition, we estimate the impact on total expenditure if the recommended mental health interventions for depression and schizophrenia are to be implemented in Australia. RESULTS: There are cost-effective treatment options for mental disorders that are currently underutilized (e.g. cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for depression and anxiety, bibliotherapy for depression, family interventions for schizophrenia and clozapine for the worst course of schizophrenia). There are also less cost-effective treatments in current practice (e.g. widespread use of olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of established schizophrenia and, within those atypicals, a preference for olanzapine over risperidone). Feasibility of funding mechanisms and training of staff are the main second-filter issues for CBT and family interventions. Acceptability to various stakeholders is the main barrier to implementation of more cost-effective drug treatment regimens. More efficient drug intervention options identified for schizophrenia would cost 68 million Australian dollars less than current practice. These savings would more than cover the estimated 36M Australian dollars annual cost of delivering family interventions to the 51% of people with schizophrenia whom we estimated to be eligible and this would lead to an estimated 12% improvement in their health status. Implementing recommended strategies for depression would cost 121M Australian dollars annually for the 24% of people with depression who seek care currently, but do not receive an evidence-based treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite considerable methodological problems, a range of cost-effective and less cost-effective interventions for major mental disorders can be discerned. The biggest hurdle to implementation of more efficient mental health services is that this change would require reallocation of funds between interventions, between disorders and between service providers with different funding mechanisms.

Assessing cost-effectiveness of drug interventions for schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess from a health sector perspective the incremental cost-effectiveness of eight drug treatment scenarios for established schizophrenia. METHOD: Using a standardized methodology, costs and outcomes are modelled over the lifetime of prevalent cases of schizophrenia in Australia in 2000. A two-stage approach to assessment of health benefit is used. The first stage involves a quantitative analysis based on disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, using best available evidence. The robustness of results is tested using probabilistic uncertainty analysis. The second stage involves application of 'second filter' criteria (equity, strength of evidence, feasibility and acceptability) to allow broader concepts of benefit to be considered. RESULTS: Replacing oral typicals with risperidone or olanzapine has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 48,000 Australian dollars and 92,000 Australian dollars/DALY respectively. Switching from low-dose typicals to risperidone has an ICER of 80,000 Australian dollars. Giving risperidone to people experiencing side-effects on typicals is more cost-effective at 20,000 Australian dollars. Giving clozapine to people taking typicals, with the worst course of the disorder and either little or clear deterioration, is cost-effective at 42,000 Australian dollars or 23,000 Australian dollars/DALY respectively. The least cost-effective intervention is to replace risperidone with olanzapine at 160,000 Australian dollars/DALY. CONCLUSIONS: Based on an 50,000 Australian dollars/DALY threshold, low-dose typical neuroleptics are indicated as the treatment of choice for established schizophrenia, with risperidone being reserved for those experiencing moderate to severe side-effects on typicals. The more expensive olanzapine should only be prescribed when risperidone is not clinically indicated. The high cost of risperidone and olanzapine relative to modest health gains underlie this conclusion. Earlier introduction of clozapine however, would be cost-effective. This work is limited by weaknesses in trials (lack of long-term efficacy data, quality of life and consumer satisfaction evidence) and the translation of effect size into a DALY change. Some stakeholders, including SANE Australia, argue the modest health gains reported in the literature do not adequately reflect perceptions by patients, clinicians and carers, of improved quality of life with these atypicals.

Assessing Cost-Effectiveness--Mental Health: introduction to the study and methods.

OBJECTIVE: The Assessing Cost-Effectiveness - Mental Health (ACE-MH) study aims to assess from a health sector perspective, whether there are options for change that could improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Australia's current mental health services by directing available resources toward "best practice" cost-effective services. METHOD: The use of standardized evaluation methods addresses the reservations expressed by many economists about the simplistic use of League Tables based on economic studies confounded by differences in methods, context and setting. The cost-effectiveness ratio for each intervention is calculated using economic and epidemiological data. This includes systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials for efficacy, the Australian Surveys of Mental Health and Wellbeing for current practice and a combination of trials and longitudinal studies for adherence. The cost-effectiveness ratios are presented as cost (A$) per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) saved with a 95% uncertainty interval based on Monte Carlo simulation modelling. An assessment of interventions on "second filter" criteria ("equity", "strength of evidence", "feasibility" and "acceptability to stakeholders") allows broader concepts of 'benefit' to be taken into account, as well as factors that might influence policy judgements in addition to cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSIONS: The main limitation of the study is in the translation of the effect size from trials into a change in the DALY disability weight, which required the use of newly developed methods. While comparisons within disorders are valid, comparisons across disorders should be made with caution. A series of articles is planned to present the results.