Evaluation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Diagnostics Assessment Program Decisions: Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio Thresholds and Decision-Modifying Factors.

OBJECTIVES: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Diagnostics Assessment Programme (DAP) evaluates the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic technologies. A decision-making process benchmarking the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) against a threshold while considering decision-modifying factors is common to NICE evaluations. This study investigated whether DAP decisions are consistent with the ICER thresholds described in the DAP manual, and to assess the impact of decision-modifying factors. METHODS: DAP evaluations published before March 2018 were reviewed, and the following items were extracted: diagnostic technologies evaluated, decision problems assessed, Diagnostics Advisory Committee (DAC) decisions, incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental costs, ICERs considered to be most plausible by the DAC, and decision justifications. RESULTS: All 30 evaluations were reviewed; 8 were excluded because the DAC concluded there was "insufficient evidence" for decision making. In the remaining 22 evaluations, 91 decision problems were identified for further analysis, of which 52, 15, and 24 received "recommended," "not recommended," and "not recommended-only in research" guidance, respectively. The overall consistency rate of the DAC decisions with the £20 000/QALY threshold was 73.6%. Diagnostic technologies that were not recommended, despite an ICER less than £20 000/QALY, were associated with a larger number of decision-modifying factors favoring the comparator, versus recommended diagnostic technologies with ICERs less than £20 000/QALY. For technologies with ICERs greater than £20 000/QALY, the number of decision-modifying factors was comparable for positive and negative recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Most DAP decisions were consistent with the ICER threshold. However, cost-effectiveness was not the only determining factor in decision making; recommendations also considered patient- and healthcare-centric factors and uncertainty.

Cost-minimisation model of magnetic resonance-guided focussed ultrasound therapy compared to unilateral deep brain stimulation for essential tremor treatment in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost differences between magnetic resonance-guided focussed ultrasound (MRgFUS) and unilateral deep brain stimulation (DBS) for the treatment of medication-refractory essential tremor (ET) in Japan using a cost-minimisation model. METHODS: A cost-minimisation model estimated total costs for MRgFUS and unilateral DBS by summing the pre-procedure, procedure, and post-procedure costs over a 12-month time horizon, using data from published sources and expert clinical opinion. The model base case considered medical costs from fee-for-service tariffs. Scenario analyses investigated the use of Diagnosis Procedure Combination tariffs, a diagnosis-related group-based fixed-payment system, and the addition of healthcare professional labour costs healthcare professionals using tariffs from the Japanese Health Insurance Federation for Surgery. One-way sensitivity analyses altered costs associated with tremor recurrence after MRgFUS, the extraction rate following unilateral DBS, the length of hospitalisation for unilateral DBS and the procedure duration for MRgFUS. The impact of uncertainty in model parameters on the model results was further explored using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Compared to unilateral DBS, MRgFUS was cost saving in the base case and Diagnosis Procedure Combination cost scenario, with total savings of JPY400,380 and JPY414,691, respectively. The majority of savings were accrued at the procedural stage. Including labour costs further increased the cost differences between MRgFUS and unilateral DBS. Cost savings were maintained in each sensitivity analysis and the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, demonstrating that the model results are highly robust. CONCLUSIONS: In the Japanese healthcare setting, MRgFUS could be a cost saving option versus unilateral DBS for treating medication-refractory ET. The model results may even be conservative, as the cost of multiple follow-ups for unilateral DBS and treatment costs for adverse events associated with each procedure were not included. This model is also consistent with the results of other economic analyses of MRgFUS versus DBS in various settings worldwide.