Ideas About Resourcing Health Care in the United States: Can Economic Evaluation Achieve Meaningful Use?

The United States is one of the few high-income countries not to apply economic evaluation routinely to health care decision making on a national level, yet it excels at spending least efficiently on health care. In the interest of continuing to develop new solutions to curb spending on health care and reduce waste in the United States, perhaps now is an important moment to reconsider the benefits of economic evaluation and the barriers that must be overcome to have it emerge as a solution for health care institutions and the patients they serve. This article offers several distinct considerations to make economic evaluation methods (such as cost-effectiveness analysis) an effective component of value-based decision making in the United States. These considerations include overcoming the barriers presented by opportunity costs, spending on health care services versus biomedical technologies, phasing out low-value care, using value of information to prioritize resources, and determining what to do with the quality-adjusted life-year. These issues need to be addressed to achieve a collective purpose for economic evaluation at state and national levels.

How to design the cost-effectiveness appraisal process of new healthcare technologies to maximise population health: A conceptual framework.

This paper presents a conceptual framework to analyse the design of the cost-effectiveness appraisal process of new healthcare technologies. The framework characterises the appraisal processes as a diagnostic test aimed at identifying cost-effective (true positive) and non-cost-effective (true negative) technologies. Using the framework, factors that influence the value of operating an appraisal process, in terms of net gain to population health, are identified. The framework is used to gain insight into current policy questions including (a) how rigorous the process should be, (b) who should have the burden of proof, and (c) how optimal design changes when allowing for appeals, price reductions, resubmissions, and re-evaluations. The paper demonstrates that there is no one optimal appraisal process and the process should be adapted over time and to the specific technology under assessment. Optimal design depends on country-specific features of (future) technologies, for example, effect, price, and size of the patient population, which might explain the difference in appraisal processes across countries. It is shown that burden of proof should be placed on the producers and that the impact of price reductions and patient access schemes on the producer's price setting should be considered when designing the appraisal process.

The International Decision Support Initiative Reference Case for Economic Evaluation: An Aid to Thought.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers in high-, low-, and middle-income countries alike face challenging choices about resource allocation in health. Economic evaluation can be useful in providing decision makers with the best evidence of the anticipated benefits of new investments, as well as their expected opportunity costs-the benefits forgone of the options not chosen. To guide the decisions of health systems effectively, it is important that the methods of economic evaluation are founded on clear principles, are applied systematically, and are appropriate to the decision problems they seek to inform. METHODS: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of economic evaluations of health technologies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), commissioned a "reference case" through the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI) to guide future evaluations, and improve both the consistency and usefulness to decision makers. RESULTS: The iDSI Reference Case draws on previous insights from the World Health Organization, the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health Care, and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Comprising 11 key principles, each accompanied by methodological specifications and reporting standards, the iDSI Reference Case also serves as a means of identifying priorities for methods research, and can be used as a framework for capacity building and technical assistance in LMICs. CONCLUSIONS: The iDSI Reference Case is an aid to thought, not a substitute for it, and should not be followed slavishly without regard to context, culture, or history. This article presents the iDSI Reference Case and discusses the rationale, approach, components, and application in LMICs.

Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

IMPORTANCE: Since publication of the report by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine in 1996, researchers have advanced the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis, and policy makers have experimented with its application. The need to deliver health care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand the clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health have increased in recent years. OBJECTIVE: To review the state of the field and provide recommendations to improve the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses. The intended audiences include researchers, government policy makers, public health officials, health care administrators, payers, businesses, clinicians, patients, and consumers. DESIGN: In 2012, the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine was formed and included 2 co-chairs, 13 members, and 3 additional members of a leadership group. These members were selected on the basis of their experience in the field to provide broad expertise in the design, conduct, and use of cost-effectiveness analyses. Over the next 3.5 years, the panel developed recommendations by consensus. These recommendations were then reviewed by invited external reviewers and through a public posting process. FINDINGS: The concept of a "reference case" and a set of standard methodological practices that all cost-effectiveness analyses should follow to improve quality and comparability are recommended. All cost-effectiveness analyses should report 2 reference case analyses: one based on a health care sector perspective and another based on a societal perspective. The use of an "impact inventory," which is a structured table that contains consequences (both inside and outside the formal health care sector), intended to clarify the scope and boundaries of the 2 reference case analyses is also recommended. This special communication reviews these recommendations and others concerning the estimation of the consequences of interventions, the valuation of health outcomes, and the reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The Second Panel reviewed the current status of the field of cost-effectiveness analysis and developed a new set of recommendations. Major changes include the recommendation to perform analyses from 2 reference case perspectives and to provide an impact inventory to clarify included consequences.

Are policy decisions on surgical procedures informed by robust economic evidence? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the empirical and methodological cost-effectiveness evidence of surgical interventions for breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer. METHODS: A systematic search of seven databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and NHSEED, research registers, the NICE Web site and conference proceedings was conducted in April 2012. Study quality was assessed in terms of meeting essential, preferred and UK NICE specific requirements for economic evaluations. RESULTS: The seventeen (breast = 3, colorectal = 7, prostate = 7) included studies covered a broad range of settings (nine European; eight non-European) and six were published over 10 years ago. The populations, interventions and comparators were generally well defined. Very few studies were informed by literature reviews and few used synthesized clinical evidence. Although the interventions had potential differential effects on recurrence and mortality rates, some studies used relatively short time horizons. Univariate sensitivity analyses were reported in all studies but less than a third characterized all uncertainty with a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Although a third of studies incorporated patients' health-related quality of life data, only four studies used social tariff values. CONCLUSIONS: There is a dearth of recent robust evidence describing the cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions in the management of breast, colorectal and prostate cancers. Many of the recent publications did not satisfy essential methodological requirements such as using clinical evidence informed by a systematic review and synthesis. Given the ratio of potential benefit and harms associated with cancer surgery and the volume of resources consumed by these, there is an urgent need to increase economic evaluations of these technologies.

Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the REVIVED-BCIS2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently undertaken in patients with ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The REVIVED (Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction)-BCIS2 (British Cardiovascular Society-2) trial concluded that PCI did not reduce the incidence of all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization; however, patients assigned to PCI reported better initial health-related quality of life than those assigned to optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of PCI+OMT compared with OMT alone. METHODS: REVIVED-BCIS2 was a prospective, multicenter UK trial, which randomized patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction to either PCI+OMT or OMT alone. Health care resource use (including planned and unplanned revascularizations, medication, device implantation, and heart failure hospitalizations) and health outcomes data (EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire) on each patient were collected at baseline and up to 8 years post-randomization. Resource use was costed using publicly available national unit costs. Within the trial, mean total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the perspective of the UK health system. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using estimated mean costs and QALYs in both groups. Regression analysis was used to adjust for clinically relevant predictors. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2020, 700 patients were recruited (mean age: PCI+OMT=70 years, OMT=68 years; male (%): PCI+OMT=87, OMT=88); median follow-up was 3.4 years. Over all follow-ups, patients undergoing PCI yielded similar health benefits at higher costs compared with OMT alone (PCI+OMT: 4.14 QALYs, £22 352; OMT alone: 4.16 QALYs, £15 569; difference: -0.015, £6782). For both groups, most health resource consumption occurred in the first 2 years post-randomization. Probabilistic results showed that the probability of PCI being cost-effective was 0. CONCLUSIONS: A minimal difference in total QALYs was identified between arms, and PCI+OMT was not cost-effective compared with OMT, given its additional cost. A strategy of routine PCI to treat ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction does not seem to be a justifiable use of health care resources in the United Kingdom. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920048.

Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available on the long-term outcome of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm as compared with open repair. METHODS: From 1999 through 2004 at 37 hospitals in the United Kingdom, we randomly assigned 1252 patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms (> or = 5.5 cm in diameter) to undergo either endovascular or open repair; 626 patients were assigned to each group. Patients were followed for rates of death, graft-related complications, reinterventions, and resource use until the end of 2009. Logistic regression and Cox regression were used to compare outcomes in the two groups. RESULTS: The 30-day operative mortality was 1.8% in the endovascular-repair group and 4.3% in the open-repair group (adjusted odds ratio for endovascular repair as compared with open repair, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.87; P=0.02). The endovascular-repair group had an early benefit with respect to aneurysm-related mortality, but the benefit was lost by the end of the study, at least partially because of fatal endograft ruptures (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.49; P=0.73). By the end of follow-up, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of death from any cause (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.23; P=0.72). The rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions were higher with endovascular repair, and new complications occurred up to 8 years after randomization, contributing to higher overall costs. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, randomized trial, endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a significantly lower operative mortality than open surgical repair. However, no differences were seen in total mortality or aneurysm-related mortality in the long term. Endovascular repair was associated with increased rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions and was more costly. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN55703451.)

The cost-effectiveness of different chemotherapy strategies for patients with poor prognosis advanced colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the value for money of alternative chemotherapy strategies for managing advanced colorectal cancer using irinotecan or oxaliplatin, either in sequence or in combination with fluorouracil. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using data from the U.K. fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and CPT11 (irinotecan)--use and sequencing (FOCUS) trial. The analysis adopted the perspective of the U.K. National Health Service. Input parameters were derived using a system of risk equations (for probabilities), count data regression models (for resource use), and generalized linear models (for utilities). Parameter estimates were obtained using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods, propagating the simulation values through the state-transition model to characterize appropriately the joint distributions of expected cost, survival and quality-adjusted life years for each treatment strategy. An acceptability frontier was used to represent the probability that the optimal option is cost-effective at different values of the cost-effectiveness threshold. RESULTS: The base-case analysis used drug unit costs provided by a typical English hospital. First-line doublet therapy combination therapy fluorouracil (5FU) plus irinotecan was the most cost-effective strategy at standard thresholds, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £14,877 (pound sterling) compared with first-line 5FU until treatment failure followed by single agent irinotecan. Other strategies were all subject to extended dominance. A sensitivity analysis using published drug (list) prices found the most cost-effective strategy would be first-line fluorouracil until failure followed by 5FU plus irinotecan (ICER: £19,753). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of 5FU and irinotecan (whether used first or second line) appears to be more cost-effective than the single agent sequential therapies used in the FOCUS trial, or 5FU plus oxaliplatin.

Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--6.

A model's purpose is to inform medical decisions and health care resource allocation. Modelers employ quantitative methods to structure the clinical, epidemiological, and economic evidence base and gain qualitative insight to assist decision makers in making better decisions. From a policy perspective, the value of a model-based analysis lies not simply in its ability to generate a precise point estimate for a specific outcome but also in the systematic examination and responsible reporting of uncertainty surrounding this outcome and the ultimate decision being addressed. Different concepts relating to uncertainty in decision modeling are explored. Stochastic (first-order) uncertainty is distinguished from both parameter (second-order) uncertainty and from heterogeneity, with structural uncertainty relating to the model itself forming another level of uncertainty to consider. The article argues that the estimation of point estimates and uncertainty in parameters is part of a single process and explores the link between parameter uncertainty through to decision uncertainty and the relationship to value of information analysis. The article also makes extensive recommendations around the reporting of uncertainty, in terms of both deterministic sensitivity analysis techniques and probabilistic methods. Expected value of perfect information is argued to be the most appropriate presentational technique, alongside cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, for representing decision uncertainty from probabilistic analysis.

Dangerous omissions: the consequences of ignoring decision uncertainty.

Institutions with the responsibility for making adoption (reimbursement) decisions in health care often lack the remit to demand or commission further research: adoption decisions are their only policy instrument. The decision to adopt a technology also influences the prospects of acquiring further evidence because the incentives to conduct research are reduced and the ethical basis of further clinical trials maybe undermined. In these circumstances the decision maker must consider whether the benefits of immediate access to a technology exceeds the value of the evidence which maybe forgone for future patients. We outline how these expected opportunity losses can be established from the perspective of a societal decision maker with and without the remit to commission research, and demonstrate how these considerations change the appropriate decision rules in cost-effectiveness analysis. Importantly, we identify those circumstances in which the approval of a technology that is expected to be cost-effective should be withheld, i.e. when an 'only in research' recommendation should be made. We demonstrate that a sufficient condition for immediate adoption of a technology can provide incentives for manufacturers to reduce the price or provide additional supporting evidence. However, decisions based solely on expected net benefit provide no such incentives, may undermine the evidence base for future clinical practice and reduce expected net health benefits for the patient population.

Bridging the gap between methods research and the needs of policy makers: a review of the research priorities of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to establish a list of priority topics for methods research to support decision making at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). METHODS: Potential priorities for methods research topics were identified through a focused literature review, interviews, an email survey, a workshop and a Web-based feedback exercise. Participants were members of the NICE secretariat and its advisory bodies, representatives from academia, industry, and other organizations working closely with NICE. The Web exercise was open to anyone to complete but publicized among the above groups. RESULTS: A list of potential topics was collated. Priorities for further research differed according to the type of respondent and the extent to which they work directly with NICE. Priorities emerging from the group closest to NICE included: methodology for indirect and mixed treatment comparisons; synthesis of qualitative evidence; research relating to the use of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in decision making; methods and empirical research for establishing the cost-effectiveness threshold; and determining how data on the uncertainty of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data should be taken into account in the decision-making process. Priorities emerging from the broadest group of respondents (through the Web exercise) included: methods for extrapolating beyond evidence observed in trials, methods for capturing benefits not included in the QALY and methods to assess when technologies should be recommended in the context of further evidence gathering. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration needs to be given to the needs of those who use the outputs of research for decision making when determining priorities for future methods research.

Economic analysis of the prevalence and clinical and economic burden of medication error in England.

OBJECTIVES: To provide national estimates of the number and clinical and economic burden of medication errors in the National Health Service (NHS) in England. METHODS: We used UK-based prevalence of medication errors (in prescribing, dispensing, administration and monitoring) in primary care, secondary care and care home settings, and associated healthcare resource use, to estimate annual number and burden of errors to the NHS. Burden (healthcare resource use and deaths) was estimated from harm associated with avoidable adverse drug events (ADEs). RESULTS: We estimated that 237 million medication errors occur at some point in the medication process in England annually, 38.4% occurring in primary care; 72% have little/no potential for harm and 66 million are potentially clinically significant. Prescribing in primary care accounts for 34% of all potentially clinically significant errors. Definitely avoidable ADEs are estimated to cost the NHS £98 462 582 per year, consuming 181 626 bed-days, and causing/contributing to 1708 deaths. This comprises primary care ADEs leading to hospital admission (£83.7 million; causing 627 deaths), and secondary care ADEs leading to longer hospital stay (£14.8 million; causing or contributing to 1081 deaths). CONCLUSIONS: Ubiquitous medicines use in health care leads unsurprisingly to high numbers of medication errors, although most are not clinically important. There is significant uncertainty around estimates due to the assumption that avoidable ADEs correspond to medication errors, data quality, and lack of data around longer-term impacts of errors. Data linkage between errors and patient outcomes is essential to progress understanding in this area.

Using the incremental net benefit framework for quantitative benefit-risk analysis in regulatory decision-making--a case study of alosetron in irritable bowel syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: There is consensus that a more transparent, explicit, and rigorous approach to benefit-risk evaluation is required. The objective of this study is to evaluate the incremental net benefit (INB) framework for undertaking quantitative benefit-risk assessment by performing a quantitative benefit-risk analysis of alosetron for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome from the patients' perspective. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was developed to determine the INB of alosetron relative to placebo, calculated as "relative value-adjusted life-years (RVALYs)." RESULTS: In the base case analysis, alosetron resulted in a mean INB of 34.1 RVALYs per 1000 patients treated relative to placebo over 52 weeks of treatment. Incorporating parameter uncertainty into the model, probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a mean INB of 30.4 (95% confidence interval 15.9-45.4) RVALYs per 1000 patients treated relative to placebo over 52 weeks of treatment. Overall, there was >99% chance that both the incremental benefit and incremental risk associated with alosetron are greater than placebo. As hypothesized, the INB of alosetron was greatest in patients with the worst quality of life experienced at baseline. The mean INB associated with alosetron in patients with mild, moderate, and severe symptoms at baseline was 17.97 (-0.55 to 36.23), 29.98 (17.05-43.37), and 35.98 (23.49-48.77) RVALYs per 1000 patients treated, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the potential utility of applying the INB framework to real-life decision-making, and the ability to use simulation modeling incorporating outcomes data from different sources as a benefit-risk decision aid.

Health Opportunity Costs: Assessing the Implications of Uncertainty Using Elicitation Methods with Experts.

Well-established methods of economic evaluation are used in many countries to inform decisions about the funding of new medical interventions. To guide such decisions, it is important to consider what health gains would be expected from the same level of investment elsewhere in the health care system. Recent research in the United Kingdom has evaluated the evidence available and the methods required to estimate the health effects of changes in health care expenditure within the National Health Service. Because of the absence of sufficiently broad-ranging data, assumptions were required in the previously mentioned work to estimate health effects in terms of a broader measure of health (quality-adjusted life-years), which is more relevant for policy. These assumptions constitute important sources of uncertainty. This work presents an application of the structured elicitation of the judgments of key individuals about these uncertain quantities. This article describes the design and conduct of the exercise, including the quantities elicited, the individual (rather than consensus) approach used, how uncertainty in knowledge was elicited (mode and bounds of an 80% credible interval), and methods to generate group estimates. It also reports on a successful application involving 28 clinical experts and 25 individuals with policy responsibilities. Although, as expected, most experts found replying to the questions challenging, they were able to express their beliefs quantitatively. Consistent across the uncertainties elicited, experts' judgments suggest that the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) impacts of changes in expenditure from earlier work using assumptions are likely to have been underestimated and the "central" estimate of health opportunity cost from that work (£12,936 per QALY) to have been overestimated.

Fondaparinux versus Enoxaparin in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: short-term cost and long-term cost-effectiveness using data from the Fifth Organization to Assess Strategies in Acute Ischemic Syndromes Investigators (OASIS-5) trial.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to compare the short-term costs and long-term cost-effectiveness of 2 antithrombotics, fondaparinux and enoxaparin, for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome in the United States. METHODS: It was based on a large randomized trial of 20,078 patients Fifth Organization to Assess Strategies in Acute Ischemic Syndromes Investigators [OASIS-5] comparing the therapies in these patients. In OASIS-5, fondaparinux patients had about half the rate of major bleeding 9 days after randomization and at least as good clinical outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, major bleeding and stroke) after 6 months of follow-up. Health care resource use and clinical efficacy data from the trial were incorporated into a cost-effectiveness model as applied to a general US health care system both for the time horizon of the study (6 months) and over the longer term. RESULTS: The 180-day cost analysis indicates that fondaparinux would generate a cost saving of $547 per patient (95% CI $207-$924). Sensitivity analysis suggested that savings could vary between $494 and $733. When 180-day cost and clinical results were extrapolated to long-term cost-effectiveness, fondaparinux was dominant (less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years) under most scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Fondaparinux is a more cost-effective antithrombotic agent than enoxaparin in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. This is true across the range of event risks seen in OASIS-5.

Identifying research priorities: the value of information associated with repeat screening for age-related macular degeneration.

The authors report an analysis that was developed as part of a pilot study examining the use of decision analysis and value-of-information methods to inform research prioritization decisions for the UK health care system. This analysis was conducted to inform decision makers whether additional research on screening for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) would be worthwhile and to demonstrate the benefits and feasibility of using such analytic methods to inform policy decision within the time-lines demanded by existing procedures. A probabilistic decision model was developed to establish the cost-effectiveness of a policy of repeat screening for AMD using the Amsler grid followed by treatment with photodynamic therapy (PDT) compared with 2 alternatives: PDT without screening (self-referral) and no screening or treatment. Screening for AMD appears to be cost-effective on the basis of existing evidence; however, the decision to implement a policy of screening is somewhat uncertain, with a probability that screening is cost-effective of 0.87 and 0.72 for the 20/40 and 20/80 models, respectively, at a threshold of 30,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) associated with this decision is substantial (6.9 million pounds for the 20/40 model and 14.5 million pounds for the 20/80 model), with a sizeable EVPI associated with the effect of PDT on quality of life. The analysis demonstrates that EVPI analysis can be implemented in a timely fashion to inform the type of research prioritization decisions faced by any health care system. This case study also illustrates the need to account for any structural uncertainties appropriately.

Reflecting the real value of health care resources in modelling and cost-effectiveness studies-The example of viral load informed differentiated care.

BACKGROUND: The WHO HIV Treatment Guidelines suggest routine viral-load monitoring can be used to differentiate antiretroviral therapy (ART) delivery and reduce the frequency of clinic visits for patients stable on ART. This recommendation was informed by economic analysis that showed the approach is very likely to be cost-effective, even in the most resource constrained of settings. The health benefits were shown to be modest but the costs of introducing and scaling up viral load monitoring can be offset by anticipated reductions in the costs of clinic visits, due to these being less frequent for many patients. KEY ISSUES FOR ECONOMIC EVALUATION: The cost-effectiveness of introducing viral-load informed differentiated care depends upon whether cost reductions are possible if the number of clinic visits is reduced and/or how freed clinic capacity is used for alternative priorities. Where freed resources, either physical or financial, generate large health gains (e.g. if committed to patients failing ART or to other high value health care interventions), the benefits of differentiated care are expected to be high; if however these freed physical resources are already under-utilized or financial resources are used less efficiently and would not be put to as beneficial an alternative use, the policy may not be cost-effective. The implication is that the use of conventional unit costs to value resources may not well reflect the latter's value in contributing to health improvement. Analyses intended to inform resource allocated decisions in a number of settings may therefore have to be interpreted with due consideration to local context. In this paper we present methods of how economic analyses can reflect the real value of health care resources rather than simply applying their unit costs. The analyses informing the WHO Guidelines are re-estimated by implementing scenarios using this framework, informing how differentiated care can be prioritized to generate greatest gains in population health. IMPLICATIONS: The findings have important implications for how economic analyses should be undertaken and reported in HIV and other disease areas. Results provide guidance on conditions under which viral load informed differentiated care will more likely prove to be cost effective when implemented.

Establishing the Value of Diagnostic and Prognostic Tests in Health Technology Assessment.

In recent years, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) processes specific to diagnostics and prognostic tests have been created in response to the increased pressure on health systems to decide not only which tests should be used in practice but also the best way to proceed, clinically, from the information they provide. These technologies differ in the way value is accrued to the population of users, depending critically on the value of downstream health care choices. This paper defines an analytical framework for establishing the value of diagnostic and prognostic tests for HTA in a way that is consistent with methods used for the evaluation of other health care technologies. It assumes a linked-evidence approach where modeling is required, and incorporates considerations regarding several different areas of policy, such as personalized medicine. We initially focus on diagnostic technologies with dichotomous results, and then extend the framework by considering diagnostic tests that provide more complex information, such as continuous measures (for example, blood glucose measurements) or multiple categories (such as tumor classification systems). We also consider how the methods of assessment differ for prognostic information or for diagnostics without a reference standard. Throughout, we propose innovative graphical ways of summarizing the results of such complex assessments of value.

Optimising the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in the Era of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Based on the Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS).

BACKGROUND: The current recommendation of using transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSB) to diagnose prostate cancer misses clinically significant (CS) cancers. More sensitive biopsies (eg, template prostate mapping biopsy [TPMB]) are too resource intensive for routine use, and there is little evidence on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI). OBJECTIVE: To identify the most effective and cost-effective way of using these tests to detect CS prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cost-effectiveness modelling of health outcomes and costs of men referred to secondary care with a suspicion of prostate cancer prior to any biopsy in the UK National Health Service using information from the diagnostic Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS). INTERVENTION: Combinations of MPMRI, TRUSB, and TPMB, using different definitions and diagnostic cut-offs for CS cancer. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Strategies that detect the most CS cancers given testing costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) given long-term costs. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The use of MPMRI first and then up to two MRI-targeted TRUSBs detects more CS cancers per pound spent than a strategy using TRUSB first (sensitivity = 0.95 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.92-0.98] vs 0.91 [95% CI 0.86-0.94]) and is cost effective (ICER = £7,076 [€8350/QALY gained]). The limitations stem from the evidence base in the accuracy of MRI-targeted biopsy and the long-term outcomes of men with CS prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: An MPMRI-first strategy is effective and cost effective for the diagnosis of CS prostate cancer. These findings are sensitive to the test costs, sensitivity of MRI-targeted TRUSB, and long-term outcomes of men with cancer, which warrant more empirical research. This analysis can inform the development of clinical guidelines. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found that, under certain assumptions, the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging first and then up to two transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy is better than the current clinical standard and is good value for money.

Future Directions for Cost-effectiveness Analyses in Health and Medicine.

OBJECTIVES: In 2016, the Second Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine updated the seminal work of the original panel from 2 decades earlier. The Second Panel had an opportunity to reflect on the evolution of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and to provide guidance for the next generation of practitioners and consumers. In this article, we present key topics for future research and policy. METHODS: During the course of its deliberations, the Second Panel discussed numerous topics for advancing methods and for improving the use of CEA in decision making. We identify and consider 7 areas for which the panel believes that future research would be particularly fruitful. In each of these areas, we highlight outstanding research needs. The list is not intended as an exhaustive inventory but rather a set of key items that surfaced repeatedly in the panel's discussions. In the online Appendix , we also list and expound briefly on 8 other important topics. RESULTS: We highlight 7 key areas: CEA and perspectives (determining, valuing, and summarizing elements for the analysis), modeling (comparative modeling and model transparency), health outcomes (valuing temporary health and path states, as well as health effects on caregivers), costing (a cost catalogue, valuing household production, and productivity effects), evidence synthesis (developing theory on learning across studies and combining data from clinical trials and observational studies), estimating and using cost-effectiveness thresholds (empirically representing 2 broad concepts: opportunity costs and public willingness to pay), and reporting and communicating CEAs (written protocols and a quality scoring system). CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analysis remains a flourishing and evolving field with many opportunities for research. More work is needed on many fronts to understand how best to incorporate CEA into policy and practice.