Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.

OBJECTIVES: Published literature has levied criticism against the cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) approach to economic evaluation over the past two decades, with multiple papers declaring its 'death'. However, since introducing the requirements for economic evaluations as part of health technology (HTA) decision-making in 1992, the cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) approach has been widely used to inform recommendations about the public subsidy of medicines in Australia. This research aimed to highlight the breadth of use of CMA in Australia and assess the influence of preconditions for the approach on subsidy recommendations METHODS: Relevant information was extracted from Public Summary Documents of Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) meetings in Australia considering submissions for the subsidy of medicines that included a CMA and were assessed between July 2005 and December 2022. A generalised linear model was used to explore the relationship between whether medicines were recommended and variables that reflected the primary preconditions for using CMA set out in the published PBAC Methodology Guidelines. Other control variables were selected through the Bolasso Method. Subgroup analysis was undertaken which replicated this modelling process. RESULTS: While the potential for inferior safety or efficacy reduced the likelihood of recommendation (p < 0.01), the effect sizes suggest that the requirements for CMA were not requisite for recommendation. CONCLUSION: The Australian practice of CMA does not strictly align with the PBAC Methodology Guidelines and the theoretically appropriate application of CMA. However, within the confines of a deliberative HTA decision-making process that balances values and judgement with available evidence, this may be considered acceptable, particularly if stakeholders consider the current approach delivers sufficient clarity of process and enables patients to access medicines at an affordable cost.

Improving emergency department care for adults presenting with mental illness: a systematic review of strategies and their impact on outcomes, experience, and performance.

Background: Care delivery for the increasing number of people presenting at hospital emergency departments (EDs) with mental illness is a challenging issue. This review aimed to synthesise the research evidence associated with strategies used to improve ED care delivery outcomes, experience, and performance for adults presenting with mental illness. Method: We systematically reviewed the evidence regarding the effects of ED-based interventions for mental illness on patient outcomes, patient experience, and system performance, using a comprehensive search strategy designed to identify published empirical studies. Systematic searches in Scopus, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, and Medline were conducted in September 2023 (from inception; review protocol was prospectively registered in Prospero CRD42023466062). Eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) primary research study, published in English; and (2) (a) reported an implemented model of care or system change within the hospital ED context, (b) focused on adult mental illness presentations, and (c) evaluated system performance, patient outcomes, patient experience, or staff experience. Pairs of reviewers independently assessed study titles, abstracts, and full texts according to pre-established inclusion criteria with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Independent reviewers extracted data from the included papers using Covidence (2023), and the quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute suite of critical appraisal tools. Results: A narrative synthesis was performed on the included 46 studies, comprising pre-post (n = 23), quasi-experimental (n = 6), descriptive (n = 6), randomised controlled trial (RCT; n = 3), cohort (n = 2), cross-sectional (n = 2), qualitative (n = 2), realist evaluation (n = 1), and time series analysis studies (n = 1). Eleven articles focused on presentations related to substance use disorder presentation, 9 focused on suicide and deliberate self-harm presentations, and 26 reported mental illness presentations in general. Strategies reported include models of care (e.g., ED-initiated Medications for Opioid Use Disorder, ED-initiated social support, and deliberate self-harm), decision support tools, discharge and transfer refinements, case management, adjustments to liaison psychiatry services, telepsychiatry, changes to roles and rostering, environmental changes (e.g., specialised units within the ED), education, creation of multidisciplinary teams, and care standardisations. System performance measures were reported in 33 studies (72%), with fewer studies reporting measures of patient outcomes (n = 19, 41%), patient experience (n = 10, 22%), or staff experience (n = 14, 30%). Few interventions reported outcomes across all four domains. Heterogeneity in study samples, strategies, and evaluated outcomes makes adopting existing strategies challenging. Conclusion: Care for mental illness is complex, particularly in the emergency setting. Strategies to provide care must align ED system goals with patient goals and staff experience.

Cost of Illness and Health-Related Quality of Life for Stuttering: Two Systematic Reviews.

PURPOSE: For those who stutter, verbal communication is typically compromised in social situations. This may attract negative responses from listeners and stigmatization by society. These have the potential to impair health-related quality of life across a range of domains, including qualitative and quantitative impacts on speech output, mental health issues, and failure to attain educational and occupational potential. These systematic reviews were designed to explore this matter using traditional health economics perspectives of utility measures and cost of illness. METHOD: Studies were included if they involved children, adolescents, or adults with stuttering as a primary diagnosis. The quality of life search strategy identified 2,607 reports, of which three were included in the quality of life analysis. The cost of illness search strategy identified 3,778 reports, of which 39 were included in the cost of illness analysis. RESULTS: Two of the three studies included in the quality of life analysis had a high risk of bias. When measured using utility scores, quality of life for people who stutter was in the range of those reported for chronic health conditions such as diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. However, there is little such evidence of quality of life impairment during the preschool years. Studies included in the cost of illness analysis carried considerable risk of bias overall. CONCLUSIONS: For people who stutter, there are substantive direct and indirect costs of illness. These include impairment, challenges, and distress across many domains throughout life, including income, education, employment, and social functioning. Evidence of quality of life impairment using utility measures is extremely limited. If this situation is not remedied, the lifetime impairment, challenges, and distress experienced by those who stutter cannot be documented in a form that can be used to influence health policy and health care spending. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24168201.