Thinking outside the system: the integrated care experience in Queensland, Australia.

Health policy-makers are faced with a demand for health care that exceeds supply, driven in part by an ageing population and an increased prevalence of chronic disease. An integrated 'people-centred' model of care across primary, secondary and tertiary health care can strengthen the health system by streamlining services to improve the patient journey and outcomes. Integrated care offers an opportunity to reduce admissions and re-admissions to hospitals, reduce presentations to emergency departments and improve the capacity of outpatient clinics while delivering better outcomes to patients. Queensland's $35 million Integrated Care Innovation Fund (ICIF) has provided seed funding to 24 projects covering a wide spectrum of chronic disease management and complex disease. Programs such as the ICIF offer an opportunity to provide a new approach to caring for vulnerable populations such as the frail and elderly; children with behavioural and developmental issues; children in out-of-home care; rural and remote populations; and people with mental health issues, whose care runs the risk of 'falling through the cracks' with conventional healthcare approaches.

Fostering healthcare innovation in public hospitals: the Queensland experience.

Faced with scarce resources and a demand for health care that exceeds supply, health policy makers at all levels of government need to adopt some form of rationing when deciding which health services should be funded in the public health system. With a relatively small investment, programs such as Queensland Health's New Technology Funding Evaluation Program (NTFEP) fosters innovation by providing funding and pilot studies for new and innovative healthcare technologies. The NTFEP assists policy makers to make informed decisions regarding investments in new safe and effective technologies based on available evidence gathered from real-world settings relevant to Queensland patients and clinicians. In addition, the NTFEP allows appropriate patient access, especially in rural and remote locations, to potentially beneficial technologies and acts a gatekeeper, protecting them from technologies that may be detrimental or harmful.

Health technology assessment and evidence-based policy making: Queensland Department of Health experience.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based policy making is increasingly used for better resource allocation. Queensland Department of Health has developed a new model to introduce innovative health technologies through a health technology assessment (HTA) program. STRUCTURE: A state-wide committee and several sub-committees at health service district level were established to oversee the HTA program and to monitor the uptake of technologies. The committees are supported by a multidisciplinary secretariat comprising staff with key HTA skills. PROCESS: The process starts with HTA applications, which are then shortlisted according to prespecified criteria. A due diligence process adopting a rapid evidence assessment approach is used to evaluate the applications. Based on the assessment, recommendations are made using a deliberative decision-making process guided by well-recognized tools. With positive recommendation, a technology is piloted in constrained local setting before its system-wide diffusion. OUTCOME: The HTA program has assisted health administrators in prioritizing their health technology agendas. It has gained trust and wide support from policy makers and is increasingly used to support funding allocations, indicating the increasing awareness of and confidence in the program. CONCLUSIONS: The HTA program is a valuable process to assist evidence-based policy development and to guide better resource allocation.

A cost-minimisation analysis comparing photoselective vaporisation (PVP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the management of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in Queensland, Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the costs of photoselective vaporisation (PVP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) from the perspective of a Queensland public hospital provider. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to compare the costs of PVP and TURP. Cost inputs were sourced from an audit of patients undergoing PVP or TURP across three hospitals. The probability of re-intervention was obtained from secondary literature sources. Probabilistic and multi-way sensitivity analyses were used to account for uncertainty and test the impact of varying key assumptions. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, which included equipment, training and re-intervention costs, PVP was AU$ 739 (95% credible interval [CrI] -12 187 to 14 516) more costly per patient than TURP. The estimate was most sensitive to changes in procedural costs, fibre costs and the probability of re-intervention. Sensitivity analyses based on data from the most favourable site or excluding equipment and training costs reduced the point estimate to favour PVP (incremental cost AU$ -684, 95% CrI -8319 to 5796 and AU$ -100, 95% CrI -13 026 to 13 678, respectively). However, CrIs were wide for all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this cost minimisation analysis, there was no significant cost difference between PVP and TURP, after accounting for equipment, training and re-intervention costs. However, PVP was associated with a shorter length of stay and lower procedural costs during audit, indicating PVP potentially provides comparatively good value for money once the technology is established.

Cost and time savings from a rapid access model of care using transient elastography to screen and triage patients with chronic Hepatitis C infection.

BACKGROUND: Treatment uptake amongst patients with chronic Hepatitis C virus (HCV) in Australia is relatively low. New approaches to assessment have the potential to reduce public waiting lists, improve access to treatment, and to reduce healthcare costs. AIM: To describe the costs to the public hospital system and waiting time associated with a novel integrated rapid access to assessment and treatment (RAAT) model of care that utilizes Transient Elastography (TE) as a specialist outpatient-based approach for a streamlined assessment of patients with chronic HCV, compared to conventional outpatient management with liver biopsy (LB). METHODS: Time from first medical review to treatment plan and costs associated with detection of fibrosis were recorded for patients receiving RAAT during a 3-month period, and for a similar historical cohort managed conventionally with LB. Costs related to medical and multidisciplinary team reviews and the TE/LB test itself were included. RESULTS: Patients receiving RAAT had lower costs (n = 27, median AU$2716) and shorter time to treatment (median = 194 days) than for conventional management (n = 13, median $5005, 420 days; p < 0.01). Differences related to the lower TE test costs and the lower cost of consults between first medical review and establishment of a treatment plan. CONCLUSIONS: Based on real world audit data, this evaluation suggests TE, used as part of a new RAAT model of care, is cost saving to the health system in the short-term and reduces waiting times. The analysis reported here was intended to assess the costs related to detection of fibrosis, and is limited by the small sample size and potential selection bias. Future research should undertake a full economic evaluation at a whole of service level, to consider a more comprehensive and longer-term assessment of the costs and benefits associated with HCV management.