Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations Focused on Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: The Tortoise and the Cheetah.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically review recent health economic evaluations (HEEs) of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in healthcare. The aim was to discuss pertinent methods, reporting quality and challenges for future implementation of AI in healthcare, and additionally advise future HEEs. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in 2 databases (PubMed and Scopus) for articles published in the last 5 years. Two reviewers performed independent screening, full-text inclusion, data extraction, and appraisal. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Philips checklist were used for the quality assessment of included studies. RESULTS: A total of 884 unique studies were identified; 20 were included for full-text review, covering a wide range of medical specialties and care pathway phases. The most commonly evaluated type of AI was automated medical image analysis models (n = 9, 45%). The prevailing health economic analysis was cost minimization (n = 8, 40%) with the costs saved per case as preferred outcome measure. A total of 9 studies (45%) reported model-based HEEs, 4 of which applied a time horizon >1 year. The evidence supporting the chosen analytical methods, assessment of uncertainty, and model structures was underreported. The reporting quality of the articles was moderate as on average studies reported on 66% of Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards items. CONCLUSIONS: HEEs of AI in healthcare are limited and often focus on costs rather than health impact. Surprisingly, model-based long-term evaluations are just as uncommon as model-based short-term evaluations. Consequently, insight into the actual benefits offered by AI is lagging behind current technological developments.

The broader societal impacts of COVID-19 and the growing importance of capturing these in health economic analyses.

AbstractThe rapid spread of the current COVID-19 pandemic has affected societies worldwide, leading to excess mortality, long-lasting health consequences, strained healthcare systems, and additional strains and spillover effects on other sectors outside health (i.e., intersectoral costs and benefits). In this perspective piece, we demonstrate the broader societal impacts of COVID-19 on other sectors outside the health sector and the growing importance of capturing these in health economic analyses. These broader impacts include, for instance, the effects on the labor market and productivity, education, criminal justice, housing, consumption, and environment. The current pandemic highlights the importance of adopting a societal perspective to consider these broader impacts of public health issues and interventions and only omit these where it can be clearly justified as appropriate to do so. Furthermore, we explain how the COVID-19 pandemic exposed and exacerbated existing deep-rooted structural inequalities that contribute to the wider societal impacts of the pandemic.

Family-level impact of genetic testing: integrating health economics and ethical, legal, and social implications.

Tweetable abstract Health economics and ELSI can be better integrated to consider the family impacts of genetic and genomic testing.

Costes informales: definición, obtención y análisis. La importancia de su incorporación en las evaluaciones económicas en salud / Informal costs: definition, obtaining and analysis. The importance of its incorporation in economic evaluations in health

Introducción: Los costes informales derivan de cuidados informales que es la atención prestada a un enfermo o discapacitado por parte de personas que no son profesionales socio sanitarios y que no reciben una remuneración económica. El objetivo del trabajo es explicar los costes informales en salud, su definición, su obtención, análisis y el im­ pacto en su incorporación en las evaluaciones económicas en salud. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda del tema sobre costes informales en la base de datos de Medline­Pubmed y en la búsqueda de la biblioteca de la Universidad Carlos III Madrid vía internet a través de varias bases de datos como EconLit y ABI/IN­ FORM collection. Resultados: Se define los cuidados informales, los métodos para su medición en tiempo, en preferencias reveladas, preferencias establecidos fijados, otros métodos, la importan­ cia de incorporar los costos informales en las evaluaciones económicas en salud. Conclusión: La evaluación económica a nivel de la perspectiva de la sociedad se debe incluir, pero muchas veces se realiza según el pagador por lo difícil que puede ser su medición.

Introduction: Informal costs derive from informal care, which is the care provided to a sick or disabled person by people who are not socio­health professionals and who do not receive financial compensation. The objective of the work is to explain the informal costs in health, its definition, its obtaining, analysis and the impact on its incorporation in the economic health evaluations. Material and methods: A search of the topic on informal costs was carried out in the Medli­ ne­Pubmed database and in the search of the Carlos III Madrid University library via the In­ ternet through several databases such as EconLit and ABI / INFORM collection. Results: Informal care is defined, the methods for its measurement in time, in revealed preferences, established preferences, other methods, the importance of incorporating informal costs in economic health evaluations. Conclusion: The economic evaluation at the level of the society perspective must be in­ cluded, but many times it is carried out according to the payer because of how difficult its measurement can be done

Adjusting for Inflation and Currency Changes Within Health Economic Studies.

OBJECTIVES: Within health economic studies, it is often necessary to adjust costs obtained from different time periods for inflation. Nevertheless, many studies do not report the methods used for this in sufficient detail. In this article, we outline the principal methods used to adjust for inflation, with a focus on studies relating to healthcare interventions in low- and middle-income countries. We also discuss issues relating to converting local currencies to international dollars and US$ and adjusting cost data collected from other countries or previous studies. METHODS: We outlined the 3 main methods used to adjust for inflation for studies in these settings: exchanging the local currency to US$ or international dollars and then inflating using US inflation rates (method 1); inflating the local currency using local inflation rates and then exchanging to US$ or international dollars (method 2); splitting the costs into tradable and nontradable resources and using method 1 on the tradable resources and method 2 on the nontradable resources (method 3). RESULTS: In a hypothetical example of adjusting a cost of US$100 incurred in Vietnam from 2006 to 2016 prices, the adjusted cost from the 3 methods were US$116.84, US$172.09, and US$161.04, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The different methods for adjusting for inflation can yield substantially different results. We make recommendations regarding the most appropriate method for various scenarios. Moving forward, it is vital that studies report the methodology they use to adjust for inflation more transparently.

Hospital staff perspectives towards health technology assessment: data from a multidisciplinary survey.

BACKGROUND: Technology adoption in hospitals is usually based on cost-effectiveness analysis, feasibility and potential success. Different countries have embraced a range of principles to accomplish an effective comprehensive process of health technology assessment (HTA). The aim of the study was to analyse the viewpoints and relative weight of technology-oriented hospital staff members toward the clinical, social, technological and economic aspects of HTA. METHODS: Using a structured questionnaire, a survey was conducted among different professionals in an 850-bed hospital. RESULTS: We revealed a range of viewpoints among hospital staff members according to their personal characteristics and professional standpoints. The clinical aspects of HTA were considered 'highly important' (HI) by most participants, especially the 'lifesaving' parameter. Similarly, the 'lack of effective alternative technology' was ranked HI by a high percentage of participants, independent of their profession. Economic aspects were ranked HI only by half of the participants, while social and technological aspects were ranked HI only by a relatively low percentage. Nurses added 'improving quality of life', 'increasing teamwork efficiency' and 'improving medical standards'. Allied health professionals focused on 'lack of effective alternative technologies' as a main argument for adoption of HTA, alongside increasing efficiency, budget savings and contribution to hospital reputation. Engineers emphasised the requirement of significant investment in infrastructure and increasing efficiency. Administrators ranked patient experience as HI. Interestingly, the high ranking of social aspects correlated with older responders, while junior staff ranked safety significantly higher. CONCLUSIONS: A multi-perspective multidisciplinary approach would be beneficial for policy-makers at hospitals and even on a national scale in Israel.

Quality Assessment of Reporting of Economic Evaluation in Cardiac Sugery: Has it Improved?

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac surgery has seen substantial scientific progress over recent decades. Health economic evaluations have become important tools for decision makers to prioritize scarce health resources. The present study aimed to identify and critically appraise the reporting quality of health economic evaluations conducted in the field of cardiac surgery. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify health economic evaluations in cardiac surgery. The consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to assess the quality of reporting of studies. RESULTS: A total 4,705 articles published between 1981 and 2016 were identified; sixty-nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a trend toward a greater number of publications and reporting quality over time. Six (8.7 percent) studies were conducted between 1981 and 1990, nine (13 percent) between 1991 and 2000, twenty-four (34.8 percent) between 2001 and 2010, and thirty (43.5 percent) after 2011. The mean CHEERS score of all articles was 16.7/24; for those published between 1980 and 1990 the mean (SD) score was 10.2 (±1.4), for those published between 1991 and 2000 it was 11.2 (±2.4), between 2001 and 2010 it was 15.3 (±4.8), and after 2011 it was 19.9 (±2.9). The quality of reporting was still insufficient for several studies after 2000, especially concerning items "characterizing heterogeneity," "assumptions," and "choice of model." CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that, even if the quantity and the quality of health economics evaluation in cardiac surgery has increased, there remains a need for improvement in several reporting criteria to ensure greater transparency.

Integrating clinical and economic evidence in clinical guidelines: More needed than ever!

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: In recent years, several expensive new health technologies have been introduced. The availability of those technologies intensifies the discussion regarding the affordability of these technologies at different decision-making levels. On the meso level, both hospitals and clinicians are facing budget constraints resulting in a tension to balance between different patients' interests. As such, it is crucial to make optimal use of the available resources. Different strategies are in place to deal with this problem, but decisions on a macro level on what to fund or not can limit the role and freedom of clinicians in their decisions on a micro level. At the same time, without central guidance regarding such decisions, micro level decisions may lead to inequities and undesirable treatment variation between clinicians and hospitals. The challenge is to find instruments that can balance both levels of decision making. DISCUSSION: Clinicians are becoming increasingly aware that their decisions to spend more resources (like time and budget) on 1 particular patient group reduce the resources available to other patients. Involving clinicians in thinking about the optimal use of limited resources, also in an attempt to bridge the world of economic reasoning and clinical practice, is crucial therefore. We argue that clinical guidelines may prove a clear vehicle for this by including both clinical and economic evidence to support the recommendations made. The development of such guidelines requires cooperation of clinicians, and health economists are cooperating with each other. CONCLUSION: The development of clinical guidelines which combine economic and clinical evidence should be stimulated, to balance central guidance and uniformity while maintaining necessary decentralized freedom. This is an opportunity to combine the reality of budgets and opportunity costs with clinical practice. Missing this opportunity risks either variation and inequity or central and necessarily crude measures.

Economic returns to medical research funding.

Following the publication of the final paper in a planned series of four studies estimating the economic returns from biomedical and health research, we reflect on what we have learnt from these types of assessment.

Bringing the patient back in: behavioral decision-making and choice in medical economics.

We explore the behavioral methodology and "revolution" in economics through the lens of medical economics. We address two questions: (1) Are mainstream economic assumptions of utility-maximization realistic approximations of people's actual behavior? (2) Do people maximize subjective expected utility, particularly in choosing from among the available options? In doing so, we illustrate-in terms of a hypothetical experimental sample of patients with dry eye diagnosis-why and how utility in pharmacoeconomic assessments might be valued differently by patients when subjective psychological, social, cognitive, and emotional factors are considered. While experimentally-observed or surveyed behavior yields stated (rather than revealed) preferences, behaviorism offers a robust toolset in understanding drug, medical device, and treatment-related decisions compared to the optimizing calculus assumed by mainstream economists. It might also do so more perilously than economists have previously understood, in light of the intractable uncertainties, information asymmetries, insulated third-party agents, entry barriers, and externalities that characterize healthcare. Behavioral work has been carried out in many sub-fields of economics. Only recently has it been extended to healthcare. This offers medical economists both the challenge and opportunity of balancing efficiency presumptions with relatively autonomous patient choices, notwithstanding their predictable, yet seemingly consistent, irrationality. Despite its comparative youth and limitations, the scientific contributions of behaviorism are secure and its future in medical economics appears to be promising.

Determinants of Change in the Cost-effectiveness Threshold.

The cost-effectiveness threshold in health care systems with a constrained budget should be determined by the cost-effectiveness of displacing health care services to fund new interventions. Using comparative statics, we review some potential determinants of the threshold, including the budget for health care, the demand for existing health care interventions, the technical efficiency of existing interventions, and the development of new health technologies. We consider the anticipated direction of impact that would affect the threshold following a change in each of these determinants. Where the health care system is technically efficient, an increase in the health care budget unambiguously raises the threshold, whereas an increase in the demand for existing, non-marginal health interventions unambiguously lowers the threshold. Improvements in the technical efficiency of existing interventions may raise or lower the threshold, depending on the cause of the improvement in efficiency, whether the intervention is already funded, and, if so, whether it is marginal. New technologies may also raise or lower the threshold, depending on whether the new technology is a substitute for an existing technology and, again, whether the existing technology is marginal. Our analysis permits health economists and decision makers to assess if and in what direction the threshold may change over time. This matters, as threshold changes impact the cost-effectiveness of interventions that require decisions now but have costs and effects that fall in future periods.

Why Do Health Economists Promote Technology Adoption Rather Than the Search for Efficiency? A Proposal for a Change in Our Approach to Economic Evaluation in Health Care.

At a time of intense pressure on health care budgets, the technology management challenge is for disinvestment in low-value technologies and reinvestment in higher value alternatives. The aim of this article is to explore ways in which health economists might begin to redress the observed imbalance between the evaluation of new and existing in-use technologies. The argument is not against evaluating new technologies but in favor of the "search for efficiency," where the ultimate objective is to identify reallocations that improve population health in the face of resource scarcity. We explore why in-use technologies may be of low value and consider how economic evaluation analysts might embrace a broader efficiency lens, first through "technology management" (a process of analysis and evidence-informed decision making throughout a technology's life cycle) and progressing through "pathway management" (the search for efficiency gains across entire clinical care pathways). A number of model-based examples are used to illustrate the approaches.

Private public partnership: a solution for the development of health system in Tunisia.

In a context of economic difficulties, the Tunisian government is required to find solutions to meet the expectations of the population. Health sector is one of the critical areas requiring radical reform. The objective of this paper is to find the place of public private partnership project in the harmonious development of both public and private sectors in Tunisia. Indeed, the Tunisian health system consists of two main sectors: the public sector, and the private sector, booming since the 90s. Tunisian infrastructure and staff resources distribution is characterised by a very significant regional disparity, to the detriment of the interior regions, which is more pronounced in the private sector. This area, considered innovative and responsive, captures the local wealthy clientele, and the foreign highly specialized care seekers. It wins over the best healthcare providers, inspite of some reported claims against pricing abuses leading to user's lack of confidence. As for the public sector under funded, handicapped by red tape and some forms of lack of transparency and lobbying, it can not cope with the influx of customers of poor and middle classes. The relationship between the two sectors misses often. The current challenge in the Tunisian health sector is how can public and private sectors combine and harmonize their efforts to achieve common interest objectives. The public-private partnership, is a process helping the state to involve private investors in the realization of public interest projects and develop long term contracts. So, the two sectors will share resources and technical expertise and will access to further advantages. However, it is essential to establish clear and effective legal and institutional frameworks governing private participation in the public sector.

Health Economics as Rhetoric: The Limited Impact of Health Economics on Funding Decisions in Four European Countries.

BACKGROUND: A response to the challenge of high-cost treatments in health care has been economic evaluation. Cost-effectiveness analysis presented as cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained has been controversial, raising heated support and opposition. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of economic evaluation in decisions on what to fund in four European countries and discuss the implications of our findings. METHODS: We used a protocol to review the key features of the application of economic evaluation in reimbursement decision making in England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, reporting country-specific highlights. RESULTS: Although the institutions and processes vary by country, health economic evaluation has had limited impact on restricting access of controversial high-cost drugs. Even in those countries that have gone the furthest, ways have been found to avoid refusing to fund high-cost drugs for particular diseases including cancer, multiple sclerosis, and orphan diseases. Economic evaluation may, however, have helped some countries to negotiate price reductions for some drugs. It has also extended to the discussion of clinical effectiveness to include cost. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in approaches but similarities in outcomes suggest that health economic evaluation be viewed largely as rhetoric (in D.N. McCloskey's terms in The Rhetoric of Economics, 1985). This is not to imply that economics had no impact: rather that it usually contributed to the discourse in ways that differed by country. The reasons for this no doubt vary by perspective, from political science to ethics. Economic evaluation may have less to do with rationing or denial of medical treatments than to do with expanding the discourse used to discuss such issues.

Perfil do cirurgião plástico no Estado de Goiás, Brasil / Profile of plastic surgeons in the state of Goias, Brazil

INTRODUÇÃO: A Cirurgia Plástica tem sido popularizada nos últimos anos, por meio do acesso aos procedimentos e exposição nos meios de comunicação. O contexto atual relata dificuldades no mercado de trabalho devido à competividade e diminuição de honorários. O objetivo deste estudo é relatar o perfil do cirurgião plástico que atua no Estado de Goiás. MÉTODOS: A pesquisa foi realizada com cirurgiões plásticos que atuam no estado de Goiás registrados na regional da Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica (SBCP) até janeiro de 2015. Os dados foram divididos em perfil socioeconômico e demográfico. Foram considerados como critérios de inclusão residência pelo Ministério da Educação ou pela SBCP e estar atuando em Cirurgia Plástica no estado de Goiás. Como critérios de exclusão ser médico residente em cirurgia plástica e não estar atuando na área de Cirurgia Plástica. RESULTADOS: Obteve-se o índice de resposta de 70%. A maioria tem menos de 40 anos, masculino, casado, com 1 a 2 filhos, atuando em Goiás, há menos de 10 anos, são especialistas, trabalhando de 40 a 60 horas semanais e atuam na área estética e reconstrutiva e a maioria não usa auxiliar em mais de 50% das cirurgias realizadas. CONCLUSÃO: O perfil do cirurgião plástico do estado de Goiás é o de um médico jovem, do sexo masculino, casado, com até 2 filhos, que atua principalmente na capital, sendo a maioria especialista, que trabalha de 40 a 60 horas semanais, e atuando na cirurgia estética e reconstrutiva.

INTRODUCTION: Plastic surgery has become popular in the recent years for the access to procedures and exposure in the media. The current scenario brings difficulties in the job market because of competitiveness and reduced fees. This study describes the profile of the plastic surgeons working in the state of Goias. METHODS: The survey was conducted with plastic surgeons who work in the state of Goias and are registered in local chapter of the Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery in January 2015. Data were divided into socio-economic and demographic profile. Inclusion criteria were residence certified by the Brazilian Ministry of Education or by the Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery,, practice of plastic surgery in the state of Goias. We excluded residents in plastic surgery, and those who not practice in plastic surgery area. RESULTS: Rate of response was 70%. Most participants were younger than 40 years old, men, married, with 1-2 children, work in Goias, had less than 10 years as a surgeion, had specialization in plastic surgery, work 40-60 hours weekly and main practice was in aesthetic and reconstructive area, the majority of them do not employ assistances in more than 50% of surgeries. CONCLUSION: The profile of plastic surgeon in state of Goias is composed by young physicians, men, married, with no more than 2 children, and whom practice mainly in the state capital, most of them are specialists, work 40-60 hours per week, and their main practice is with aesthetic and reconstructive surgery.

Welfarism versus extra-welfarism: can the choice of economic evaluation approach impact on the adoption decisions recommended by economic evaluation studies?

A long-running debate surrounds the equivalence of the welfarist and extra-welfarist approaches to economic evaluation. There is a growing belief that the extra-welfarist approach may not necessarily provide all the information that decisionmakers require in certain contexts, e.g. evaluation of complex interventions. As the number of these interventions being evaluated increases, it is crucial that the most appropriate economic evaluation approach is used to enable decisionmakers to be confident in their adoption decisions. We conducted a literature review to evaluate the potential for the choice of economic evaluation approach to impact on the adoption decisions recommended by economic evaluation studies. We found that for every five studies applying both approaches, one shows limited or no concordance in economic evaluation results: the different approaches suggest conflicting adoption decisions, and there is no pattern to which approach provides the most convincing adoption evidence. Only one study in ten indicates which results will best inform adoption decisions. We conclude that the choice of approach can significantly impact on the adoption decisions recommended by economic evaluation studies, with conflicting results creating confusion over whether or not interventions provide good value for money. Health economists rarely provide sufficient guidance to decisionmakers to alleviate this confusion.

The development of capability measures in health economics: opportunities, challenges and progress.

Recent years have seen increased engagement amongst health economists with the capability approach developed by Amartya Sen and others. This paper focuses on the capability approach in relation to the evaluative space used for analysis within health economics. It considers the opportunities that the capability approach offers in extending this space, but also the methodological challenges associated with moving from the theoretical concepts to practical empirical applications. The paper then examines three 'families' of measures, Oxford Capability instruments (OxCap), Adult Social Care Outcome Toolkit (ASCOT) and ICEpop CAPability (ICECAP), in terms of the methodological choices made in each case. The paper concludes by discussing some of the broader issues involved in making use of the capability approach in health economics. It also suggests that continued exploration of the impact of different methodological choices will be important in moving forward.