Search

Background: Apart from cost-effectiveness, considerations like equity and acceptability may affect health-care priority setting. Preferably, priority setting combines evidence evaluation with an appraisal procedure, to elicit and weigh these considerations. Objective: To demonstrate a structured approach for eliciting and evaluating a broad range of assessment criteria, including key stakeholders' values, aiming to support decision makers in priority setting. Methods: For a set of cost-effective substitute interventions for depression care, the appraisal criteria were adopted from the Australian Assessing Cost-Effectiveness initiative. All substitute interventions were assessed in an appraisal, using focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews conducted among key stakeholders. Results: Appraisal of the substitute cost-effective interventions yielded an overview of considerations and an overall recommendation for decision makers. Two out of the thirteen pairs were deemed acceptable and realistic, that is investment in therapist-guided and Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy instead of cognitive behavioural therapy in mild depression, and investment in combination therapy rather than individual psychotherapy in severe depression. In the remaining substitution pairs, substantive issues affected acceptability. The key issues identified were as follows: workforce capacity, lack of stakeholder support and the need for change in clinicians' attitude. Conclusions: Systematic identification of stakeholders' considerations allows decision makers to prioritize among cost-effective policy options. Moreover, this approach entails an explicit and transparent priority-setting procedure and provides insights into the intended and unintended consequences of using a certain health technology. Patient contribution: Patients were involved in the conduct of the study for instance, by sharing their values regarding considerations relevant for priority setting.

Background The majority of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) have comorbid mental conditions. Objectives Since most cost-of-illness studies correct for comorbidity, this study focuses on mental healthcare utilization and treatment costs in patients with MDD including psychiatric comorbidities in specialist mental healthcare, particularly patients with a comorbid personality disorder (PD). Methods The Psychiatric Case Register North Netherlands contains administrative data of specialist mental healthcare providers. Treatment episodes were identified from uninterrupted healthcare use. Costs were calculated by multiplying care utilization with unit prices (price level year: 2018). Using generalized linear models, cost drivers were investigated for the entire cohort. Results A total of 34,713 patients had MDD as a primary diagnosis over the period 2000–2012. The number of patients with psychiatric comorbidities was 24,888 (71.7%), including 13,798 with PD. Costs were highly skewed, with an average ± standard deviation cost per treatment episode of €21,186 ± 74,192 (median €2320). Major cost drivers were inpatient days and daycare days (50 and 28% of total costs), occurring in 12.7 and 12.5% of episodes, respectively. Compared with patients with MDD only (€11,612), costs of patients with additional PD and with or without other comorbidities were, respectively, 2.71 (p < .001) and 2.06 (p < .001) times higher and were 1.36 (p < .001) times higher in patients with MDD and comorbidities other than PD. Other cost drivers were age, calendar year, and first episodes. Conclusions Psychiatric comorbidities (especially PD) in addition to age and first episodes drive costs in patients with MDD. Knowledge of cost drivers may help in the development of future stratified disease management programs. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-021-01012-x.