Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the cost-effectiveness analysis in the public health care system in the U.S. It mentions that the cost-effectiveness analysis in public healthcare concerns the measurement and the propeer communication of the value of the new drugs and other medical interventions. It adds that the cost-effective analyses is primarily concerned with the trade-offs related on the choice of alternative medical interventions.

ICD: Remote Monitoring Versus Clinic Interrogations. Introduction: Remote monitoring is increasingly becoming the new standard of care for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) follow-up. We sought to determine whether remote monitoring of ICDs improves patient outcomes compared with quarterly device interrogations in clinic. Methods and Results: In this single-center pilot clinical trial, adult patients with an ICD were randomly assigned to remote monitoring versus quarterly device interrogations in clinic. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular hospitalization, emergency room visit for a cardiac cause, and unscheduled visit to the electrophysiology clinic for a device-related issue at 1 year. We also examined health-related quality of life, costs, and patient satisfaction with their ICD care. Of 151 patients enrolled in this trial, 76 were randomized to remote monitoring and 75 to quarterly device interrogations in clinic. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint (32% in the remote monitoring arm vs 34% in the control arm; P = 0.8), mortality, or cost between the 2 arms. Quality of life and patient satisfaction were significantly better in the control arm than in the remote monitoring arm at 6 months (83 [25th, 75th percentiles 70, 90] vs 75 [50, 85]; P = 0.002 and 88 [75, 100] vs 75 [75, 88]; P = 0.03, respectively), but not at 12 months. Conclusion: We showed no significant reduction in cardiac-related resource utilization with remote monitoring of ICDs. However, given the small number of patients in our study, the real clinical and health economics impact of remote monitoring needs to be verified by a large, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 21, pp. 545-550, May 2010) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: Ovarian cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women. Given the low prevalence of this disease, the effectiveness of screening strategies has not been established. We wished to estimate the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of potential screening strategies for ovarian cancer using population-specific data. Methods: A Markov state transition model to simulate the natural history of ovarian cancer in a cohort of women age 20 to 100. Age-specific incidence and mortality rates were obtained from SEER. Base-case characteristics of a potential screening test were sensitivity 85%, specificity 95%, and cost $50. Outcome measures were mortality reduction, lifetime number of false positive screening tests, positive predictive value, years of life saved (YLS), lifetime costs in US dollars, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, in cost/YLS). Results: Model-predicted lifetime risk of ovarian cancer (1.38%), lifetime risk of death from ovarian cancer (0.95%), and stage distribution (stage I-19%; stage II-7%; stage III, IV, or unstaged — 74%) closely approximated SEER data. Annual screening resulted in 43% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality, with ICER of $73,469/YLS (base case) and $36,025/YLS (high-risk population) compared to no screening. In the base case, the average lifetime number of false positive tests is 1.06. Cost-effectiveness of screening is most sensitive to test frequency, specificity and cost. Conclusions: Annual screening for ovarian cancer has the potential to be cost effective, particularly in high-risk populations. Clinically acceptable positive predictive values are achieved if specificity exceeds 99%. Mortality reduction above 50% may not be achievable without screening intervals less than 12 months. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article presents an analysis of the cost effectiveness of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) monitoring strategies. Among the strategies studied are the symptom-based strategies, CD4-based strategies and CD4 counts. Viral load strategies for highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) are also included in the study. The analysis and assumptions were made using clinical and cost data from Southern Africa. According to the authors, CD4 monitoring and initiation of HAART are effective in reducing health care expenditures in South Africa.

Background: The costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of screening for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in health care settings during the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) have not been determined. Methods: We developed a Markov model of costs, quality of life, and survival associated with an HIV-screening program as compared with current practice. In both strategies, symptomatic patients were identified through symptom-based case finding. Identified patients started treatment when their CD4 count dropped to 350 cells per cubic millimeter. Disease progression was defined on the basis of CD4 levels and viral load. The likelihood of sexual transmission was based on viral load, knowledge of HIV status, and efficacy of counseling. Results: Given a 1 percent prevalence of unidentified HIV infection, screening increased life expectancy by 5.48 days, or 4.70 quality-adjusted days, at an estimated cost of $194 per screened patient, for a cost-effectiveness ratio of $15,078 per quality-adjusted life-year. Screening cost less than $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year if the prevalence of unidentified HIV infection exceeded 0.05 percent. Excluding HIV transmission, the cost-effectiveness of screening was $41,736 per quality-adjusted life-year. Screening every five years, as compared with a one-time screening program, cost $57,138 per quality-adjusted life-year, but was more attractive in settings with a high incidence of infection. Our results were sensitive to the efficacy of behavior modification, the benefit of early identification and therapy, and the prevalence and incidence of HIV infection. Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of routine HIV screening in health care settings, even in relatively low-prevalence populations, is similar to that of commonly accepted interventions, and such programs should be expanded. N Engl J Med 2005;352:570-85. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]