Explore the vast range of titles available.

America's health care system has become too complex and costly to continue business as usual. Best Care at Lower Cost explains that inefficiencies, an overwhelming amount of data, and other economic and quality barriers hinder progress in improving health and threaten the nation's economic stability and global competitiveness. According to this report, the knowledge and tools exist to put the health system on the right course to achieve continuous improvement and better quality care at a lower cost. The costs of the system's current inefficiency underscore the urgent need for a systemwide transformation. About 30 percent of health spending in 2009-roughly $750 billion-was wasted on unnecessary services, excessive administrative costs, fraud, and other problems. Moreover, inefficiencies cause needless suffering. By one estimate, roughly 75,000 deaths might have been averted in 2005 if every state had delivered care at the quality level of the best performing state. This report states that the way health care providers currently train, practice, and learn new information cannot keep pace with the flood of research discoveries and technological advances. About 75 million Americans have more than one chronic condition, requiring coordination among multiple specialists and therapies, which can increase the potential for miscommunication, misdiagnosis, potentially conflicting interventions, and dangerous drug interactions. Best Care at Lower Cost emphasizes that a better use of data is a critical element of a continuously improving health system, such as mobile technologies and electronic health records that offer significant potential to capture and share health data better. In order for this to occur, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, IT developers, and standard-setting organizations should ensure that these systems are robust and interoperable. Clinicians and care organizations should fully adopt these technologies, and patients should be encouraged to use tools, such as personal health information portals, to actively engage in their care. This book is a call to action that will guide health care providers; administrators; caregivers; policy makers; health professionals; federal, state, and local government agencies; private and public health organizations; and educational institutions.

Financial Management for Health-System Pharmacists, 2nd edition, serves as a guidebook to support the management of enterprise pharmacy finance across business and care continuums. The 2nd edition engages the reader with a mix of chapters, some new to this edition, along with a trove of new health-system pharmacy financial business cases. As leaders look to transform their organizations, the principles and practices provided give the reader the knowledge and guidance to craft a new path forward as they look to improve the provision of pharmacy and patient-care services.

This is the definitive work on Medicare's prospective payment system (PPS), which had its origins in the 1972 Social Security Amendments, was first applied to hospitals in 1983, and came to fruition with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Here, Rick Mayes and Robert A. Berenson, M.D., explain how Medicare's innovative payment system triggered shifts in power away from the providers (hospitals and doctors) to the payers (government insurers and employers) and how providers have responded to encroachments on their professional and financial autonomy. They conclude with a discussion of the problems with the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and offer prescriptions for how policy makers can use Medicare payment policy to drive improvements in the U.S. health care system. Mayes and Berenson draw from interviews with more than sixty-five major policy makers—including former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, U.S. Representatives Pete Stark and Henry Waxman, former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta, and former administrators of the Health Care Financing Administration Gail Wilensky, Bruce Vladeck, Nancy-Ann DeParle, and Tom Scully—to explore how this payment system worked and its significant effects on the U.S. medical landscape in the past twenty years. They argue that, although managed care was an important agent of change in the 1990s, the private sector has not been the major health care innovator in the United States; rather, Medicare's transition to PPS both initiated and repeatedly intensified the economic restructuring of the U.S. health care system.

Information on the costs and benefits of eHealth interventions is needed, not only to document value for money and to support decision making in the field, but also to form the basis for developing business models and to facilitate payment systems to support large-scale services. In the absence of solid evidence of its effects, key decision makers may doubt the effectiveness, which, in turn, limits investment in, and the long-term integration of, eHealth services. However, it is not realistic to conduct economic evaluations of all eHealth applications and services in all situations, so we need to be able to generalize from those we do conduct. This implies that we have to select the most appropriate methodology and data collection strategy in order to increase the transferability across evaluations. This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of how to apply economic evaluation methodology in the eHealth field. It provides a brief overview of basic health economics principles and frameworks and discusses some methodological issues and challenges in conducting cost-effectiveness analysis of eHealth interventions. Issues regarding the identification, measurement, and valuation of costs and benefits are outlined. Furthermore, this work describes the established techniques of combining costs and benefits, presents the decision rules for identifying the preferred option, and outlines approaches to data collection strategies. Issues related to transferability and complexity are also discussed.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

We use data from the Head Start Impact Study (HSIS) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Head Start, the largest early childhood education program in the United States. Head Start draws roughly a third of its participants from competing preschool programs, many of which receive public funds. We show that accounting for the fiscal impacts of such program substitution pushes estimates of Head Start’s benefit-cost ratio well above one under a wide range of assumptions on the structure of the market for preschool services and the dollar value of test score gains. To parse the program’s test score impacts relative to home care and competing preschools, we selection-correct test scores in each care environment using excluded interactions between experimental assignments and household characteristics. We find that Head Start generates larger test score gains for children who would not otherwise attend preschool and for children who are less likely to participate in the program.

BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus chemotherapy (NIVO + Chemo) compared with chemotherapy monotherapy (Chemo) for patients with advanced or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction or esophageal adenocarcinoma (GC/GEJC/EAC) in Japan from the perspective of healthcare payer.MethodsA partitioned survival analysis model was developed to predict costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for NIVO + Chemo and Chemo. The time horizon of the model was set to 38 years. An annual discount rate of 2% for both costs and QALYs was applied. Data on overall survival and progression-free survival were derived from the CheckMate649 trial. Cost parameters were estimated from a Japanese medical claims database. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NIVO + Chemo compared with Chemo was estimated. A subgroup analysis on the level of PD-L1 CPS expression was conducted. In addition, sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the uncertainty in the parameter settings.ResultsThe incremental cost and QALY of NIVO + Chemo compared with Chemo were USD99,416 and 0.30 QALY, respectively. The ICER of NIVO + Chemo was estimated to be USD327,161 per QALY gained. The results of the subgroup analysis showed that ICER was USD247,403/QALY and USD302,183/QALY for PD-L1 CPS ≧ 5 and ≧ 1, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed a relatively robust result that the ICER remained higher than the Japanese cancer threshold of USD75,000–150,000/QALY.ConclusionsApplying the Japanese cancer threshold of USD75,000–150,000/QALY, NIVO + Chemo was not cost-effective for patients with advanced or metastatic HER2-negative GC/GEJC/EAC in Japan from the perspective of healthcare payer.

Background: In the context of limited resources, evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness of alternative methods of delivering health-care services is increasingly important to facilitate appropriate resource allocation. Palliative care services have been expanding worldwide with the aim of improving the experience of patients with terminal illness at the end of life through better symptom control, coordination of care and improved communication between professionals and the patient and family. Aim: To present results from a comprehensive literature review of available international evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of palliative care interventions in any setting (e.g. hospital-based, home-based and hospice care) over the period 2002–2011. Design: Key bibliographic and review databases were searched. Quality of retrieved papers was assessed against a set of 31 indicators developed for this review. Data Sources: PubMed, EURONHEED, the Applied Social Sciences Index and the Cochrane library of databases. Results: A total of 46 papers met the criteria for inclusion in the review, examining the cost and/or utilisation implications of a palliative care intervention with some form of comparator. The main focus of these studies was on direct costs with little focus on informal care or out-of-pocket costs. The overall quality of the studies is mixed, although a number of cohort studies do undertake multivariate regression analysis. Conclusion: Despite wide variation in study type, characteristic and study quality, there are consistent patterns in the results. Palliative care is most frequently found to be less costly relative to comparator groups, and in most cases, the difference in cost is statistically significant.

Along with being the biggest sector of the U.S. economy, healthcare is also the most dysfunctional. This book presents a compelling vision of how healthcare can work better and how we can get there with the current resources. Providing a comprehensive, positive, and intriguing vision of the future, this book tells healthcare providers how they can reposition their organizations to thrive regardless of what the government does in regards to policy. It also outlines how employers can save money by changing the way they provide healthcare to their employees.