Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
69,486
result(s) for
"cost benefit analysis"
Sort by:
How to Measure Costs and Benefits of eHealth Interventions: An Overview of Methods and Frameworks
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.
Journal Article
EVALUATING PUBLIC PROGRAMS WITH CLOSE SUBSTITUTES
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.
Journal Article
The low but uncertain measured benefits of US water quality policy
US investment to decrease pollution in rivers, lakes, and other surface waters has exceeded $1.9 trillion since 1960, and has also exceeded the cost of most other US environmental initiatives. These investments come both from the 1972 Clean Water Act and the largely voluntary efforts to control pollution from agriculture and urban runoff. This paper reviews the methods and conclusions of about 20 recent evaluations of these policies. Surprisingly, most analyses estimate that these policies’ benefits are much smaller than their costs; the benefit–cost ratio from the median study is 0.37. However, existing evidence is limited and undercounts many types of benefits. We conclude that it is unclear whether many of these regulations truly fail a benefit–cost test or whether existing evidence understates their net benefits; we also describe specific questions that when answered would help eliminate this uncertainty.
Journal Article
Cost-Effectiveness of Telemedicine in Remote Orthopedic Consultations: Randomized Controlled Trial
Telemedicine consultations using real-time videoconferencing has the potential to improve access and quality of care, avoid patient travels, and reduce health care costs.
The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of an orthopedic videoconferencing service between the University Hospital of North Norway and a regional medical center in a remote community located 148 km away.
An economic evaluation based on a randomized controlled trial of 389 patients (559 consultations) referred to the hospital for an orthopedic outpatient consultation was conducted. The intervention group (199 patients) was randomized to receive video-assisted remote orthopedic consultations (302 consultations), while the control group (190 patients) received standard care in outpatient consultation at the hospital (257 consultations). A societal perspective was adopted for calculating costs. Health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Resource use and health outcomes were collected alongside the trial at baseline and at 12 months follow-up using questionnaires, patient charts, and consultation records. These were valued using externally collected data on unit costs and QALY weights. An extended sensitivity analysis was conducted to address the robustness of the results.
This study showed that using videoconferencing for orthopedic consultations in the remote clinic costs less than standard outpatient consultations at the specialist hospital, as long as the total number of patient consultations exceeds 151 per year. For a total workload of 300 consultations per year, the annual cost savings amounted to €18,616. If costs were calculated from a health sector perspective, rather than a societal perspective, the number of consultations needed to break even was 183.
This study showed that providing video-assisted orthopedic consultations to a remote clinic in Northern Norway, rather than having patients travel to the specialist hospital for consultations, is cost-effective from both a societal and health sector perspective. This conclusion holds as long as the activity exceeds 151 and 183 patient consultations per year, respectively.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00616837; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00616837 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/762dZPoKX).
Journal Article
Cost-effectiveness of rapid, ICU-based, syndromic PCR in hospital-acquired pneumonia: analysis of the INHALE WP3 multi-centre RCT
Background
Hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP and VAP) are pneumonias arising > 48 h after admission or intubation respectively. Conventionally, HAP/VAP patients are given broad-spectrum empiric antibiotics at clinical diagnosis, refined after 48–72 h, once microbiology results become available. Molecular tests offer swifter results,
potentially
improving patient care. To investigate whether this potential is realisable, we conducted a pragmatic multi-centre RCT (‘INHALE WP3’) of rapid, syndromic polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in ICU HAP/VAP compared with standard of care. As the use of molecular tests impact on hospital resources, it is important to consider their potential value-for-money to make fully informed decisions. Consequently, INHALE WP3 included an economic evaluation, presented here. Its aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of an in-ICU PCR (bioMérieux BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel) in HAP/VAP, informing whether to implement such technology in routine NHS care.
Methods
We collected data on patient resource use and costs. These data were combined with INHALE WP3’s two primary outcome measures: antibiotic stewardship at 24 h and clinical cure at 14 days. Cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out using regression models adjusting for site. Sensitivity analyses explored assumptions and sub-group analyses explored differential impacts.
Results
We found lower total ICU costs (including PCR costs) in the intervention (PCR-guided therapy) group. Average costs were £40,951 for standard of care compared with £33,149 for the intervention group, a difference of − £7,802 (95% CI: − £15,696, £92). For antibiotic stewardship, the PCR-guided therapy was both less costly and more effective than routine patient management. For clinical cure, we did not find PCR-guided therapy to be cost-effective due to fewer cases being cured in the intervention group.
Conclusions
We found lower average ICU costs with the Pneumonia Panel. The pneumonia panel was cost-effective in terms of antibiotic stewardship, but not clinical cure.
Trial registration
: Registered as ISRCTN16483855 on 5th August 2019.
Journal Article
Cost-effectiveness of high flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care
Background
High flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) are two widely used modes of non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care units. The FIRST-ABC randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with CPAP in two distinct critical care populations: acutely ill children (‘step-up’ RCT) and extubated children (‘step-down’ RCT). Clinical effectiveness findings (time to liberation from all forms of respiratory support) showed that HFNC was non-inferior to CPAP in the step-up RCT, but failed to meet non-inferiority criteria in the step-down RCT. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of HFNC versus CPAP.
Methods
All-cause mortality, health-related Quality of Life (HrQoL), and costs up to six months were reported using FIRST-ABC RCTs data. HrQoL was measured with the age-appropriate Paediatric Quality of Life Generic Core Scales questionnaire and mapped onto the Child Health Utility 9D index score at six months. Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were estimated by combining HrQoL with mortality. Costs at six months were calculated by measuring and valuing healthcare resources used in paediatric critical care units, general medical wards and wider health service. The cost-effectiveness analysis used regression methods to report the cost-effectiveness of HFNC versus CPAP at six months and summarised the uncertainties around the incremental cost-effectiveness results.
Results
In both RCTs, the incremental QALYs at six months were similar between the randomised groups. The estimated incremental cost at six months was − £4565 (95% CI − £11,499 to £2368) and − £5702 (95% CI − £11,328 to − £75) for step-down and step-up RCT, respectively. The incremental net benefits of HFNC versus CPAP in step-down RCT and step-up RCT were £4388 (95% CI − £2551 to £11,327) and £5628 (95% CI − £8 to £11,264) respectively. The cost-effectiveness results were surrounded by considerable uncertainties. The results were similar across most pre-specified subgroups, and the base case results were robust to alternative assumptions.
Conclusions
HFNC compared to CPAP as non-invasive respiratory support for critically-ill children in paediatric critical care units reduces mean costs and is relatively cost-effective overall and for key subgroups, although there is considerable statistical uncertainty surrounding this result.
Journal Article
Cost-Benefit Analysis versus Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from a Societal Perspective in Healthcare
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is the main way that economic evaluations are carried out in the health care field. However, CEA has limited validity in deciding whether any health care evaluation is socially worthwhile and hence justifies funding. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is the economic evaluation method that should be used to help decide what to invest in when the objective is to record the impact on everyone in society. Cost-utility analysis (CUA), which has its roots in CEA, can be converted into CBA under certain circumstances that are not general. In this article, the strengths and weaknesses of CEA relative to CBA are analyzed in stages, starting in its most classical form and then proceeding via CUA to end up as CBA. The analysis takes place mainly in the context of five actual dementia interventions that have already been found to pass a CBA test. The CBA data is recast into CEA and CUA terms in tabular form in order that the contrast been CEA and CBA is most transparent. We find that how much of the fixed budget that is used up to fund other alternatives determines how much is left over to fund the particular intervention one is evaluating.
Journal Article
Estimating the range of incremental cost-effectiveness thresholds for healthcare based on willingness to pay and GDP per capita: A systematic review
Decision-making in healthcare policy involves assessing both costs and benefits. In determining the cost-effectiveness (CE) threshold, willingness to pay (WTP) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), GDP per capita, and other factors are important. However, the relationship between WTP/QALY or GDP per capita and the CE threshold is unclear. It is important to clarify the relationship between WTP/QALY and GDP to provide a clear basis for setting the CE threshold.
The purpose of this study was to compare WTP/QALY and GDP per capita, and to develop a new CE threshold range based on WTP using GDP per capita. The relationship between WTP/QALY and healthy life expectancy (HALE) was also investigated.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science from 1980/01/01 to 2020/12/31 using the following selection criteria (latest search: Dec 2021):1, studies that estimated WTP/QALY; 2, the general population was surveyed; 3, the article was in English. From the collected articles, we obtained average values of WTP/QALY for various countries and compared WTP/QALY with GDP per capita. The correlation between WTP/QALY and HALE was also examined.
We identified 20 papers from 17 countries. Comparison of mean WTP/QALY values with GDP per capita showed that most WTP/QALY values were in the range of 0.5-1.5 times GDP per capita, though the median values were less than 0.5 times. Comparison of WTP/QALY with HALE showed a statistically significant positive correlation when Taiwan was excluded as an outlier.
Our results suggest a CE threshold range of 0.5-1.5 times GDP per capita is appropriate but lower than the WHO-recommended range of 1-3 times. The correlation between WTP/QALY and HALE suggests that investment in healthcare is reflected in an increased healthy life expectancy. Since WTP is based on consumer preferences, this range could be used to set a generally acceptable criterion.
Journal Article