Ulrikke J V Hernæs1, Kjell A Johansson2, Trygve Ottersen2, Ole F Norheim3,2. 1. Department of Research and Development, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. Ulrikke.hernaes@gmail.com. 2. Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 3. Department of Research and Development, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is widely acknowledged that concerns for the worse off need to be integrated with the concern for cost effectiveness in priority setting, and several countries are seeking to do so. In Norway, a comprehensive framework for priority setting was recently proposed to specify the worse off in terms of lifetime loss of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). However, few studies have shown how to calculate such health losses, how to integrate health loss into cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and how such integration impacts the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The aim of this study was to do so. METHODS: The proposed framework was applied to data from 15 recent economic evaluations of drugs. Available data were used to calculate the lifetime health loss of the target groups, and the proposed marginal weighting function was employed to adjust standard ICERs according to the size of this loss. Standard and weighted ICERs were compared to a threshold of US$35,000 per QALY gained. RESULTS: Lifetime health loss can be calculated with the use of available data and integrated by a marginal weighting function with CEAs. Such integration affected standard ICERs to a varying degree and changed the number of interventions considered cost effective from three to eight. CONCLUSION: Calculation of lifetime health loss and its integration with CEA is feasible and can influence the reimbursement and ranking of interventions. To facilitate regular integration, guidelines for economic evaluations could require (i) adjustment according to distributional concerns and (ii) that data on health loss are extracted directly from the models and reported. Generic databases on health loss could be developed alongside such efforts.
BACKGROUND: It is widely acknowledged that concerns for the worse off need to be integrated with the concern for cost effectiveness in priority setting, and several countries are seeking to do so. In Norway, a comprehensive framework for priority setting was recently proposed to specify the worse off in terms of lifetime loss of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). However, few studies have shown how to calculate such health losses, how to integrate health loss into cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and how such integration impacts the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The aim of this study was to do so. METHODS: The proposed framework was applied to data from 15 recent economic evaluations of drugs. Available data were used to calculate the lifetime health loss of the target groups, and the proposed marginal weighting function was employed to adjust standard ICERs according to the size of this loss. Standard and weighted ICERs were compared to a threshold of US$35,000 per QALY gained. RESULTS: Lifetime health loss can be calculated with the use of available data and integrated by a marginal weighting function with CEAs. Such integration affected standard ICERs to a varying degree and changed the number of interventions considered cost effective from three to eight. CONCLUSION: Calculation of lifetime health loss and its integration with CEA is feasible and can influence the reimbursement and ranking of interventions. To facilitate regular integration, guidelines for economic evaluations could require (i) adjustment according to distributional concerns and (ii) that data on health loss are extracted directly from the models and reported. Generic databases on health loss could be developed alongside such efforts.
Authors: Gregory Hill; Richard Barron; Kelly Fust; Michelle E Skornicki; Douglas C A Taylor; Milton C Weinstein; Gary H Lyman Journal: J Med Econ Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 2.448
Authors: Ahmed M Bayoumi; Paul G Barnett; Vilija R Joyce; Susan C Griffin; Huiying Sun; Nick J Bansback; Mark Holodniy; Gillian Sanders; Sheldon T Brown; Tassos C Kyriakides; Brian Angus; D William Cameron; Aslam H Anis; Mark Sculpher; Douglas K Owens Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2013-12-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Nicole Mittmann; Heather-Jane Au; Dongsheng Tu; Christopher J O'Callaghan; Pierre K Isogai; Christos S Karapetis; John R Zalcberg; William K Evans; Malcolm J Moore; Jehan Siddiqui; Brian Findlay; Bruce Colwell; John Simes; Peter Gibbs; Matthew Links; Niall C Tebbutt; Derek J Jonker Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Shannon Allen Ferrante; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Clifford A Brass; Antoine C El Khoury; Fred Poordad; Jean-Pierre Bronowicki; Elamin H Elbasha Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2013-04-27 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Gareth J Morgan; Faith E Davies; Walter M Gregory; Kim Cocks; Sue E Bell; Alex J Szubert; Nuria Navarro-Coy; Mark T Drayson; Roger G Owen; Sylvia Feyler; A John Ashcroft; Fiona Ross; Jennifer Byrne; Huw Roddie; Claudius Rudin; Gordon Cook; Graham H Jackson; J Anthony Child Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Rob Baltussen; Maarten P Jansen; Evelinn Mikkelsen; Noor Tromp; Jan Hontelez; Leon Bijlmakers; Gert Jan Van der Wilt Journal: Int J Health Policy Manag Date: 2016-11-01
Authors: Frode Lindemark; Øystein A Haaland; Reidar Kvåle; Hans Flaatten; Ole F Norheim; Kjell A Johansson Journal: Crit Care Date: 2017-08-21 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Matthijs M Versteegh; Isaac Corro Ramos; Nasuh C Buyukkaramikli; Amir Ansaripour; Vivian T Reckers-Droog; Werner B F Brouwer Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 4.981