Literature DB >> 30885422

The cost-effectiveness of public health interventions examined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence from 2005 to 2018.

L Owen1, A Fischer2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reviews of economic evaluations of public health (PH) interventions assessed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the periods 2005-2010 and 2011-2016 have been undertaken. This study combines these analyses, adds six further guidelines published since then, and thus provides a summary of cost-effectiveness of NICE's PH interventions to the present.
METHODS: As in previous studies, economic evaluations carried out between 2005 and 2018 were categorised by the type of economic analysis used to extract and summarise base-case ICERs. A number of 'sensitivity analyses' were carried out to test the validity of the approach.
RESULTS: Of 71 guidelines examined, 27 used cost utility analysis (CUA) for specific interventions, yielding 380 individual base-case ICER estimates (or 221 taking into account clustering of interventions). The median cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) ICER for the 380 estimates was £1,986. Of these, 21% were cost saving, and 54% ranged from £1 to £20,000, 3% were between £20,001 and £30,000, 16% were above £30,000 and 5% were dominated. Taking clustering into account made relatively little difference to these results. Reducing the threshold from £20,000/QALY to £15,000/QALY would result in 2% of ICERs moving across the threshold.
CONCLUSIONS: Seventy-five percent of PH interventions assessed were cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY when disregarding clustering, and 68% were cost-effective when clusters were represented by a single ICER. Other analyses gave similar results for the distribution of ICERs. Limitations of the analysis are discussed. Crown
Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost Effectiveness; Cost utility analysis; Health Economics; Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30885422     DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.02.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health        ISSN: 0033-3506            Impact factor:   2.427


  5 in total

1.  The Cost-Effectiveness of Nicotine Replacement Therapy Sampling in Primary Care: a Markov Cohort Simulation Model.

Authors:  Brian Chen; Gerard A Silvestri; Jennifer Dahne; Kyueun Lee; Matthew J Carpenter
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 6.473

2.  Use of Simple Telemetry to Reduce the Health Impacts of Fuel Poverty and Living in Cold Homes.

Authors:  Adam Pollard; Tim Jones; Stephen Sherratt; Richard A Sharpe
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 3.390

3.  The Role of Prevention in Reducing the Economic Impact of ME/CFS in Europe: A Report from the Socioeconomics Working Group of the European Network on ME/CFS (EUROMENE).

Authors:  Derek F H Pheby; Diana Araja; Uldis Berkis; Elenka Brenna; John Cullinan; Jean-Dominique de Korwin; Lara Gitto; Dyfrig A Hughes; Rachael M Hunter; Dominic Trepel; Xia Wang-Steverding
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 2.430

Review 4.  'What You See is All There is': The Importance of Heuristics in Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) in the Evaluation of Public Health Interventions.

Authors:  Rhiannon Tudor Edwards; Catherine Louise Lawrence
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 2.561

Review 5.  Population health, economics and ethics in the age of COVID-19.

Authors:  Sanjay G Reddy
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2020-07
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.