Search results

To assist in achieving cost effective health care allocations in a collective choice setting, the purpose of this paper is to illustrate the use of a tool not common in the public budgeting literature but is common in the health economics literature.

Through a meta-analysis of the health care spending literature that computed the value of quality-adjusted life years, the authors provide an alternative approach for budgeters and policymakers.

The authors provide an alternative approach for budgeters and policymakers for weighing the benefits of alternative health care spending allocations.

The authors introduce an alternative approach for weighing the benefits of alternative health care spending allocations. As a tool for budgeting professionals, cost per QALY allows for the opportunity to raise cost-effectiveness of public health expenditures as a tool for governments to allocate resources based on outcomes, rather than inputs.

Much has been written in the past 15 years on the rationing of services, quality of life, and quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs). However, there still seems to be much confusion and controversy as to the meaning of, and use of, the term QALY, by many professional groups. Aims to discuss the nature of QALYs and the use/potential use in the NHS today by referring to the recent literature.

Examines the political and ideological significance of measures of quality of life, specifically Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Briefly reviews recent developments in the debate surrounding the economic and political functions of quality of life measures. The dialectic between conceptions of the quality of life and the implicit realpolitik of socio‐economic pressures, ecological conditions, political ethos and cultural norms and expectations, is conceived as a powerful means for the critique of our aspirations concerning health. Argues that existing approaches to assessing quality of life, in denying this dialectic, have jeopardized their potential contribution to the planning, implementation and evaluation of health care policy. Resource allocation challenges us to develop openly ideological strategies and measures.

This study aims to explore the use and relevance of WALYs (well-being-adjusted life years) in light of the utilitarian premises of neoclassical economics that continue to dominate health outcomes evaluation. QALYs (quality-adjusted life years) and DALYs (disability-adjusted life years) measure longevity and quality of life in terms of purely health-related aspects and outcomes of medical interventions. However, evaluative questions of subjective well-being may be equally important in comparing outcomes and cost-effectiveness of these interventions.

A two-phase online search strategy for refereed research on dry eye treatment with omega-3 fatty acids (omega-3s) was adopted. Phase I aimed to identify and contrast clinical parameters of efficacy in omega-3 dietary supplementation. Phase II aimed to find a preference-based, multi-attribute utility instrument specific and sensitive enough to dry eye and its consequences on patients’ subjective well-being. We then illustrate how WALYs can be conceptualized and calculated based on the search results.

Empiric therapies like omega-3s can be assessed in terms of reducing or relieving symptomatic discomfort and pain, and enabling the patient to enjoy life and derive satisfaction from daily activities. We find in VisQoL (Vision and Quality of Life Index) a viable alternative to conventional multi-attribute utility instruments, including those typically used in QALY and DALY calculations. Clinical efficacy indices of dry eye can be linked to VisQoL’s quality of life dimensions. Differently weighted outcomes can be aggregated. And WALYs per patient per year can be computed by scaling aggregated outcomes to match the WALY rating scale. The implications of subjective well-being for both patient and society can thus be approached from a broader and richer perspective.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind in pharmaceutical outcomes valuation and marketing. It offers a framework for analyzing life satisfaction and well-being among dry eye patients under treatment. It is also the first to use and adapt a multi-attribute utility measure to treatment outcomes of omega-3s in ocular diseases, from which this study suggests WALYs may be computed. However, it does not suggest that WALYs should supplant QALYs and DALYs in evaluating health outcomes. Medical economics is enriched if alternative methods of outcomes evaluations can help fill in the gaps in existing paradigms and do so by accounting for other effects of condition-specific interventions. Costs and benefits of interventions to the individual and society can then be valued not just more effectively, but also more equitably.

Qalys (quality‐adjusted life years) are used to make judgements about resource allocation in medical care and other matters. Since this may involve the qalys of prospective individuals (who are not yet born but may be born under some relevant alternative and not in another), the use of qalys involves a fundamental philosophical problem related to optimal population, believed to be “insoluble”. This paper provides a solution to this problem that is based on the classical utilitarian position modified to account for the partiality of existing people towards their own welfare. However, a different difficulty with qalys is raised since the use of qalys may be Pareto inefficient in comparison to using willingness to pay. The objection to willingness to pay based on inequality is responded to.

During the last two or three years, economists in Britain have advocated the use of cost‐effectiveness criteria to determine National Health Service (NHS) allocation decisions and, in particular, they have provided estimates of the costs of achieving particular outcomes from alternative therapies, especially an additional year of life of full quality (or a quality adjusted life year (QALY)) (eg, Maynard (1987), Akehurst and Drummond (1987)). In North America, similar arguments and comparable cost‐QALY estimates are being produced by a variety of researchers using a range of estimation techniques (for a summary see Torrance (1986)).

Although very significant and applicable, there have been no formal justifications for the use of Monte‐Carlo models and Markov chains in evaluating hospital admission decisions or concrete data supporting their use. For these reasons, this research was designed to provide a deeper understanding of these models. The purpose of this paper is to examine the usefulness of a computerized Monte‐Carlo simulation of admission decisions under the constraints of emergency departments.

The authors construct a simple decision tree using the expected utility method to represent the complex admission decision process terms of quality adjusted life years (QALY) then show the advantages of using a Monte‐Carlo simulation in evaluating admission decisions in a cohort simulation, using a decision tree and a Markov chain.

After showing that the Monte‐Carlo simulation outperforms an expected utility method without a simulation, the authors develop a decision tree with such a model. real cohort simulation data are used to demonstrate that the integration of a Monte‐Carlo simulation shows which patients should be admitted.

This paper may encourage researchers to use Monte‐Carlo simulation in evaluating admission decision implications. The authors also propose applying the model when using a computer simulation that deals with various CVD symptoms in clinical cohorts.

Aside from demonstrating the value of a Monte‐Carlo simulation as a powerful analysis tool, the paper's findings may prompt researchers to conduct a decision analysis with a Monte‐Carlo simulation in the healthcare environment.

Hepatitis A is a prevalent disease that is largely preventable by vaccine usage. The vaccine for this illness is highly underused in most regions. In an attempt to find the strategies that are most beneficial in regard to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost in current environments, the purpose of this paper is to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses to investigate vaccination strategies in a more economically developed country (MEDC), generally known as a “developed” area: the USA, and a less economically developed country (LEDC), generally known as a “developing” area: the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

This study used a dynamic transmission model for comparative effectiveness analyses. The model ran two different scenarios. The two regions studied have different policies and strategies for Hepatitis A vaccination currently, and also used different strategies in 2009. In the USA, a universal vaccination policy was modeled, along with a scenario in which it was removed. In Rio de Janeiro, a no vaccination policy was modeled, along with a scenario in which a universal vaccination policy was effected.

The comparison of resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values to accepted threshold values showed universal vaccination to be cost-effective in both the USA and Rio de Janeiro as compared to no vaccination. When episode and vaccination costs and vaccination efficacy were varied, this still remained true. Universal vaccination was found to result in lower incidence of Hepatitis A in both the USA and Rio de Janeiro. Over the twenty-year time horizon, universal vaccination is projected to prevent 506,945 cases of symptomatic Hepatitis A in the USA and 42,318 cases of Hepatitis A in Rio de Janeiro. Other benefits include a projected increase in cumulative QALYs through the use of universal vaccination.

This analysis showed universal vaccination to be cost-effective as compared to no vaccination, and portions of the study’s approach had not previously been applied in tandem to investigate Hepatitis A interventions. The results may help foster higher compliance rates for Hepatitis A vaccination and even greater per-person economic benefits of universal vaccination, particularly in the USA. The purpose of this study is also to encourage elevated levels of surveillance on age of infection in developing regions and consistent reevaluation utilizing dynamic transmission models in both the USA and Brazil, as well as other rapidly developing regions, in order to prevent future epidemics and costs associated with the disease.

For years, traditional techniques have been used for diabetes treatment. There are two major types of insulin: insulin analogs and regular insulin. Insulin analogs are similar to regular insulin and lead to changes in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. The purpose of the present research was to determine the cost-effectiveness of insulin analogs versus regular insulin for diabetes control in Yazd Diabetes Center in 2017.

In this descriptive–analytical research, the cost-effectiveness index was used to compare insulin analogs and regular insulin (pen/vial) for treatment of diabetes. Data were analyzed in the TreeAge Software and a decision tree was constructed. A 10% discount rate was used for ICER sensitivity analysis. Cost-effectiveness was examined from a provider's perspective.

QALY was calculated to be 0.2 for diabetic patients using insulin analogs and 0.05 for those using regular insulin. The average cost was $3.228 for analog users and $1.826 for regular insulin users. An ICER of $0.093506/QALY was obtained. The present findings suggest that insulin analogs are more cost-effective than regular insulin.

This study was conducted using a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate insulin analogs versus regular insulin in controlling diabetes. The results of study are helpful to the government to allocate more resources to apply the cost-effective method of the treatment and to protect patients with diabetes from the high cost of treatment.

Purpose – Although the US has lagged behind international developments in health technology assessment (HTA), renewed interest in HTA in the US has been fueled by the appropriation of $1.1 billion comparative effectiveness research (CER) in 2009 and the debate over health care reform.

Approach – To inform CER practices in the US, we present case studies of HTA from England/Wales and Germany: contrasting methods; relevance to the US; and impact on innovation.

Findings – The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) was established in 1999 to inform trusts within the National Health Service of England and Wales. It uses cost-effectiveness analysis to guide the allocation resource across preventative and curative interventions. In Germany, the Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) was established in 2004 to inform reimbursement and pricing policies for the statutory sickness funds set by the Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA). IQWiG evaluates competing technologies within specific therapeutic areas, placing more weight on clinical evidence and the relative efficiency of competing therapies.

Practical implications – Although having deep political and cultural antecedents, differences between NICE and IQWiG can be explained by perspective: the former guiding resource allocation across an entire system (macro-evaluation), the latter focusing on efficiency within the bounds of a particular therapeutic area (micro-evaluation). Given the decentralized nature of the US health care system, and the relative powers of different medical specialties, the IQWiG model presents a more suitable case study to guided CER efforts in the US.