1 / 53

Health Economics

Health Economics. Comparing different allocations Should we spent our money on Wheel chairs Screening for cancer Comparing costs Comparing outcome Outcomes must be comparable Make a generic outcome measure. Outcomes in health economics. Specific outcome are incompatible

bijan
Download Presentation

Health Economics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Health Economics • Comparing different allocations • Should we spent our money on • Wheel chairs • Screening for cancer • Comparing costs • Comparing outcome • Outcomes must be comparable • Make a generic outcome measure

  2. Outcomes in health economics • Specific outcome are incompatible • Allow only for comparisons within the specific field • Clinical successes: successful operation, total cure • Clinical failures: “events” • Generic outcome are compatible • Allow for comparisons between fields • Life years • Quality of life • Most generic outcome • Quality adjusted life year (QALY)

  3. Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) • Multiply life years with quality index • Quality of life index • 1.0 = normal health • 0.0 = death (extremely bad health) • Example • Losing sense of sight • Quality of life index is 0.5 • Life = 80 years • 0.5 x 80 = 40 QALYs

  4. Which health care program is the most cost-effective? • A new wheelchair for elderly (iBOT) • Special post natal care

  5. Which health care program is the most cost-effective? • A new wheelchair for elderly (iBOT) • Increases quality of life = 0.1 • 10 years benefit • Extra costs: $ 3,000 per life year • QALY = Y x V(Q) = 10 x 0.1 = 1 QALY • Costs are 10 x $3,000 = $30,000 • Cost/QALY = 30,000/QALY • Special post natal care • Quality of life = 0.8 • 35 year • Costs are $250,000 • QALY = 35 x 0.8 = 28 QALY • Cost/QALY = 8,929/QALY

  6. QALY league table

  7. Egalitarian Concerns:Burden of disease 1.0 Utility of Health 0.0 A B C

  8. CE-ratio by equity

  9. Burden as criteria Pronk & Bonsel, Eur J Health Econom 2004, 5: 274-277

  10. What form of equity?

  11. 3500 Citations in PubMed

  12. Top 6 journals Cost Utility Analysis www.tufts-nemc.org/cearegistry

  13. Most debate about the QoL estimates • Unidimensional QoL • In QALY we need a unidimensional assessment of Quality of life • Rules out multidimensional questionnaires • SF-36, NHP, WHOQOL

  14. Utility assessment • Unidimensional QoL • Often called ‘utility’

  15. Who to ask? The patient, of course!

  16. The clinical perspective • Quality of life is subjective….. • “Given its inherently subjective nature, consensus was quickly reached that quality of life ratings should, whenever possible, be elicited directly from patients themselves. “ • (Niel Aaronson, in B. Spilker: Quality of life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trails, 1996, page 180) • …therefore ask the patient!

  17. Patient values count…. • […] the best way to do this, the technology, is a patient-based assessment. They report, they evaluate, they tell you in a highly standardized way, and that information is used with the clinical data and the economic data to get the best value for the health care dollar.” • John Ware

  18. Healthy Death A problem in the patient perspective…. • Stensman • Scan J Rehab Med 1985;17:87-99. • Scores on a visual analogue scale • 36 subjects in a wheelchair • 36 normal matched controls • Mean score • Wheelchair: 8.0 • Health controls: 8.3

  19. The economic perspective • In a normal market: the consumer values count • The patient seems to be the consumer • Thus the values of the patients…. • If indeed health care is a normal market… • But is it….?

  20. Health care is not a normal market • Supply induced demands • Government control • Financial support (egalitarian structure) • Patient  Consumer • The patient does not pay • Consumer = General public • Potential patients are paying • Health care is an insurance market • A compulsory insurance market

  21. Health care is an insurance market • Values of benefit in health care have to be judged from a insurance perspective • Who values should be used the insurance perspective?

  22. Who determines the payments of unemployment insurance? • Civil servant • Knowledge: professional • But suspected for strategical answers • more money, less problems • identify with unemployed persons • The unemployed persons themselves • Knowledge: specific • But suspected for strategical answers • General public (politicians) • Knowledge: experience • Payers

  23. Who’s values (of quality of life) should count in the health insurance? • Doctors • Knowledge: professional • But suspected for strategical answers • See only selection of patient • Identification with own patient • Patients • Knowledge: disease specific • But suspected for strategical answers • But coping • General public • Knowledge: experience • Payers • Like costs: the societal perspective

  24. Validated questionnaires MOBILITY • I have no problems in walking about • I have some problems in walking about • I am confined to bed SELF-CARE • I have no problems with self-care • I have some problems washing or dressing myself • I am unable to wash or dress myself USUAL ACTIVITIES (e.g. work, study, housework family or leisure activities) • I have no problems with performing my usual activities • I have some problems with performing my usual activities • I am unable to perform my usual activities PAIN/DISCOMFORT • I have no pain or discomfort • I have moderate pain or discomfort • I have extreme pain or discomfort ANXIETY/DEPRESSION • I am not anxious or depressed • I am moderately anxious or depressed • I am extremely anxious or depressed

  25. Describe health states Have values from the general public Rosser Matrix QWB 15D HUI Mark 2 HUI Mark 3 EuroQol EQ-5D Validated Questionnaires

  26. EQ-5D, HUI and SF-36 Of the shelf instruments….

  27. Validated questionnaires

  28. The Rosser & Kind Index

  29. The Rosser & Kind index • One of the oldest valuation • 1978: Magnitude estimation • Magnitude estimation  PTO • N = 70: Doctors, nurses, patients and general public • 1982: Transformation to “utilities” • 1985: High impact article • Williams A. For Debate... Economics of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. British Medical Journal 291: 326-28, 1985. • Survey at the celebration of 25 years of health economics: chosen most influential article on health economics

  30. More health states • Criticism on the Rosser & Kind index • Sensitivity (only 30 health states) • The unclear meaning of “distress” • The compression of states in the high values • The involvement of medical personnel • New initiatives • Higher sensitivity (more then 30 states) • More and better defined dimensions • Other valuation techniques • Standard Gamble, Time Trade-Off • Values of the general public

  31. Validated questionnaires

  32. No longer value all states • Impossible to value all health states • If one uses more than 30 health states • Estimated the value of the other health states with statistical techniques • Statistically inferred strategies • Regression techniques • EuroQol, Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB) • Explicitly decomposed methods • Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) • Health Utility Index (HUI)

  33. Statistically inferred strategies • Value a sample of states empirically • Extrapolation • Statistical methods, like linear regression • 11111 = 1.00 • 11113 = .70 • 11112 = ?

  34. Explicitly Decomposed Methods • Value dimensions separately • Between the dimensions • What is the relative value of: • Mobility…... 20% • Mood…….. 15% • Self care.… 24%. • Value the levels • Within the dimensions • What is the relative value of • Some problems with walking…… 80% • Much problems with walking…... 50% • Unable to walk…………………….10%

  35. Explicitly Decomposed Methods • Combine values of dimensions and levels with specific assumptions • Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) • Mutual utility independence • Structural independence

  36. Explicitly Decomposed Methods • Health Utilities Index (Mark 2 & 3) • Torrance at McMaster • 8 dimensions • Mark 2: 24.000 health states • Mark 3: 972.000 health states • The 15-D • Sintonen H. • 15 dimensions • 3,052,000,000 health states (3 billion)

  37. More health states, higher sensitivity ? (1) • EuroQol criticised for low sensitivity • Low number of dimensions • Development of EQ-5D plus cognitive dimension • Low number of levels (3) • Gab between best and in-between level

  38. More health states, higher sensitivity ? (2) • Little published evidence • Sensitivity EQ-5D < SF-36 • Compared as profile, not as utility measure • Sensitivity EQ-5D  HUI • Sensitivity  the number of health states • How well maps the classification system the illness? • How valid is the modelling? • How valid is the valuation?

  39. More health states, more assumptions • General public values at the most 50 states • The ratios empirical (50) versus extrapolated • Rosser & Kind 1:1 • EuroQol 1:5 • QWB 1:44 • SF-36 1:180 • HUI (Mark III) 1:19,400 • 15D 1:610,000,000 • What is the critical ratio for a valid validation?

  40. SF-36 as utility instrument • Transformed into SF6D • SG • N = 610 • Inconsistencies in model • 18.000 health states • regression technique stressed to the edge • Floor effect in SF6D

  41. Conflicting evidence sensitivity SF-36 Liver transplantation, Longworth et al., 2001

  42. Conclusions More states  better sensitivity The three leading questionnaires have different strong and weak points

  43. Value a health state • Wheelchair • Some problems in walking about • Some problems washing or dressing • Some problems with performing usual activities • Some pain or discomfort • No psychosocial problems

  44. Uni-dimensional value • Like the IQ-test measures intelligence • Ratio or interval scale • Difference 0.00 and 0.80 must be 8 time higher than 0.10 • Three popular methods have these pretensions • Visual analog scale • Time trade-off • Standard gamble

  45. Normal health X Dead Visual Analogue Scale • VAS • Also called “category scaling” • From psychological research • “How is your quality of life?” • “X” marks the spot • Rescale to [0..1] • Different anchor point possible: • Normal health (1.0) versus dead (0.0) • Best imaginable health versusworse imaginable health

  46. Time Trade-Off • TTO • Wheelchair • With a life expectancy: 50 years • How many years would you trade-off for a cure? • Max. trade-off is 10 years • QALY(wheel) = QALY(healthy) • Y * V(wheel) = Y * V(healthy) • 50 V(wheel) = 40 * 1 • V(wheel) = .8

  47. Standard Gamble • SG • Wheelchair • Life expectancy is not important here • How much are risk on death are you prepared to take for a cure? • Max. risk is 20% • wheels = (100%-20%) life on feet • V(Wheels) = 80% or .8

  48. Consistent picture of difference 103 students

  49. Health economics prefer TTO/SG • Visual analogue scale • Easy • No trade-off: no relation to QALY • No interval proportions • Standard Gamble / Time trade-Off • Less easy • Trade-off: clear relation to QALY • Interval proportions • Little difference between SG and TTO

  50. Little difference between Cost/Life Year and Cost/QALY Richard Chapman et al, 2004, Health Economics

More Related