1 / 14

EC8001 Assignment 2 Group 3 Marie Sinnott Deirdre Mahony

EC8001 Assignment 2 Group 3 Marie Sinnott Deirdre Mahony. Health technology assessment of a population-based colorectal cancel screening programme in Ireland (2009). HiQA – Health Technology Assessment (HTA). HiQA has statutory responsibility for Health Technology Assessment;

madge
Download Presentation

EC8001 Assignment 2 Group 3 Marie Sinnott Deirdre Mahony

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. EC8001 Assignment 2 Group 3 Marie Sinnott Deirdre Mahony Health technology assessment of a population-based colorectal cancel screening programme in Ireland(2009)

  2. HiQA – Health Technology Assessment (HTA) • HiQA has statutory responsibility for Health Technology Assessment; • Ensuring the best outcome for the service user by evaluating the clinical and economic effectiveness of drugs, equipment, diagnostic techniques and health promotion activities; • Required to make recommendation to the Minister on the preferred option • HTA directorate manages the research project but “buys in” expertise based on the requirements identified by the Expert Advisory Group

  3. The Problem • Colorectal cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer in both men and women; • Slow progression – 10-15 years to occur – patient prognosis is much better with early diagnosis; • On average 2,040 cases identified each year with 925 deaths each year; • Older people are most at risk; • Presents major challenges for an ageing population; • OECD critical of Irish performance in cancer care services.

  4. Conduct population-based screening to save lives: Preventing disease; Earlier detection and treatment for better outcomes; Invite a defined population who are at average risk to attend screening; Many different interventions available with different age targets; Population screening programmes widely used internationally Found to be cost-effective and occasionally cost-saving WHO guidance – must be effective, safe and acceptable to the population. Must be cost-effective and feasible for the health care system The Possible Solution?

  5. Purpose of HTA • Does the intervention (technology) work? • For whom does it work? • What is the benefit to the individual? • At what cost? • How does it compare to the alternative options available?

  6. Specific Evaluation Questions • Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of three selected screening options, relative to each other and against no-screening; • To estimate the resource requirements and health outcomes over 10 years; • To examine the ethical considerations arising from these findings; • The HTA did not estimate the budgetary impact of establishing such a screening programme – this had previously been done by the NCSS and formed part of the rationale for the HTA.

  7. HTA Process • Project Management Methodology & Approach • Expert Group • Multi-disciplinary team with experience of economic modelling, HTA, and Health Services Research; • Literature Review – published and unpublished • Economic Evaluation to determine the most cost-effective interventions; • Report on Ethical considerations; • Longitudinal resource implications. • Review planned for 2012

  8. Economic Analysis in HTA • Particularly useful for assessing cost-effectiveness of screening programmes • Three possible analytic approaches • Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) – uses LYG • Cost-Utility analysis (CUA) – uses - QALYs • Cost-Benefit – monetises benefits • Similar approaches to measuring costs – direct rather than indirect • Differences in measuring benefits • Cost-Utility analysis most widely used • Current evaluation uses both CEA and CUA • Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratios

  9. Economic model useful: Dealing with uncertainty To predict the Future ScHARR Model – modified to the Irish setting; Assumptions documented Whole of population approach; Cost estimates were compiled from hospital/pharmacies data and other studies; Extensive sensitivity analysis was conducted Economic Model

  10. Data • Population data • Rates of diagnosis • Rates of mortality • Costs of screening/diagnostics/treatment • Lifetimes costs of colorectal cancer • Assumptions/sensitivity analyses

  11. HTA Output

  12. HTA Conclusions & Recommendations • HTA found that any of the proposed screening options was more cost-effective than the “do nothing” option; • The optimal strategy among the “do something” options was found to be a biennial immunochemical faecal testing for individuals aged 55-74 years; • This was based on considerations of health gain and cost-effectiveness, including 10-year resources

  13. Critical Appraisal • Benefit of a HTA directorate within HiQA with particular evaluative (oversight) expertise. Lack of robust Irish data; • Possible disconnect between budgetary process and HTA; • Cost estimates were not derived from any particular estimation exercise but rather an amalgam of available information; • Extensive sensitivity analysis including one way and multi-way analyses; • Criticality of Assumptions e.g. immediate roll out assumed, discount rate used

  14. Conclusion • Good example of a thorough Evaluation Process • In line with stated Health Policy objectives • “evidence and strategic objectives underpin all planning/decision making” • Approach has the benefit of international comparison • Will the Programme survive the budget cuts? • Cancer services ringfenced

More Related