ec8001 assignment 2 group 3 marie sinnott deirdre mahony
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
EC8001 Assignment 2 Group 3 Marie Sinnott Deirdre Mahony

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 14

EC8001 Assignment 2 Group 3 Marie Sinnott Deirdre Mahony - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 117 Views
  • Uploaded on

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;

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' EC8001 Assignment 2 Group 3 Marie Sinnott Deirdre Mahony' - madge


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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 – 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
the problem
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.
the possible solution
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?
purpose of hta
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?
specific evaluation questions
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.
hta process
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
economic analysis in hta
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
economic model
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
slide10
Data
  • Population data
  • Rates of diagnosis
  • Rates of mortality
  • Costs of screening/diagnostics/treatment
  • Lifetimes costs of colorectal cancer
  • Assumptions/sensitivity analyses
hta conclusions recommendations
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
critical appraisal
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
conclusion
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
ad