health care decision making n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Health care decision making PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Health care decision making

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

Health care decision making - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 228 Views
  • Uploaded on

Health care decision making. Dr. Giampiero Favato presented at the University Program in Health Economics Ragusa, 26-28 June 2008. Health care decision making. Introduction to cost-effectiveness analysis Combining costs and effects Incremental ratios and decision rules Beyond the ICER

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

Health care decision making


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
    1. Health care decision making Dr. Giampiero Favato presented at the University Program in Health Economics Ragusa, 26-28 June 2008

    2. Health care decision making • Introduction to cost-effectiveness analysis • Combining costs and effects • Incremental ratios and decision rules • Beyond the ICER • Information for decision making • Trials vs. models • Introduction to decision analysis • Incorporating uncertainty

    3. Forms of economic evaluation

    4. Resource use Structure of economic evaluation Standard treatment New intervention Health outcomes Health outcomes Resource use Physical quantities, QALYs, Monetary value Total cost = resource use * unit cost Total cost = resource use * unit cost Physical quantities, QALYs, Monetary value Benefit with standard treatment Cost associated with standard treatment Patient-specific benefit with new intervention Patient-specific cost under new intervention Cost-effectiveness analysis

    5. Cost-effectiveness analysis • Mutually exclusive programmes • Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios = ΔC = Cost new treatment – cost current treatment ΔE Effect new treatment – effect current treatment • Decision rules • Independent programmes

    6. Management of angina Programme Costs Effects 20 30 50 60 110 8 4 19 23 20 A B C D E Dominated: A has lower effects and higher cost than A (Strong) Dominance

    7. Breast screening Programme Costs Effects C/E ΔC/ΔE A B C D E 110 120 150 190 240 20 29 50 60 70 5.50 4.14 3.00 3.17 3.42 - 1.11 1.43 4.00 5.00 Average ratios have no role in decision making Average vs. incremental cost-effectiveness ratios

    8. New treatment more costly New treatment more costly and more effective Old treatment dominates New treatment less effective New treatment more effective New treatment less costly and less effective New treatment dominates New treatment less costly Incremental cost-effectiveness plane

    9. New treatment more costly Maximum ICER New treatment more effective New treatment less effective New treatment less costly Maximum acceptable ratio

    10. Cost analysis decision rule • Choose new technology (n) if: • ICER = Δ Costs < l • Δ Effects

    11. E D Difference in costs B A Difference in effects Cost-effectiveness frontier – management of HIV

    12. The cost-effectiveness plane

    13. New treatment more costly Maximum ICER New treatment more effective New treatment less effective New treatment less costly Maximum acceptable ratio

    14. Maximum acceptable ratio • When intervention more/less costly and more/less effective than comparator, cannot determine whether cost-effective unless use data from outside study • maximum acceptable ratio • Set by budget constraint • Set by maximum willingness to pay per unit of effect • Administrative ‘rule of thumb’ • Empirically based

    15. Cost effectiveness league tables • In recent years it has become fashionable to compare health care interventions in terms of their relative cost-effectiveness (incremental cost per life-year or cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained). • There are two, quite distinct, motivations behind the league table approach: 1. Analysts undertaking an evaluation of a particular health treatment or programme often seek, quite appropriately, to place their findings in a broader context. 2. Some analysts seek to inform decisions about the allocation of health care resources between alternative programmes. Most of the criticisms of league tables are directed at the second of these two potential motivations.

    16. League table: an example

    17. Grades of recommendation for adoption of new technologies • A: Compelling evidence for adoption • New technology is as effective, or more effective, and less costly • B: Strong evidence for adoption • New technology more effective, ICER ≤ $20,000/QALY • C: Moderate evidence for adoption • New technology more effective, ICER ≤ $100,000/QALY • D: Weak evidence for adoption • New technology more effective, ICER > $100,000/QALY • E: Compelling evidence for rejection • New technology is less effective, or as effective, and more costly

    18. New treatment more costly D C E B New treatment more effective New treatment less effective A New treatment less costly Grades of recommendation for adoption of new technologies II

    19. Trials and economic evaluation • Internal validity • External validity • Relevance • Inappropriate comparators • Limited follow-up • Surrogate/intermediate endpoints • Information synthesis • Uncertainty

    20. Contrasting paradigms • Measurement • Testing hypotheses about individual parameters • Relatively few parameters of interest • Primary role for trials and systematic review • Focus on parameter uncertainty  • Decision making • What do we do now based on all sources of knowledge? • Decisions cannot be avoided • A decision is always taken under conditions of uncertainty • Decision making involves synthesis • Can be based on implicit or explicit analysis

    21. What is a decision model? • Mathematical prediction of health-related events • Usually comparison of mutually exclusive interventions for a specific patient group • Events are linked to costs and health outcomes • Synthesise data from various sources • Uncertainty in data inputs • Focus on appropriate decision • Clinical versus economic

    22. Key elements of models • Models are simplified versions of reality • As simple/complex as required without losing credibility • Allow • Comparison of all feasible alternative interventions/strategies • Exploration of the full range of clinical policies • For range of patient sub groups • Systematic combination of evidence from variety sources

    23. Type of parameter Source Observational studies/trials Trials Longitudinal observational studies Observational studies/trials Cross sectional surveys/trials Baseline event rates Relative treatment effects Long-term prognosis Resource use Quality of life weights (utilities) Data sources for modelling

    24. SIMPLE DECISION TREE Side effect Use adjuvant No side effect Chance node Side effect ICER Don't use adjuvant No side effect Decision node

    25. SIMPLE DECISION TREE Side effect QALY 1 Cost 1 Use adjuvant No side effect QALY 2 Cost 1 QALYs adjuvant Cost adjuvant Side effect QALY 1 Cost 2 ICER QALYs no adjuvant Cost no adjuvant Don't use adjuvant No side effect QALY 2 Cost 2

    26. Probability • Probability: a number between 0 and 1 expressing likelihood of an event over a specific period of time • Can reflect observed frequencies • Can reflect strength of belief • Sum of probabilities of mutually exclusive Events = 1 • Joint probability: P(A and B) • Conditional probability: P(A/B) • P(A and B) = P(A/B) x P(B)

    27. DECISION TREES: PREVENTION OF VERTICAL TRANSMISSION OF HIV Vertical transmission COSTS PROBABILITY Acceptance of interventions p=0.07 £800 0.0665 p=0.95 No vertical transmission Policy of intervening C=£800 p=0.93 £800 0.8835 Vertical transmission No acceptance of interventions £0 0.013 p=0.26 p=0.05 No vertical transmission C=£0 0.037 £0 p=0.74 Vertical transmission £0 0.26 p=0.26 Policy of not intervening No vertical transmission £0 0.74 p=0.74 Adapted from Ratcliffe et al. AIDS 1998;12:1381-1388

    28. Uncertainty • Population • Sub-group analysis • Parameter • Sensitivity analysis • Structural • Sensitivity analysis

    29. Sensitivity analysis • Deterministic • One-way • Multi-way • Probabilistic

    30. Model validation • What are we validating? • inputs • outputs • structure • mechanics/relationships • What do we validate against? • RCT results • Observational studies all models are wrong, but some are useful