Dangerous Omissions – the Cost of Ignoring Decision Uncertainty Mark Sculpher Susan Griffin Karl Claxton Steve Palmer Centre for Health Economics, University.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Booking & Choice Colin Innes Executive Lead Choose and Book.
Advertisements

Understanding the NHS reforms Jo Webber, Deputy Policy Director 20 th March 2012.
Technology Appraisal of Medical Devices at NICE – Methods and Practice Mark Sculpher Professor of Health Economics Centre for Health Economics University.
Value, Price, Guidance and Evidence Karl Claxton Department of Economics and Related Studies, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
Dangerous Omissions: The Consequences of Ignoring Decision Uncertainty Karl Claxton Centre for Health Economics*, Department of Economics and Related Studies,
Interpreting Social Values in Health Sarah Clark University College London Presentation to UCL Conference: ‘How Can We Set Priorities in Health Fairly?’
How do we achieve cost effective cancer treatments in the UK? Professor Peter Littlejohns Department of Public Health and Primary Care.
Shining Steel or Bastard Science? Economics and Health Care Decisions Karl Claxton Department of Economics and Related Studies and the Centre for Health.
When is there Sufficient Evidence? Karl Claxton, Department of Economics and Related Studies and Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
1 Are you sure your improvements are cost-effective? Edward Broughton, PhD, MPH, PT University Research Co. April 11, 2014
Cost-Effectiveness Using Decision-Analytic Models
Sophie Whyte 1, Simon Dixon 1,Rita Faria 2, Simon Walker 2, Mark Sculpher 2, Stephen Palmer 2 1 ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; 2 CHE,
Making Decisions in Health Care: Cost-effectiveness and the Value of Evidence Karl Claxton Centre for Health Economics, Department of Economics and Related.
HERU is supported by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates and the University of Aberdeen. The author accepts full.
We show that MP can be used to allocate resources to treatments within and between patient populations, using a policy-relevant example. The outcome is.
“Rational Pharmacology” and Health Economics By Alan Maynard.
1 Value of Information Yot Teerawattananon, MD International Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health PhD candidate in Health Economics, University.
Optimal Drug Development Programs and Efficient Licensing and Reimbursement Regimens Neil Hawkins Karl Claxton CENTRE FOR HEALTH ECONOMICS.
A METHODOLOGY FOR MEASURING THE COST- UTILITY OF EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENTAL INTERVENTIONS Quality of improved life opportunities (QILO)
Should Decision-Makers Embrace “Non- Constant” Discounting? Mike Paulden Samprita Chakraborty Valentina Galvani Christopher McCabe.
The Importance of Decision Analytic Modelling in Evaluating Health Care Interventions Mark Sculpher Professor of Health Economics Centre for Health Economics.
A Role for Decision Analysis in PHIAC? Mark Sculpher Centre for Health Economics University of York.
Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in the UK - Lessons from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence Mark Sculpher Professor of Health Economics Centre.
Structural uncertainty from an economists’ perspective
Departing from the health maximisation approach Social value judgements made by NICE’s advisory committees Koonal K. Shah Office of Health Economics, UK.
The Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Associated with Biologic Drugs for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis Y Bravo Vergel, N Hawkins, C Asseburg,
The Use of Economic Evaluation For Decision Making: Methodological Opportunities and Challenges Mark Sculpher Karl Claxton Centre for Health Economics.
Results 2 (cont’d) c) Long term observational data on the duration of effective response Observational data on n=50 has EVSI = £867 d) Collect data on.
Health care decision making Dr. Giampiero Favato presented at the University Program in Health Economics Ragusa, June 2008.
Prioritising HTA funding: The benefits and challenges of using value of information in anger CENTRE FOR HEALTH ECONOMICS K Claxton, L Ginnelly, MJ Sculpher,
Trial Based Economic Evaluation: Just Another Piece Of Evidence Claxton K Department of Economics and Centre for Health Economics, University of York,
Decision Analysis as a Basis for Estimating Cost- Effectiveness: The Experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the UK.
Valuing Medical Technologies The Decision Maker Perspective.
Standards Debate at the Centre for Better Managed Health Care, Cass Business School, City University London, 26 th October Professor Mike Kelly Director.
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the UK – Experience and Impact Mark Sculpher Professor of Health Economics Centre for Health Economics.
Copyright 2011 Right Care The Accountable Integrated Care System Sept 2011 Commissioning for Value.
Simon Walker Centre for Health Economics, University of York Appropriate perspectives for health care decisions.
HTA – Cost Containment or Quality Instrument? Bengt Jönsson Stockholm School of Economic.
Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds Professor of Health Economics
BACKGROUND Cost-effectiveness of Psychotherapy for Cluster C Personality Disorders and the Value of Information and Implementation Djøra I. Soeteman 1,2,
The return of the 5 year plan Mathematical programming for allocation of health care resources David Epstein, Karl Claxton, Mark Sculpher (CHE) Zaid Chalabi.
Economic evaluation of drugs for rare diseases CENTRE FOR HEALTH ECONOMICS K Claxton, C McCabe, A Tsuchiya Centre for Health Economics and Department of.
Developing a Referral Management Plan. Background Hospital referral rates in England have increased significantly over recent years, resulting in the.
1 Comparative Effectiveness Research: Key Issues and Controversies Consumer-Purchaser Disclosure Project Discussion Forum May 5, 2009 Steven D. Pearson,
Basic Economic Analysis David Epstein, Centre for Health Economics, York.
Decision Analysis Dr M G Dawes Centre for Evidence Based Medicine.
Quantifying uncertainty in long-term care costs following introduction of new drug therapy: the importance of model choice Paul McNamee, Alessandra Vanoli,
Evidence, HTA and Comparative Effectiveness in the U.S. Presentation at AMCP March 28, 2007 Peter J. Neumann Tufts-New England Medical Center.
USING ECONOMIC EVIDENCE AND STAKEHOLDER'S PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING ON BENEFIT PACKAGE OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE SCHEME IN THAILAND RESULTS:
Economic evaluation of health programmes Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health Class no. 23: Nov 17, 2008.
DIFFICULT DECISIONS IN HEALTH CARE Presentation to OJHOSC Dr Ljuba Stirzaker Oxfordshire Primary Care Trust 13 March 2008 ITEM JHO8(a) JHO3.MAR1308R03.ppt.
Social Values and Health Priority Setting Sarah Clark and Albert Weale University College London NICE International Health Priority Setting Conference.
1 Value of Information in relation to risk management  Prof. Dr. Jan J.V. Busschbach.
PANEL SESSION: MODELLING HETEROGENEITY IN COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS Modelling variation for decision making Mark Sculpher, PhD Centre for Health Economics,
Matching Analyses to Decisions: Can we Ever Make Economic Evaluations Generalisable Across Jurisdictions? Mark Sculpher Mike Drummond Centre for Health.
NIHR Themed Call Prevention and treatment of obesity Writing a good application and the role of the RDS 19 th January 2016.
HTA Efficient Study Designs Peter Davidson Head of HTA at NETSCC.
Who is involved in making NICE guidance recommendations and what evidence do they look at? Jane Cowl, Senior Public Involvement Adviser Tommy Wilkinson,
© University of South Wales Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists Outcomes Conference and Hub Launch Belfast, May 1, 2014 Running a tight ship:
Health Technology Assessment for Pharmaceuticals and New Medical Technologies - Where are we now? The industry perspective Jenny Hughes, Director, Vaccines.
The determinants of change in the cost-effectiveness threshold Mike Paulden, MSc 1 James O’Mahony, PhD 2 Christopher McCabe, PhD 1 1 Department of Emergency.
Making Economic Evaluation Fit for Purpose to Support Decisions Mark Sculpher, PhD Centre for Health Economics University of York, UK The Third Annual.
City University notes AJ Fischer October Nancy’s Questions Q1Different people present material with different cost perspectives? AWith all such.
Cost equivalence  A/Prof Dominic Wilkinson  25/2/2016 Director of Medical Ethics Oxford Uehiro
Benjamin Kearns, The University of Sheffield
Cost effectiveness Analysis: Valuing Health; Valuing Research!
Health care decision making
Why do/should we do economic evaluation?
Rita Faria, MSc Centre for Health Economics University of York, UK
Presentation transcript:

Dangerous Omissions – the Cost of Ignoring Decision Uncertainty Mark Sculpher Susan Griffin Karl Claxton Steve Palmer Centre for Health Economics, University of York,

Background Increasing demands to assess new drugs closer to launch Inevitable uncertainty in evidence Hence a series of linked questions –Should a technology be adopted? –How uncertain is this decision? –Is more evidence needed? But decisions may be fragmented Need a methods framework to handle these questions

What are the decisions? Should a technology be adopted given existing information? –Which clinical strategies are worthwhile? –For which patient groups? Is current evidence sufficient to support use in NHS? –Do we need more evidence? –What type of evidence is required? –What additional research should be conducted to provide this evidence?

What are the decisions? Should a technology be adopted given existing information? –Which clinical strategies are worthwhile? –For which patient groups? Is current evidence sufficient to support use in NHS? –Do we need more evidence? –What type of evidence is required? –What additional research should be conducted to provide this evidence?

£20,000 2 QALYs = = 2 – £20,000 £20,000 Is it cost-effective? Is it worthwhile? Is the ICER less than the cost-effectiveness threshold? If the cost-effectiveness threshold is £20,000 per QALY, B is cost-effective Is net benefit positive? Net health benefit = QALYs gained – QALYs lost Net money benefit = £ value of QALYs gained – additional costs = 2 x £20,000 – £20,000 Additional cost QALYs gained ICER = = £10,000 per QALY = 2 – 1 = 1 QALY = £20,000 = 1 QALY

= 2 – £20,000 £20,000 Should a technology be adopted? Treatment A QALYCost Treatment B QALYCost 2 £30,000 3 £20,000 4 £40,000 1 £10,000 0 £ 5,000 2 £15,000 1 £10,000 3 £30,000 Additional cost QALYs gained ICER = £20,000 2 QALYs = = £10,000 per QALY Is the ICER less than the cost-effectiveness threshold? £10,000 per QALY < £20,000 per QALY, B is cost-effective Is net benefit positive? Net health benefit = QALYs gained – QALYs lost = 2 – 1 = 1 QALY Net money benefit = £ value of QALYs gained – additional costs = 2 x £20,000 – £20,000= £20,000 = 1 QALY

What are the decisions? Should a technology be adopted given existing information? –Which clinical strategies are cost-effective? –For which patient groups? Is current evidence sufficient to support use in NHS? –Do we need more evidence? –What type of evidence is required? –What additional research should be conducted to provide this evidence?

How uncertain is a decision? What’s the best we can do now?But we are not always right Choose B and expect 13 QALYsChance that B is the best = 3/5 = 0.6 Chance that A is the best = 2/5 = 0.4 Chance that C is the best = 0/5 = 0 So if we adopt B the probability of error = 0.4 How things could turn out Net Health Benefit Best choice Treatment ATreatment BTreatment C Possibility 19128B Possibility A Possibility B Possibility A Possibility B Average121310

How uncertain is the decision? B A C Choose AChoose B ICER = £25,000 per QALY

Why does uncertainty matter? What’s the best we can do now?Could we do better? Choose B and expect 13 QALYsIf we knew we get 13.6 QALYs Maximum benefit of more evidence is 0.6 QALYs But is it worth it? How things could turn out Net Health BenefitBest we could do if we knew What we could lose Treatment ATreatment BBest choice Possibility 1912B 0 Possibility 21210A122 Possibility 31417B 0 Possibility 41110A111 Possibility 51416B 0 Average

Do we need more evidence? Choose AChoose B Cost of research

Do we need more evidence?

Decisions in a joined up world? Adopt technologies if we expect them to be cost effective based on existing evidence But only if we simultaneously address question: Is the evidence sufficient? Demand or commission further research to inform this choice in the future

A fragmented world Separation of adoption and research decisions –Adoption decisions without accountability for impact on future research –Research decisions without accountability for relevance to adoption decisions Dangers –Adoption decisions undermine evidence base for practice Incentives and ethics –Commissioned research does not inform decisions Adoption becomes the only policy instrument

Account for the cost of uncertainty What we loose if we accept technology What we loose if we reject a technology

Clear signals and incentives Provide more evidence!

Clear signals and incentives Reduce price

Why say no (or only in research)? Clear signals –No because it is not a cost-effective use of resources –No because there is currently insufficient evidence to justify NHS use –Spell out the key evidence needed (not the research) Clear incentives –If and when additional evidence is made available then considered for early review –Incentives to sponsors (evidence and price) –Incentives for others stakeholders to lobby for publicly funded research –Clear signals to research commissioners

Conclusions All decisions about new technologies involve uncertainty Is uncertainty being used in decision making? Need to address adoption decision and need for further research simultaneously But adoption decision may be only policy lever