317_L26, Mar 18 2008 J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture Are looking at program evaluation in healthcare Three methods: CBA, CEA, CUA discussed CBA,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Elicitation methods Health care demands exceed resource supply Therefore, rationing is inevitable Many ways by which we can ration health care One is economic.
Advertisements

HEA PTP: M207 Health Economics1 Measurement & Valuation of Health What is health? Why do we need to measure it? How can it be measured? Why do we need.
Emma Frew Introduction to health economics, MSc HEHP, October 2012 Outcomes: part II.
Chap 3 Net Present Value.  Net present value is the single most widely used tool for large investments made by corporations.  Klammer reported a survey.
Correcting Market Distortions: Shadow Prices, Shadow Wages and Discount Rates Chapter 6.
B280F Introduction to Financial Management
© Harry Campbell & Richard Brown School of Economics The University of Queensland BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS Financial and Economic Appraisal using Spreadsheets.
Overview of the day Introduction to Health Economics Introduction to Economic Evaluations LUNCH Appraising Economic.
Decision Analysis. What is decision analysis? Based on expected utility theory Based on expected utility theory Used in conditions of uncertainty Used.
CHAPTER 14 Utility Axioms Paradoxes & Implications.
Planning under Uncertainty
317_L23, Mar 7, 2008, J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture Began our discussion of the econ. evaluation of healthcare programs Will be looking at.
Utilitarianism Explored Marc J. Roberts Professor of Political Economy and Health Policy Harvard School of Public Health ID250 November 12,
317_L27, Mar J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture Are looking at program evaluation in healthcare: CBA, CEA, CUA Finished our discussion of.
317_L8, Jan 23, 2008, J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture Began our discussion of the demand for HC Demand for HC is a derived demand (demand for.
Utility Assessment HINF Medical Methodologies Session 4.
317_L5_Jan 16, 2008 J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture Are discussing the production function for health (section III of the course outline): HS=HS(HC)
317_L22, Mar 5, 2008, J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture Finished our discussion of information asymmetry as a source of market failure in the healthcare.
317_L9, Jan 25, 2008, J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture Have finished our discussion of the Grossman model of the demand for HK (health capital)
317_L24, Mar 11/08, J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture are discussing shadow pricing in the context of cost-benefit analysis noted that shadow pricing.
317_L13, Feb 5, 2008, J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture finished our discussion of the demand for healthcare today begin our discussion of market.
A METHODOLOGY FOR MEASURING THE COST- UTILITY OF EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENTAL INTERVENTIONS Quality of improved life opportunities (QILO)
Health Economics II –2010 Health Economic Evaluations Part III Lecture 2 Cost-effectiveness analysis QALYs and cost-utility analysis Nils-Olov Stålhammar.
A First Look at Everything. Interest Rates and the Time Value of Money Time Value of Money ▫Imagine a simple investment opportunity with the following.
317_L21, Mar 4, 2008, J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture began our discussion of information asymmetry in the healthcare market Two aspects to the.
317_L12, Feb 1, 2008, J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture discussed the effect of proportional health insurance on the healthcare market => showed.
Economic evaluation considers assessment of intervention effects in economic terms, which is often of greatest interest to fund allocators Intervention.
317_L15, Feb 8, 2008, J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture began our discussion of why there is a demand for health insurance basic reason => people.
CHAPTER 6 THE SOCIAL DISCOUNT RATE. DOES THE CHOICE OF DISCOUNT RATE MATTER? Yes – choice of rate can affect policy choices. Generally, low discount rates.
317_L6_Jan 18, 2008 J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture Are discussing the production of health: section III of the course outline have discussed.
317_L25, Mar J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture Have discussed three methods for shadow pricing life and limb for CBA: human capital method,
Next page CAPITAL BUDGETING Infrastructure & Project Evaluation Making decisions having significant future net benefits or costs.
COST–EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS AND COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS
317_L7_Jan 22, 2008 J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture Are discussing the production of health: section III of the course outline have discussed.
Estimating utilities from individual preference data Some introductory remarks by Tony O’Hagan.
317_L14, Feb 6, 2008, J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture began our discussion of market failures looked at what a market failure is listed four.
AGEC 608 Lecture 17, p. 1 AGEC 608: Lecture 17 Objective: Review the main aspects of cost- effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA).
Chapter 4: Economic Efficiency and Cost Benefit Analysis 1.Economic Efficiency 2.Cost Benefit Analysis.
Health Economics & Policy 3 rd Edition James W. Henderson Chapter 4 Economic Evaluation in Health Care.
Interest Rates and the Time Value of Money Time Value of Money ▫Imagine a simple investment opportunity with the following cash flows (which are certain.
Measuring benefits Morris et al (2012) Ch Measuring benefits To perform an economic evaluation, we need to have information of the benefits and.
GAMES AGAINST NATURE Topic #3. Games Against Nature In game theory, for reasons that will be explained later, the alternatives (e.g., LEFT and RIGHT)
Measuring and valuing health outcome Montarat Thavorncharoensap, Ph.D. 1: Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University 2. HITAP, Thailand.
Economic Evaluations, Briefly… CHSC 433 Module 6/Chapter 13 UIC School of Public Health L. Michele Issel, PhD, R N.
Taxes on the Longevity Dividend: Can we Reduce Them? Lessons from the Theoretical Foundations of Medical Cost-Effectiveness Analysis David Meltzer MD,
EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE Health economics Ross Lawrenson.
Measuring Health Outcomes
Evaluation of Medicine Two types: –Societal level Economic evaluation –Individual level medical decision making.
Economic evaluation of health programmes Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health Class no. 9: Cost-utility analysis – Part 2.
Health State Unable to perform some tasks at home and/or at work Able to perform all self care activities (eating, bathing, dressing) albeit with some.
Economic evaluation Definition - the comparative analysis of alternative courses of action in terms of both their cost and consequences.
Engineering Economic Analysis Canadian Edition
Estimating Outcomes in Decision Analysis Brian Harris MPP Candidate Goldman School of Public Policy University of California, Berkeley.
3/12/2009 Decision and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis James G. Kahn after Eran Bendavid When Rationality Falters: Limitations and Extensions of Decision Analysis.
Sample Size Determination in Studies Where Health State Utility Assessments Are Compared Across Groups & Time Barbara H Hanusa 1,2 Christopher R H Hanusa.
Make Nutrition Services Count: Cost-Effectiveness Research & Outcomes Research.
Introduction to decision analysis Jouni Tuomisto THL.
Lecture 3 on Individual Optimization Uncertainty Up until now we have been treating bidders as expected wealth maximizers, and in that way treating their.
Introduction to decision analysis Jouni Tuomisto THL.
© 2005 Pearson Education Canada Inc Chapter 17 Choice Making Under Uncertainty.
Flagship Program on Health Sector Reform and Sustainable Financing.
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS Financial and Economic Appraisal using Spreadsheets Ch. 3: Decision Rules © Harry Campbell & Richard Brown School of Economics The.
Preference Assessment 1 Measuring Utilities Directly
Volume 66, Issue 1, Pages (July 2004)
Outcomes: part II Emma Frew
Assessing value for money: principles, methods and issues
Pharmacoeconomic Dr . Dlivan F. Aziz.
Measuring outcomes Emma Frew October 2012.
Elicitation methods Health care demands exceed resource supply
Presentation transcript:

317_L26, Mar J. Schaafsma 1 Review of the Last Lecture Are looking at program evaluation in healthcare Three methods: CBA, CEA, CUA discussed CBA, problem: need shadow prices, which are difficult to generate First alternative to CBA: CEA, discussed advantages and disadvantages (vis-à-vis CBA) Today: finish our discussion of CEA then discuss CUA

317_L26, Mar J. Schaafsma 2 Future HC Costs and CEA suppose two programs cost the same and each saves 20 life years However, for program A  lifetime follow-up costs = $10,000 (annual check-up plus prescription costs for a subset of patients) for program B  lifetime follow-up costs = $300,000 (e.g expensive anti-rejection drugs for an organ transplant) society not indifferent between these two outcomes. BASIC RULE: subsequent HC costs that are a direct consequence of the initial program should be included in the CEA DON’T include future HC costs not associated with the program ///

317_L26, Mar J. Schaafsma 3 Two Fundamental Problems with CEA can’t compare cost-effectiveness across projects with different outputs  different units! quality of life is ignored in life years saved (would expect that 10 life years saved in full health is preferred to 10 life years saved in poor health). SOLUTION TO BOTH PROBLEMS: Cost-utility analysis  CUA ///

317_L26, Mar J. Schaafsma 4 Cost Utility Analysis: CUA CUA is the second alternative to CBA, and is really CEA using a Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) as the unit of output QoL = w, w  1, where w is a measure of the quality of life (QoL) associated with a given health state (thus HRQoL) full health: w = 1, dead: w = 0 if w < 0, utility of ill health state is worse than death, e.g. extreme pain that cannot be treated. conceptually, can convert any state of ill health into a w value then QALYs associated with n years in that state of ill health is wn  can compare cost-utility across programs with different real program outputs, since all outputs, e.g., pain prevented, mobility improved can, in principle, be converted to QALYs ///

317_L26, Mar J. Schaafsma 5 Computing Utility Values: Rating Scale rating scale (visual analogue scale)  two cases: 1. Death is the worst state (see diagram): all w > 0 2. Death is not the worst state: w could be < 0 if there are n years for which w’s are being computed  QALYs = w 1 + w 2 + … +w n  w i i = 1,…,n rating scale gives cardinal (not ordinal) values  additive in standard utility theory  utility is ordinal (ranking of levels of well being  not additive) ///

317_L26, Mar J. Schaafsma 6 Problems with Rating Scale, RS respondents tend to shy away from the two end points QALYs combine length of life with quality of life to form one outcome  however, the RS technique determines quality of life independently of length of life. this raises the question of whether a person really is indifferent between say 4 years of life at w = 0.25, or 1 year of life at w = 1. both cases represent 1 QALY, but is the person really indifferent between the two? Will be if indiff curves are rectangular hyperbolas this method assumes that the indifference curves defined over quality of life and length of life are rectangular hyperbolas (indifference curve diagram) No reason why they should be

317_L26, Mar J. Schaafsma 7 Computing Utility Values: Time Trade Off (TTO) here ask the patient to choose between t years in chronic state of ill health followed by death: U ill = U(wt) (where w = quality of life weight) and x years of life in full health, where x < t, U well = U(x) (since w =1) vary x until indifferent between the two states, i.e., U ill = U well, i.e., U(wt) = U(x) if U(wt) = U(x) then wt = x  w = x/t QALYs =  w i =  (x/t) i = healthy year equivalent = HYE, where i = 1, …, n is the number of years left to live ///

317_L26, Mar J. Schaafsma 8 Time Trade Off (TTO): Problems TTO assumes utility is based on the product of quality of life and length of life U = U(wt)  see diagram it is conceivable that w and t enter the utility function separately  U = U(w, t) and that this utility function is not a rectangular hyperbola  see diagram for slide 6  now x/t need not be w. However, could simply use healthy year equivalents (HYE’s) as the measure of a program’s output, e.g. ask patient what the HYE is for their current health status before treatment and what it is after treatment and use the increment in HYE as the output measure for the treatment, ie., use HYE’s rather than QALY’s

317_L26, Mar J. Schaafsma 9 Computing Utility Values: Standard Gamble: SG classical method of measuring cardinal utility based on work by von Neuman and Morgenstern (1953) SG  considers a choice between staying in the current state of chronic ill health for n years followed by death, or accepting what could be considered a lottery ticket. the lottery ticket consists of accepting treatment  one of two outcomes will occur: i) full health for n years then painless death, with a probability of p ii) instant painless death, with a probability of (1 – p) (diagram)

317_L26, Mar J. Schaafsma 10 SG Method Continued subject is confronted with the choice of staying in chronic state of ill health or accepting the lottery ticket (treatment) obviously if ill health very bad and p of success very high  accept treatment at some value p e for p (prob of successful treatment) the person is indifferent between treatment (lottery ticket) and no treatment: i.e., U(HS ill ) = p e U(full health) + (1 – p e ) U(death) set U(death) = 0, U(full health) = 1  U(HS ill ) = p e U(HS ill ) is the fraction, p e, of the utility of full health U(full health) NB. These fractions are additive  QALYs =  p e i i = 1,…,n ///

317_L26, Mar J. Schaafsma 11 Problems with the SG Method applying this technique to subjects experiencing the state of ill- health can be problematic (stressful for patients) applying this technique to subjects who are not ill requires them to understand the true extent of the state of ill health (also problematic) subjects may not be able to judge the true significance of different probability values.

317_L26, Mar J. Schaafsma 12 Discounting QALYs basic issue  is saving 10 lives at a given HRQoL for 1 year equivalent to saving 1 life for 10 years at the same HRQoL? really two issues here: 1.An equity issue: if we can save 10 QALY’s are we indifferent between saving 1Qaly for each of 10 people, or 10 QALY’s for 1 person (we will ignore this distributional issue) 2. whether QALYs that accrue in the future as a result of HC today should be discounted or not. ///

317_L26, Mar J. Schaafsma 13 Arguments Against Discounting QALYs discounting implies inter-temporal choice  ability to trade off future benefits for present ones and vice versa  at the individual level inter-temporal choice is feasible for quality of life but not for life years  can’t give up a life year now for more tomorrow  thus argued  don’t discount while an individual has a finite time horizon and thus discounts the future (may not be alive next year, or two years from now so present is more valuable than the uncertain future); society could be considered infinitely lived  thus no time preference  thus future as important as the present  no discounting. ///

317_L26, Mar J. Schaafsma 14 Arguments for Discounting QALYs the flow of HC costs over time is always discounted  symmetry requires that QALYs also be discounted  society unlikely to be indifferent between two projects with the same PV of HC costs and the same undiscounted QALYs gained but where the gain is far into the future for one project and the gain is immediate for the other.=> discounting QALYs takes care of this problem statistically can trade-off lives inter-temporally! HOW?  borrow for expanded HC services today  save lives. later when the debt must be serviced  curtail HC services to balance the budget  lives could be lost. ///