Transforming the cost-effectiveness threshold into a ‘value threshold’ Initial findings from a simulation model Mike Paulden and Christopher McCabe.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Dangerous Omissions: The Consequences of Ignoring Decision Uncertainty Karl Claxton Centre for Health Economics*, Department of Economics and Related Studies,
Advertisements

Donald T. Simeon Caribbean Health Research Council
How do we achieve cost effective cancer treatments in the UK? Professor Peter Littlejohns Department of Public Health and Primary Care.
A “Best Fit” Approach to Improving Teacher Resources Jennifer King Rice University of Maryland.
American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Health and Science Policy Committee Orientation Program Part #1 General Overview and Structure.
When is there Sufficient Evidence? Karl Claxton, Department of Economics and Related Studies and Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
Fundamental Review of Allocations Policy This report is an update to CCG Governing Bodies on the scope, process and possible outcomes of the review which.
Exploring uncertainty in cost effectiveness analysis NICE International and HITAP copyright © 2013 Francis Ruiz NICE International (acknowledgements to:
Making Decisions in Health Care: Cost-effectiveness and the Value of Evidence Karl Claxton Centre for Health Economics, Department of Economics and Related.
29e CONFÉRENCE INTERNATIONALE DES COMMISSAIRES À LA PROTECTION DES DONNÉES ET DE LA VIE PRIVÉE 29 th INTERNATIONAL DATA PROTECTION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONERS.
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.
ASSESSMENT IN HIAs Elizabeth J. Fuller, DrPH, MSPH Georgia Health Policy Center.
VIII Evaluation Conference ‘Methodological Developments and Challenges in UK Policy Evaluation’ Daniel Fujiwara Senior Economist Cabinet Office & London.
1 ALLOCATING POLICE RESOURCES FOR RESULTS. 2 As fiscal pressures on local governments increase, cuts to core services are being made without an adequate.
New Methods in HTA to Support Policy and Practice (session 1): Can We Better Understand How Canadians Value Health? April 13 th,
Recommendations for Conducting Cost Effectiveness: Elements of the Reference Case Ciaran S. Phibbs, Ph.D. February 25, 2009.
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.
End-of-life premiums in reimbursement decision making Christopher McCabe PhD Capital Health Endowed Research Chair University of Alberta.
PPA 502 – Program Evaluation Lecture 10 – Maximizing the Use of Evaluation Results.
Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in the UK - Lessons from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence Mark Sculpher Professor of Health Economics Centre.
Departing from the health maximisation approach Social value judgements made by NICE’s advisory committees Koonal K. Shah Office of Health Economics, UK.
Non-parametric Bayesian value of information analysis Aim: To inform the efficient allocation of research resources Objectives: To use all the available.
The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine Marthe Gold City University of London 30 October, 2003.
ENERGY ONLY RESOURCES & THE RPS CALCULATOR. Deliverability Overview Most resources procured to date have been procured to be fully deliverable – CAISO.
Making Cost Effectiveness Analyses more useful: Budget Impact Curves Christopher McCabe PhD Endowed Research Chair in Emergency Medicine Research University.
Decision Analysis as a Basis for Estimating Cost- Effectiveness: The Experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the UK.
Economic Evaluation in Health Care William Whittaker Jean McFarlane Zweifel (Ch.2) Morris et al. (Ch.1, Ch8-10)
Comments on Rudolph G. Penner and Richard W. Johnson, “Health Care Costs, Taxes, and the Retirement Decision” Alan Gustman August 10, 2006.
Why Return on Investment (ROI) Matters Raimo Vuorinen presenting for: James P. Sampson, Jr. Florida State University.
Economic Evaluations, Briefly… CHSC 433 Module 6/Chapter 13 UIC School of Public Health L. Michele Issel, PhD, R N.
Return on Investment of Childhood Blindness Program in Bangladesh Abu Raihan, AM Zakir Hussain, ASM Nurullah Awal IAPB General Assembly, Hyderabad, Sept.
National Training Survey 2009 Presentation to 13 th Annual Conference of Water Services Training Group White’s Hotel, Wexford 10 th September 2009 Presentation.
Cost-Effectiveness Problem l You have a $1.5 billion budget to spend on any combination of these programs:
1 Chapter 1: What is Finance? Copyright © Prentice Hall Inc Author: Nick Bagley, bdellaSoft, Inc. Objective To Define Finance The Value of Finance.
Backup Agreements in Fashion Buying-The Value of Upstream Flexibility Eppen and Iyer (1997) Presented By: Hakan Umit 21 April 2003.
Evaluating the Options Analyst’s job is to: gather the best evidence possible in the time allowed to compare the potential impacts of policies.
HTA – Cost Containment or Quality Instrument? Bengt Jönsson Stockholm School of Economic.
Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds Professor of Health Economics
Economic evaluation of drugs for rare diseases CENTRE FOR HEALTH ECONOMICS K Claxton, C McCabe, A Tsuchiya Centre for Health Economics and Department of.
Plymouth Health Community NICE Guidance Implementation Group Workshop Two: Debriding agents and specialist wound care clinics. Pressure ulcer risk assessment.
Economic evaluation of health programmes Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health Class no. 23: Nov 17, 2008.
Response to FFC submission for Division of Revenue 2011/12 Dept of Basic Education presentation to Select Committee on Finance 17 August 2010 Dept. of.
Evaluation of Wood Smoke Quantification and Attribution RTF PAC October 17, 2014.
Flagship Program on Health Sector Reform and Sustainable Financing.
1 Strategic Plan | May Decisions on rates, budgets, investments, programs and services for six years ( ) The Strategic Plan.
Matching Analyses to Decisions: Can we Ever Make Economic Evaluations Generalisable Across Jurisdictions? Mark Sculpher Mike Drummond Centre for Health.
Evaluate Phase Pertemuan Matakuliah: A0774/Information Technology Capital Budgeting Tahun: 2009.
QUANTITATIVE TECHNIQUES
PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION Evaluation of the Batho Pele Principle of Value for Money in the Public Service.
Pilot Project on implementation of SEA for regional planning in Ukraine Prof. Dr. Michael Schmidt Dmitry Palekhov Brandenburg University of Technology.
The Use of Actuaries as Part of a Supervisory Model Michael Hafeman – Consultant World Bank May 2004.
Who is involved in making NICE guidance recommendations and what evidence do they look at? Jane Cowl, Senior Public Involvement Adviser Tommy Wilkinson,
Economic evaluation of health programmes Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health Class no. 25: Dec 1, 2008.
The Value of Reference Case Methods for Resource Allocation Decision Making Mark Sculpher, PhD Professor of Health Economics Centre for Health Economics.
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.
is radiographer chest x-ray reporting cost-effective?
Cost effectiveness Analysis: Valuing Health; Valuing Research!
EIA approval process, Management plan and Monitoring
Author: Konstantinos Drakos Journal: Economica
A Framework for Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Personalized Medicine Co-dependent Technologies Philip Akude – MSc, Reza Mahjoub – PhD, Mike Paulden – MSc,
The NICE Citizens Council and the role of social value judgements
Communicate the Impact of Poor Cost Information on a Decision
Sergio Bautista-Arredondo National Institute of Public Health Mexico
Sue Todd Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Assessing value for money: principles, methods and issues
Economic Evaluation in Health Care
Presentation Developed for the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy
Rita Faria, MSc Centre for Health Economics University of York, UK
Presentation transcript:

Transforming the cost-effectiveness threshold into a ‘value threshold’ Initial findings from a simulation model Mike Paulden and Christopher McCabe

Problem The conventional cost-effectiveness (CE) threshold represents “an estimate of health forgone as other [services] are displaced to accommodate the additional costs of new technologies” (Claxton et al. 2013) Plotted as a straight line on the CE plane (Drummond et al. 2005) Numerous limitations and assumptions: Assumes constant marginal returns and divisibility of technologies No account for aspects of ‘value’ beyond those considered by the QALY Impact of imperfect information is not explicitly considered, nor the possibility that new interventions represent net disinvestments No account for multiple decision makers with conflicting objectives Recently, NICE has applied ‘modifiers’ to its baseline threshold to account for aspects of ‘value’ beyond the QALY (NICE 2009, 2014) Resulted in inconsistencies in NICE’s methodology (Paulden et al. 2014)

Objective Our objective is to transform the conventional CE threshold into a ‘value threshold’ of greater use to decision makers In doing so we aim to address the limitations previously described As a first step we have developed a simulation model in order to understand how a ‘value threshold’ may differ from a CE threshold Of key interest are the implications of: i.Relaxing conventional assumptions such as constant marginal returns to scale and perfect divisibility of technologies ii.Incorporating imperfect information and ‘value’ considerations within a complex health system with multiple decision makers iii.Extending the threshold so that it may be used for net disinvestments

Pool of initial technologies The cost and effectiveness of each technology is drawn from a distribution Each technology is randomly assigned a ‘value’ attribute and a specific health production function ‘shape’ (applies only if marginal returns are diminishing) Model schematic

Pool of initial technologies The cost and effectiveness of each technology is drawn from a distribution Each technology is randomly assigned a ‘value’ attribute and a specific health production function ‘shape’ (applies only if marginal returns are diminishing) Divisibility of technologies Technologies in the pool are either all divisible or all indivisible Marginal returns to scale Technologies in the pool either all have constant marginal returns to scale or all have diminishing marginal returns to scale Model schematic

Pool of initial technologies The cost and effectiveness of each technology is drawn from a distribution Each technology is randomly assigned a ‘value’ attribute and a specific health production function ‘shape’ (applies only if marginal returns are diminishing) Initial budget Upon the establishment of the health system, an initial budget is assigned for purchasing technologies from the pool Divisibility of technologies Technologies in the pool are either all divisible or all indivisible Marginal returns to scale Technologies in the pool either all have constant marginal returns to scale or all have diminishing marginal returns to scale Model schematic

Pool of initial technologies The cost and effectiveness of each technology is drawn from a distribution Each technology is randomly assigned a ‘value’ attribute and a specific health production function ‘shape’ (applies only if marginal returns are diminishing) Initial allocator Imperfect information Each decision maker has one of four levels of information regarding the effectiveness of technologies: none, poor, good, or perfect Other value considerations Each decision maker assigns one of four possible weights to ‘value’ considerations beyond the QALY: none, small, medium, or large Initial budget Upon the establishment of the health system, an initial budget is assigned for purchasing technologies from the pool 1. The initial allocator purchases technologies from the pool until the initial budget is exhausted Divisibility of technologies Technologies in the pool are either all divisible or all indivisible Marginal returns to scale Technologies in the pool either all have constant marginal returns to scale or all have diminishing marginal returns to scale Model schematic

Pool of initial technologies The cost and effectiveness of each technology is drawn from a distribution Each technology is randomly assigned a ‘value’ attribute and a specific health production function ‘shape’ (applies only if marginal returns are diminishing) New intervention Each new intervention represents either a net investment or net disinvestment Net investments impose costs on the health system, requiring that resources be released from other technologies Net disinvestments release resources, allowing these to be spend on other technologies from the pool Initial allocator Imperfect information Each decision maker has one of four levels of information regarding the effectiveness of technologies: none, poor, good, or perfect Other value considerations Each decision maker assigns one of four possible weights to ‘value’ considerations beyond the QALY: none, small, medium, or large Initial budget Upon the establishment of the health system, an initial budget is assigned for purchasing technologies from the pool 1. The initial allocator purchases technologies from the pool until the initial budget is exhausted Divisibility of technologies Technologies in the pool are either all divisible or all indivisible Marginal returns to scale Technologies in the pool either all have constant marginal returns to scale or all have diminishing marginal returns to scale Model schematic

Pool of initial technologies The cost and effectiveness of each technology is drawn from a distribution Each technology is randomly assigned a ‘value’ attribute and a specific health production function ‘shape’ (applies only if marginal returns are diminishing) Initial allocator Agent Imperfect information Each decision maker has one of four levels of information regarding the effectiveness of technologies: none, poor, good, or perfect Other value considerations Each decision maker assigns one of four possible weights to ‘value’ considerations beyond the QALY: none, small, medium, or large Initial budget Upon the establishment of the health system, an initial budget is assigned for purchasing technologies from the pool 1. The initial allocator purchases technologies from the pool until the initial budget is exhausted Value threshold Used by the agent to determine whether or not to recommend the new intervention 2. The agent recommends the new intervention if its expected value exceeds the agent’s value threshold Divisibility of technologies Technologies in the pool are either all divisible or all indivisible Marginal returns to scale Technologies in the pool either all have constant marginal returns to scale or all have diminishing marginal returns to scale Model schematic New intervention Each new intervention represents either a net investment or net disinvestment Net investments impose costs on the health system, requiring that resources be released from other technologies Net disinvestments release resources, allowing these to be spend on other technologies from the pool

Pool of initial technologies The cost and effectiveness of each technology is drawn from a distribution Each technology is randomly assigned a ‘value’ attribute and a specific health production function ‘shape’ (applies only if marginal returns are diminishing) Initial allocator ReallocatorAgent Imperfect information Each decision maker has one of four levels of information regarding the effectiveness of technologies: none, poor, good, or perfect Other value considerations Each decision maker assigns one of four possible weights to ‘value’ considerations beyond the QALY: none, small, medium, or large Initial budget Upon the establishment of the health system, an initial budget is assigned for purchasing technologies from the pool 1. The initial allocator purchases technologies from the pool until the initial budget is exhausted Value threshold Used by the agent to determine whether or not to recommend the new intervention 2. The agent recommends the new intervention if its expected value exceeds the agent’s value threshold Divisibility of technologies Technologies in the pool are either all divisible or all indivisible Marginal returns to scale Technologies in the pool either all have constant marginal returns to scale or all have diminishing marginal returns to scale Model schematic New intervention Each new intervention represents either a net investment or net disinvestment Net investments impose costs on the health system, requiring that resources be released from other technologies Net disinvestments release resources, allowing these to be spend on other technologies from the pool

Pool of initial technologies The cost and effectiveness of each technology is drawn from a distribution Each technology is randomly assigned a ‘value’ attribute and a specific health production function ‘shape’ (applies only if marginal returns are diminishing) Initial allocator ReallocatorAgent Imperfect information Each decision maker has one of four levels of information regarding the effectiveness of technologies: none, poor, good, or perfect Other value considerations Each decision maker assigns one of four possible weights to ‘value’ considerations beyond the QALY: none, small, medium, or large Initial budget Upon the establishment of the health system, an initial budget is assigned for purchasing technologies from the pool 1. The initial allocator purchases technologies from the pool until the initial budget is exhausted Value threshold Used by the agent to determine whether or not to recommend the new intervention 3. If the agent recommends a net investment, the reallocator must contract adopted NE/NW technologies and/or expand non-exhausted SE/SW technologies. Alternatively, if the agent recommends a net disinvestment, the reallocator may expand non-exhausted NE technologies and/or contract adopted SW technologies Divisibility of technologies Technologies in the pool are either all divisible or all indivisible Marginal returns to scale Technologies in the pool either all have constant marginal returns to scale or all have diminishing marginal returns to scale Model schematic 2. The agent recommends the new intervention if its expected value exceeds the agent’s value threshold New intervention Each new intervention represents either a net investment or net disinvestment Net investments impose costs on the health system, requiring that resources be released from other technologies Net disinvestments release resources, allowing these to be spend on other technologies from the pool

Pool of initial technologies The cost and effectiveness of each technology is drawn from a distribution Each technology is randomly assigned a ‘value’ attribute and a specific health production function ‘shape’ (applies only if marginal returns are diminishing) Initial allocator ReallocatorAgent Imperfect information Each decision maker has one of four levels of information regarding the effectiveness of technologies: none, poor, good, or perfect Other value considerations Each decision maker assigns one of four possible weights to ‘value’ considerations beyond the QALY: none, small, medium, or large Initial budget Upon the establishment of the health system, an initial budget is assigned for purchasing technologies from the pool 1. The initial allocator purchases technologies from the pool until the initial budget is exhausted Value threshold Used by the agent to determine whether or not to recommend the new intervention Divisibility of technologies Technologies in the pool are either all divisible or all indivisible Marginal returns to scale Technologies in the pool either all have constant marginal returns to scale or all have diminishing marginal returns to scale Agent’s authority Agent may have mandate to consider reallocation and/or an alternative to the intervention Model schematic 3. If the agent recommends a net investment, the reallocator must contract adopted NE/NW technologies and/or expand non-exhausted SE/SW technologies. Alternatively, if the agent recommends a net disinvestment, the reallocator may expand non-exhausted NE technologies and/or contract adopted SW technologies 2. The agent recommends the new intervention if its expected value exceeds the agent’s value threshold New intervention Each new intervention represents either a net investment or net disinvestment Net investments impose costs on the health system, requiring that resources be released from other technologies Net disinvestments release resources, allowing these to be spend on other technologies from the pool

Pool of initial technologies The cost and effectiveness of each technology is drawn from a distribution Each technology is randomly assigned a ‘value’ attribute and a specific health production function ‘shape’ (applies only if marginal returns are diminishing) Initial allocator ReallocatorAgent Imperfect information Each decision maker has one of four levels of information regarding the effectiveness of technologies: none, poor, good, or perfect Other value considerations Each decision maker assigns one of four possible weights to ‘value’ considerations beyond the QALY: none, small, medium, or large Initial budget Upon the establishment of the health system, an initial budget is assigned for purchasing technologies from the pool 1. The initial allocator purchases technologies from the pool until the initial budget is exhausted Value threshold Used by the agent to determine whether or not to recommend the new intervention 4. Prior to making its recommendation, the agent places its own valuations on both the new intervention and the reallocator’s preferred reallocation. If the agent has the authority to mandate a reallocation and/or propose an alternative to the new intervention then it also places a valuation upon this. The optimal value threshold is that which ensures that a new intervention is only recommended if doing so maximizes the expected value to the agent Divisibility of technologies Technologies in the pool are either all divisible or all indivisible Marginal returns to scale Technologies in the pool either all have constant marginal returns to scale or all have diminishing marginal returns to scale Agent’s authority Agent may have mandate to consider reallocation and/or an alternative to the intervention Model schematic 3. If the agent recommends a net investment, the reallocator must contract adopted NE/NW technologies and/or expand non-exhausted SE/SW technologies. Alternatively, if the agent recommends a net disinvestment, the reallocator may expand non-exhausted NE technologies and/or contract adopted SW technologies 2. The agent recommends the new intervention if its expected value exceeds the agent’s value threshold New intervention Each new intervention represents either a net investment or net disinvestment Net investments impose costs on the health system, requiring that resources be released from other technologies Net disinvestments release resources, allowing these to be spend on other technologies from the pool

Conventional Assumptions

Diminishing Returns to Scale

Indivisible Technologies

Imperfect Information and Other ‘Value’ Considerations

Agent Has Authority to Reallocate

Conclusions The conventional ‘CE threshold’ model is merely a special case among many approaches for determining a value threshold Departing from this special case allows for consideration of: Differences in the information available to, the values held by, and the objectives pursued by, multiple interacting decision makers The specific value characteristics of each technology This has potentially significant implications for the appropriate specification of value thresholds used for decision making Our findings provide insights for future theoretical work, as well as a rich source of potential hypotheses for researchers conducting empirical research in this area

Questions 1.Why should value considerations be accounted for within the threshold used for CE analysis? Isn’t it sufficient to simply apply weights to new technologies or to consider ‘values’ separately? 2.Why might differences in information, values and objectives across multiple interacting decision makers result in: a)Different thresholds for net investments and net disinvestments? b)Thresholds that cross into the SE and NW quadrants of the CE plane? 3.Why is the threshold dependent upon the agent’s authority? Are there any implications for the recommendations made by CADTH or for the decisions of Canadian policy makers who depend upon CADTH’s guidance?

References Claxton et al. (2013). Methods for the Estimation of the NICE Cost Effectiveness Threshold. CHE Research Paper 81. York: University of York. Drummond et al. (2005). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Third Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sendi et al. (2002). Opportunity costs and uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Economics, 11(1), 23–31. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2009). Appraising life- extending, end of life treatments. London: NICE. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2014). Consultation Paper: Value Based Assessment of Health Technologies. London: NICE. Paulden et al. (2014). Some Inconsistencies in NICE’s Consideration of Social Values. PharmacoEconomics. November 2014, 32(11),