The Relevant Perspective of Economic Evaluations Informing Local Decision Makers: An Exploration in Weight Loss Services

How Much Should be Invested in Lung Care Across the WHO European Region? Applying a Monetary Value to Disability-Adjusted Life-Years Within the International Respiratory Coalition's Lung Facts

OBJECTIVES

The International Respiratory Coalition's Lung Facts web resource provides the latest data on a range of lung conditions covering the World Health Organization's European Region, informed by the Global Burden of Disease studies: https://international-respiratory-coalition.org/lung-facts/ . Within Lung Facts, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) are monetised based on gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. We describe the conceptual and empirical basis for using monetised DALYs to inform negotiations with policymakers to invest in lung care across the World Health Organization European region.

METHODS

We reflect on the existing debate and research evidence regarding the X value in an X*GDP per capita framework to monetise DALYs, with a focus on if 1*GDP per capita is conceptually and practically appropriate. Using an asthma case study, Global Burden of Disease study 2019 DALY estimates per country are presented. Gross domestic product per capita are converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity (Int$2019).

RESULTS

Using 1*GDP per capita, the estimated monetised asthma DALY burden, for example, in Kyrgyzstan or Germany is: across the whole population, $44,860,483 or $9,264,767,882, respectively; per 100,000 people, $731,600 or $10,208,317, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our indicative monetised DALY estimates can enable informed discussions with policy and decision makers, to guide financial investment in alleviating the burden of lung conditions. We suggest 1*GDP per capita as a benchmarked value forms a starting point for negotiation with policymakers for investing in lung care, by scaling the estimated lung condition DALY burden to the resource available in each country to tackle the burden.

Achieving cardiac rehabilitation uptake targets: What is the value case for commissioners? A UK case-study

Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) has become an established intervention to support patient recovery after a cardiac event, with evidence supporting its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in improving patient health and reducing future burden on healthcare systems. However, this evidence has focussed on the national value case for CR rather than at the point at which it is commissioned. This analysis uses the UK as a case-study to explore variation in current CR engagement and disassemble the value case from a commissioner perspective. Using data collected by the National Audit of CR (NACR), and an existing model of cost-effectiveness, we present details on the current level of CR uptake by commissioning region (Specialist Clinical Networks) in light of the current UK target of achieving 85% uptake. We then interrogate the value case for achieving the target at a commissioner level, highlighting the expected profile of health benefits and healthcare system costs over the long-term. Importantly we consider where this may differ from the national value case. Each commissioning region has a unique level of CR uptake and sociodemographic profile. Concurrently, the value case for commissioning CR relies on the upfront cost of the service being offset by long-term healthcare savings, and health improvements. The shift in the UK and internationally to more localised commissioning necessitates evidence of cost-effectiveness that better reflects the realities of those decision makers. This paper provides vital additional data to facilitate such commissioners to understand the value case in increasing CR uptake in line with national policy.

Methods of assessing value for money of UK-based early childhood public health interventions: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Economic evaluation has an important role to play in the demonstration of value for money of early childhood public health interventions; however, concerns have been raised regarding their consistent application and relevance to commissioners. This systematic review of the literature therefore aims to collate the breadth of the existing economic evaluation evidence of these interventions and to identify the approaches adopted in the assessment of value.

SOURCE OF DATA

Recently published literature in Medline, EMBASE, EconLit, Health Management Information Consortium, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment, NHS EED and Web of Science.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

The importance of the early childhood period on future health and well-being as well as the potential to impact health inequalities making for a strong narrative case for expenditure in early childhood public health.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

The most appropriate approaches to evaluating value for money of such preventative interventions relevant for UK decision-makers given the evident challenges.

GROWING POINTS

The presented review considered inconsistencies across methodological approaches used to demonstrate value for money. The results showed a mixed picture in terms of demonstrating value for money.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Future resource allocations decisions regarding early childhood public health interventions may benefit from consistency in the evaluative frameworks and health outcomes captured, as well as consistency in approaches to incorporating non-health costs and outcomes, incorporating equity concerns and the use of appropriate time horizons.

Health Inequalities: To What Extent are Decision-Makers and Economic Evaluations on the Same Page? An English Case Study

Economic evaluations have increasingly sought to understand how funding decisions within care sectors impact health inequalities. However, there is a disconnect between the methods used by researchers (e.g., within universities) and analysts (e.g., within publicly funded commissioning agencies), compared to evidence needs of decision makers in regard to how health inequalities are accounted for and presented. Our objective is to explore how health inequality is defined and quantified in different contexts. We focus on how specific approaches have developed, what similarities and differences have emerged, and consider how disconnects can be bridged. We explore existing methodological research regarding the incorporation of inequality considerations into economic evaluation in order to understand current best practice. In parallel, we explore how localised decision makers incorporate inequality considerations into their commissioning processes. We use the English care setting as a case study, from which we make inference as how local commissioning has evolved internationally. We summarise the recent development of distributional cost-effectiveness analysis in the economic evaluation literature: a method that makes explicit the trade-off between efficiency and equity. In the parallel decision-making setting, while the alleviation of health inequality is regularly the focus of remits, few details have been formalised regarding its definition or quantification. While data development has facilitated the reporting and comparison of metrics of inequality to inform commissioning decisions, these tend to focus on measures of care utilisation and behaviour rather than measures of health. While both researchers and publicly funded commissioning agencies are increasingly putting the identification of health inequalities at the core of their actions, little consideration has been given to ensuring that they are approaching the problem in a consistent way. The extent to which researchers and commissioning agencies can collaborate on best practice has important implications for how successful policy is in addressing health inequalities.

Economic Evaluation Evidence for Resource-Allocation Decision Making: Bridging the Gap for Local Decision Makers Using English Case Studies

Best-practice economic evaluation methods for health-related decision making at a national level in England are well established, and as a first principle generally involve attempting to maximise the amount of health generated from the health system's budget. Such methods are applied in ways that are broadly transparent and accountable, often at arm's length from explicit political pressures. At local levels of decision making, however, decision making is arguably less likely to be applied according to established overarching principles, is less transparent and is more subject to political pressures. This may be owing to a multiplicity of reasons, for example, undesirability/inappropriateness of such methods, or a failure to make the methods clear to local decision makers. We outline principles for economic evaluations and break down these methods into their component parts, considering their relevance in the English local context. These include taxonomies of decision-making frameworks, budgets, costs, outcome, and characterisations of cost effectiveness. We also explore the role of broader factors, including the relevance of assuming a single fixed budget, pressures resulting from political and budgetary cycles and affordability. We consider the data requirements to inform such deliberations. By setting out principles for economic evaluation methods in a clear language aimed at local decision making, a potential role for such methods can be established, which to date has failed to emerge. While the extent to which these methods can and should be applied are a matter for continued debate, the establishment of such a mutual understanding may assist in the improvement of methods for such decision making and the outcomes resulting from their application.

What Does Economic Evaluation Mean in the Context of Children at the End of Their Life?

The 'conventional framework' of economic evaluation, the comparative public sector healthcare costs and quality adjusted life year (QALY) of two or more interventions, has become synonymous with commissioning decisions in many countries. However, while useful as a framework in guiding value-based decisions, it has limited relevance in areas such as end of life care in children and young people, where the costs fall across multiple stakeholders and QALY gains are not the primary outcome. This paper makes the case that the restricted relevance of the 'conventional framework' has contributed to the inconsistent and varied provision of care in this setting, and to the knock-on detrimental impact on children nearing the end of their lives as well as their families. We explore the challenges faced by those seeking to conduct economic evaluations in this setting alongside some potential solutions. We conclude that there is no magic bullet approach that will amalgamate the 'conventional framework' with the requirements of a meaningful economic evaluation in this setting. However, this does not imply a lack of need for the summation of the costs and outcomes of care able to inform decision makers, and that methods such as impact inventory analysis may facilitate increased flexibility in economic evaluations.