Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio and Net Monetary Benefit: Promoting the Application of Value-Based Pricing to Medical Devices-A European Perspective

Managing Tenders in the Procurement of Advanced Medical Devices: An Original Model Based on the Net Monetary Benefit Combined With Three Clinical Endpoints

In medical devices, recent studies have proposed original approaches for standardizing competitive tenders with the aim of promoting reproducibility, avoiding discretional decisions, and applying value-based principles. In the framework of tenders' standardization, the net monetary benefit (NMB) method has attracted much interest, but its mathematical complexity has prevented a wide application. In the present work, we developed a procurement model that simplifies clinical information management for high-technology devices purchased for our public hospitals. Our objective was to promote the application of NMB in competitive tenders, particularly at the final stage of the procurement process, where the tender scores are determined. Software to facilitate this task in everyday practice has been developed. This software is made available through the present technical report. We surveyed the most relevant literature about NMB to select the main models commonly used in the studies published thus far. Standard equations of cost-effectiveness were identified. A simplified computation model based on three clinical endpoints was developed to estimate the NMB with less mathematical complexity. This model is proposed as an alternative to the standard approach based on a full economic analysis. The model developed herein has been implemented in a web-based software freely available on the Internet. This software is accompanied by a detailed description of the equations by which the NMB is estimated. A detailed application example is reported; a real tender carried out in 2021 has been re-examined for this purpose. In this re-analysis, the new software has been used to calculate the NMB of three devices. To our knowledge, this is the first experience in which an institution of the Italian healthcare system has evaluated the NMB as a tool for determining tender scores. The model is designed to offer performance similar to a full economic analysis. Our preliminary results are encouraging and suggest a wider application of this method. This approach has important implications regarding cost-effectiveness and cost containment because a value-based procurement is known to maximize effectiveness without determining an increase in costs.

Cost-utility analysis of semaglutide for type 2 diabetes after its addition to the National Medical Insurance System in China

INTRODUCTION

The main research purpose is to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide (SEMA) with that of dulaglutide (DULA) for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes throughout their lifetime. If necessary, the second aim is to investigate a further price cut for SEMA to provide sound advice for government drug price adjustments.

METHODS

Cost-utility analysis was performed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) from the perspective of health care providers in China. Baseline characteristics and clinical efficacy of SEMA and DULA were sourced from the high-dose comparison in the SUSTAIN-7 trial. A binary search was used to identify the scope for further reduction in the price of SEMA. The impact of individual parameters was assessed with sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Main analysis (SEMA vs. DULA) revealed a mean difference in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.04 QALYs and costs of $1132.29. The incremental cost-utility ratio was $26 957.44/QALY, showing that SEMA was a better option compared with DULA. In sensitivity analyses, the discount rate made the greatest contribution to the incremental cost-utility ratio. In the binary search, there was still scope to reduce the SEMA cost further by approximately 6.83% to be cost-effective, taking DULA as a reference.

CONCLUSION

After its addition to the National Medical Insurance System in China, SEMA is expected to be a cost-effective choice compared with DULA for patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequately controlled from the cost-utility analysis. However, there is still scope to reduce the annual cost of SEMA further.

Cost-effectiveness of the Adaptive Implementation of Effective Programs Trial (ADEPT): approaches to adopting implementation strategies

BACKGROUND

Theory-based methods to support the uptake of evidence-based practices (EBPs) are critical to improving mental health outcomes. Implementation strategy costs can be substantial, and few have been rigorously evaluated. The purpose of this study is to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis to identify the most cost-effective approach to deploying implementation strategies to enhance the uptake of Life Goals, a mental health EBP.

METHODS

We used data from a previously conducted randomized trial to compare the cost-effectiveness of Replicating Effective Programs (REP) combined with external and/or internal facilitation among sites non-responsive to REP. REP is a low-level strategy that includes EBP packaging, training, and technical assistance. External facilitation (EF) involves external expert support, and internal facilitation (IF) augments EF with protected time for internal staff to support EBP implementation. We developed a decision tree to assess 1-year costs and outcomes for four implementation strategies: (1) REP only, (2) REP+EF, (3) REP+EF add IF if needed, (4) REP+EF/IF. The analysis used a 1-year time horizon and assumed a health payer perspective. Our outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The economic outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

Our results indicate that REP+EF add IF is the most cost-effective option with an ICER of $593/QALY. The REP+EF/IF and REP+EF only conditions are dominated (i.e., more expensive and less effective than comparators). One-way sensitivity analyses indicate that results are sensitive to utilities for REP+EF and REP+EF add IF. The PSA results indicate that REP+EF, add IF is the optimal strategy in 30% of iterations at the threshold of $100,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the most cost-effective implementation support begins with a less intensive, less costly strategy initially and increases as needed to enhance EBP uptake. Using this approach, implementation support resources can be judiciously allocated to those clinics that would most benefit. Our results were not robust to changes in the utility measure. Research is needed that incorporates robust and relevant utilities in implementation studies to determine the most cost-effective strategies. This study advances economic evaluation of implementation by assessing costs and utilities across multiple implementation strategy combinations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02151331 , 05/30/2014.