Costs and Cost-Effectiveness in Eating Disorders

2010 ◽  
pp. 451-485
Author(s):  
Scott J. Crow ◽  
Nicholas Smiley
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Eating Disorders ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cost Modeling ◽  
Ample Evidence ◽  
Care Payer ◽  
National Perspective ◽  
The Cost

Costs and cost-effectiveness are now well recognized as important aspects of the burdens of and treatment for eating disorders. Ample evidence indicates that the cost burdens associated with eating disorders are high; this is true whether viewed from the perspective of a health care payer or from a national perspective. On the other hand, it is important to note that studies involving cost modeling and direct cost collection in treatment have shown that eating disorders treatment is quite cost-effective. This is an area of great need for further research.

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness in Eating Disorders

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Crow
Keyword(s):  
Eating Disorders ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cost Modeling ◽  
Ample Evidence ◽  
Eating Disorder Treatment ◽  
Effective Cost ◽  
Disorder Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Costs and cost-effectiveness are now well recognized as important aspects of the burdens of and treatment for eating disorders. Ample evidence indicates that, leading up to and following diagnosis, the cost burdens associated with eating disorders are high; this is true whether viewed from the perspective of a healthcare payer or from a societal perspective. On the other hand, it is important to note that studies involving cost modeling and direct cost collection in treatment have shown that treatment of eating disorders is quite cost-effective. Cost is now increasingly examined as an outcome in eating disorder treatment trials. This remains an area of great need for further research.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab versus TAS-102 monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiyoaki Sugiura ◽  
Yuki Seo ◽  
Takayuki Takahashi ◽  
Hideyuki Tokura ◽  
Yasuhiro Ito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background TAS-102 plus bevacizumab is an anticipated combination regimen for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer. However, evidence supporting its use for this indication is limited. We compared the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy with TAS-102 monotherapy for patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Method Markov decision modeling using treatment costs, disease-free survival, and overall survival was performed to examine the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy and TAS-102 monotherapy. The Japanese health care payer’s perspective was adopted. The outcomes were modeled on the basis of published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the two treatment regimens was the primary outcome. Sensitivity analysis was performed and the effect of uncertainty on the model parameters were investigated. Results TAS-102 plus bevacizumab had an ICER of $21,534 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with TAS-102 monotherapy. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that TAS-102 monotherapy was more cost-effective than TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy at a willingness-to-pay of under $50,000 per QALY gained. Conclusions TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy is a cost-effective option for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer in the Japanese health care system.

Principles of Cost-Effective Resource Allocation in Health Care organizations

1990 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milton C. Weinstein
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Care Organizations ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Common Understanding ◽  
Analytical Errors

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a method of economic evaluation that can be used to assess the efficiency with which health care technologies use limited resources to produce health outputs. However, inconsistencies in the way that such ratios are constructed often lead to misleading conclusions when CEAs are compared. Some of these inconsistencies, such as failure to discount or to calculate incremental ratios correctly, reflect analytical errors that, if corrected, would resolve the inconsistencies. Others reflect fundamental differences in the viewpoint of the analysis. The perspectives of different decision-making entities can properly lead to different items in the numerator and denominator of the cost-effectiveness (C/E) ratio. Producers and consumers of CEA need to be more conscious of the perspectives of analysis, so that C/E comparisons from a given perspective are based upon a common understanding of the elements that are properly included.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biopharmaceuticals for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis: Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Ahmad Gholami ◽  
Jassem Azizpoor ◽  
Elham Aflaki ◽  
Mehdi Rezaee ◽  
Khosro Keshavarz
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cost Data ◽  
Fars Province ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost

Introduction. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic progressive inflammatory disease that causes joint destruction. The condition imposes a significant economic burden on patients and societies. The present study is aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept in treating rheumatoid arthritis in Iran. Methods. This is a cost-effectiveness study of economic evaluation in which the Markov model was used. The study was carried out on 154 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Fars province taking Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept. The patients were selected through sampling. In this study, the cost data were collected from a community perspective, and the outcomes were the mean reductions in DAS-28 and QALY. The cost data collection form and the EQ-5D questionnaire were also used to collect the required data. The results were presented in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the sensitivity analysis was used to measure the robustness of the study results. The TreeAge Pro and Excel softwares were used to analyze the collected data. Results. The results showed that the mean costs and the QALY rates in the Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept arms were $ 79,518.33 and 12.34, $ 91,695.59 and 13.25, and $ 87,440.92 and 11.79, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, Infliximab was in the acceptance area and below the threshold in 77% of simulations. The scatter plot was in the mentioned area in 81% and 91% of simulations compared with Adalimumab and Etanercept, respectively, implying lower costs and higher effectiveness than the other two alternatives. Therefore, the strategy was more cost-effective. Conclusion. According to the results of this study, Infliximab was more cost-effective than the other two medications. Therefore, it is recommended that physicians use this medication as the priority in treating rheumatoid arthritis. It is also suggested that health policymakers consider the present study results in preparing treatment guidelines for RA.

scholarly journals Cost-effective Analysis of Proton Pump Inhibitors in Long-term Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Narrative Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 292-305
Author(s):  
Shazia Jamshed ◽  
Akshaya Srikanth Bhagavathula ◽  
Sheikh Muhammad Zeeshan Qadar ◽  
Umaira Alauddin ◽  
Sana Shamim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
On Demand ◽  
Step Down ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Term Management

Background: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common gastrointestinal disorder that results from regurgitation of acid from the stomach into the esophagus. Treatment available for GERD includes lifestyle changes, antacids, histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and anti-reflux surgery. Aim: The aim of this review is to assess the cost-effectiveness of the use of PPIs in the long-term management of patients with GERD. Method: We searched in PubMed to identify related original articles with close consideration based on inclusion and exclusion criteria to choose the best studies for this narrative review. The first section compares the cost-effectiveness of PPIs with H2RAs in long-term heartburn management. The other sections shall only discuss the cost-effectiveness of PPIs in 5 different strategies, namely, continuous (step-up, step-down, and maintenance), on-demand, and intermittent therapies. Results: Of 55 articles published, 10 studies published from 2000 to 2015 were included. Overall, PPIs are more effective in relieving heartburn in comparison with ranitidine. The use of PPIs in managing heartburn in long-term consumption of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) has higher cost compared with H2RA. However, if the decision-maker is willing to pay more than US$174 788.60 per extra quality-adjusted life year (QALY), then the optimal strategy is traditional NSAID (tNSAID) and PPIs. The probability of being cost-effective was also highest for NSAID and PPI co-therapy users. On-demand PPI treatment strategy showed dominant with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$2197 per QALY gained and was most effective and cost saving compared with all the other treatments. The average cost-effectiveness ratio was lower for rabeprazole therapy than for ranitidine therapy. Conclusion: Our review revealed that long-term treatment with PPIs is effective but costly. To achieve long-term cost-effective approach, we recommend on-demand approach to treat heartburn symptoms, but if the symptoms persist, treatment with continuous step-down therapy should be applied.

Continuation of Anti-TNF in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis in Remission Is Not Cost-effective Compared With Treatment Withdrawal: A Markov Model

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Remi Mahmoud ◽  
Chris van Lieshout ◽  
Geert W J Frederix ◽  
Bindia Jharap ◽  
Bas Oldenburg
Keyword(s):  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health Care Expenditures ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Threshold ◽  
Effectiveness Threshold

Abstract Background and Aims Anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNF] treatment accounts for 31% of health care expenditures associated with ulcerative colitis [UC]. Withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission may decrease side effects and infections, while promoting cost containment. Approximately 36% of patients relapse within 12–24 months of anti-TNF withdrawal, but reintroduction of treatment is successful in 80% of patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continuation versus withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission. Methods We developed a Markov model comparing cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF continuation versus withdrawal, from a health care provider perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated from literature, or estimated by an expert panel of 11 gastroenterologists. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for assumptions and uncertainty. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]. Results At 5 years, anti-TNF withdrawal was less costly [-€10,781 per patient], but also slightly less effective [-0.04 QALY per patient] than continued treatment. Continuation of anti-TNF compared with withdrawal costs €300,390/QALY, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. Continued therapy would become cost-effective if the relapse rate following anti-TNF withdrawal was ≥43% higher, or if adalimumab or infliximab [biosimilar] prices fell below €87/40 mg and €66/100 mg, respectively. Conclusions Continuation of anti-TNF in UC patients in remission is not cost-effective compared with withdrawal. A stop-and-reintroduction strategy is cost-saving but is slightly less effective than continued therapy. This strategy could be improved by identifying patients at increased risk of relapse.

scholarly journals Health Care Costs and Cost-effectiveness in Laryngotracheal Stenosis

2018 ◽  
Vol 160 (4) ◽  
pp. 679-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda X. Yin ◽  
William V. Padula ◽  
Shekhar Gadkaree ◽  
Kevin Motz ◽  
Sabrina Rahman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Tracheal Resection ◽  
Laryngotracheal Stenosis ◽  
Endoscopic Dilation ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Objective Laryngotracheal stenosis (LTS) is resource-intensive disease. The cost-effectiveness of LTS treatments has not been adequately explored. We aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing open reconstruction (cricotracheal/tracheal resection [CTR/TR]) with endoscopic dilation in the treatment of LTS. Study Design Retrospective cohort. Setting Tertiary referral center (2013-2017). Subjects and Methods Thirty-four LTS patients were recruited. Annual costs were derived from the Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University. Cost-effectiveness analysis compared CTR/TR versus endoscopic dilation at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) over 5- and 10-year time horizons. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with deterministic analysis and tested for sensitivity with univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results Mean LTS costs were $4080.09 (SE, $569.29) annually for related health care visits. The major risk factor for increased cost was etiology of stenosis. As compared with idiopathic patients, patients with intubation-related stenosis had significantly higher annual costs ($5286.56 vs $2873.62, P = .03). The cost of CTR/TR was $8583.91 (SE, $2263.22). Over a 5-year time horizon, CTR/TR gained $896 per QALY over serial dilations and was cost-effective. Over a 10-year time horizon, CTR/TR dominated dilations with a lower cost and higher QALY. Conclusion The cost of treatment for LTS is significant. Patients with intubation-related stenosis have significantly higher annual costs than do idiopathic patients. CTR/TR contributes significantly to cost in LTS but is cost-effective versus endoscopic dilations for appropriately selected patients over a 5- and 10-year horizon.

Will Cost Effectiveness Analysis Worsen the Cost Effectiveness of Health Care?

1988 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
David U. Himmelstein ◽  
Steffie Woolhandler ◽  
David H. Bor
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Policy Analysts ◽  
Policy Cost ◽  
The Cost

Cost effectiveness analysis is increasingly advocated as a basis for health policy. Analysts often compare expensive interventions with highly cost-effective programs such as hypertension screening, implying that if the former were curtailed resources would be reallocated to the latter and the efficiency of health care would improve. However, in practice, savings are unlikely to be targeted in this way. We present refined policy models that take into account actual patterns of resource allocation in the United States, and provide more realistic estimates of the likely uses of savings. We illustrate the implications of these models in an analysis of the effects of diverting funds from an expensive but effective practice. Eliminating such a practice would actually worsen the overall cost-effectiveness of U.S. health care unless there are radical changes in health policy. Cost effectiveness analysis incorrectly predicts health and cost outcomes of policy initiatives because it ignores the political constraints to health care decision-making.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of using the TBX6-associated congenital scoliosis risk score (TACScore) in genetic diagnosis of congenital scoliosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zefu Chen ◽  
◽  
Zihui Yan ◽  
Chenxi Yu ◽  
Jiaqi Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Screening Method ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Congenital Scoliosis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
First Line ◽  
Diagnostic Time ◽  
Care Payer ◽  
Line Test ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background We previously reported a novel clinically distinguishable subtype of congenital scoliosis (CS), namely, TBX6-associated congenital scoliosis (TACS). We further developed the TBX6-associated CS risk score (TACScore), a multivariate phenotype-based model to predict TACS according to the patient’s clinical manifestations. In this study, we aimed to evaluate whether using the TACScore as a screening method prior to performing whole-exome sequencing (WES) is more cost-effective than using WES as the first-line genetic test for CS. Methods We retrospectively collected the molecular data of 416 CS patients in the Deciphering disorders Involving Scoliosis and COmorbidities (DISCO) study. A decision tree was constructed to estimate the cost and the diagnostic time required for the two alternative strategies (TACScore versus WES). Bootstrapping simulations and sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the distributions and robustness of the estimates. The economic evaluation considered both the health care payer and the personal budget perspectives. Results From the health care payer perspective, the strategy of using the TACScore as the primary screening method resulted in an average cost of $1074.2 (95%CI: $1044.8 to $1103.5) and an average diagnostic duration of 38.7d (95%CI: 37.8d to 39.6d) to obtain a molecular diagnosis for each patient. In contrast, the corresponding values were $1169.6 (95%CI: $1166.9 to $1172.2) and 41.4d (95%CI: 41.1d to 41.7d) taking WES as the first-line test (P < 0.001). From the personal budget perspective, patients who were predicted to be positive by the TACScore received a result with an average cost of $715.1 (95%CI: $594.5 to $835.7) and an average diagnostic duration of 30.4d (95%CI: 26.3d to 34.6d). Comparatively, the strategy of WES as the first-line test was estimated to have significantly longer diagnostic time with an average of 44.0d (95%CI: 43.2d to 44.9d), and more expensive with an average of $1193.4 (95%CI: $1185.5 to $1201.3) (P < 0.001). In 100% of the bootstrapping simulations, the TACScore strategy was significantly less costly and more time-saving than WES. The sensitivity analyses revealed that the TACScore strategy remained cost-effective even when the cost per WES decreased to $8.8. Conclusions This retrospective study provides clinicians with economic evidence to integrate the TACScore into clinical practice. The TACScore can be considered a cost-effective tool when it serves as a screening test prior to performing WES.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document