The European Journal of Health Economics最新文献

{"title":"Trends in rates of orthopedic surgery in Germany: the good, the bad, and the ugly.","authors":"Afschin Gandjour","doi":"10.1007/s10198-019-01133-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10198-019-01133-3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":"663-664"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89927109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Neuropad device as a screening tool for early diabetic peripheral neuropathy.","authors":"B Rodríguez-Sánchez, L M Peña-Longobardo, A J Sinclair","doi":"10.1007/s10198-019-01134-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10198-019-01134-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To carry out a cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of Neuropad as a screening test for diabetic neuropathy together with the standard care tool, the 10-g monofilament, in people with diabetes.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model was developed to assess the impact on costs and outcomes of using Neuropad as a test for diabetic neuropathy (1) as a complement to the standard test, the 10-g monofilament (Neuropad + monofilament vs. monofilament); and (2) as a substitute for the monofilament (Neuropad vs. monofilament); from the healthcare provider perspective. The time horizon was 3 years. Data on costs and health gains were extracted from the literature. The incremental cost-utility ratio was calculated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with standard care, Neuropad, in combination with the 10-g monofilament tool, is the dominant strategy as it leads to higher health gains and lower costs. In practice, compared with using the monofilament alone, performing both tests would lead to a savings of £1049.26 per patient and 0.044 QALY gain. Results were found to be consistent across the sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using both screening tools (Neuropad + monofilament) is a cost-effective strategy and the dominant alternative, when compared against using the 10-g monofilament alone. The results would be of special relevance in the early detection of diabetic peripheral neuropathy and to ensure the efficient allocation of resources and, thus, the sustainability of healthcare systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":"44 1","pages":"335-349"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85756518","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The impact of prescription drug co-payments for publicly insured families.","authors":"Gretta Mohan, Anne Nolan","doi":"10.1007/s10198-019-01125-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10198-019-01125-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Co-payments for prescription drugs are a common feature of many healthcare systems, although often with exemptions for vulnerable population groups. International evidence demonstrates that cost-sharing for medicines may delay necessary care, increase use of other forms of healthcare and result in poorer health outcomes. Existing studies concentrate on adults and older people, particularly in the US, with relatively less attention afforded to paediatric and European populations. In Ireland, prescription drug co-payments were introduced for the first time for medical cardholders (i.e. those with public health insurance) in October 2010, initially at a cost of €0.50 per item, rising to €1.50 in January 2013, and further increasing to €2.50 in December 2013. Using data from the Growing Up in Ireland longitudinal study of children, and a difference-in-difference research design, we estimate the impact of the introduction (and increase) of these co-payments on health, healthcare utilisation and household financial wellbeing. The introduction of modest co-payments on prescription items was not estimated to impinge on the health of children and parents from low-income families. For the younger Infant Cohort, difference-in-difference estimates indicated that the introduction (and increase) in co-payments was associated with a decrease in GP visits and hospital nights, and a decrease in the proportion of households reporting 'difficulties with making ends meet'. In contrast, for the older cohort of children (the Child Cohort), co-payments were associated with an increase in GP visiting, and an increase in household deprivation. While the parallel trends assumption for difference-in-difference analysis appeared to be satisfied, further investigation revealed that there were other time-varying observable factors (such as exposure to the economic recession over the period) that affected the treatment and control groups, as well as the two cohorts of children differentially, that may partly explain these divergent results. For example, while the analysis suggests that the introduction of the €0.50 co-payment in 2010 was associated with an increase in the probability of treated families in the Child Cohort being deprived by 9.4 percentage points, the proportion of treated families experiencing unemployment and reductions in household income also increased significantly around the time of the co-payment introduction. This highlights the difficulty in identifying the effect of the co-payment policy in an environment in which assignment to the treatment (i.e. medical cardholder status) was not randomly assigned.</p>","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":"8 1","pages":"261-274"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86966982","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The economic burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Europe: results from a systematic review of the literature.","authors":"Anees Ur Rehman, Mohamed Azmi Ahmad Hassali, Sohail Ayaz Muhammad, Sabariah Noor Harun, Shahid Shah, Sameen Abbas","doi":"10.1007/s10198-019-01119-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10198-019-01119-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To find the economic burden of COPD and to identify the key cost drivers in the management of COPD patients across different European countries.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>COPD is a major cause of mortality and morbidity and is associated with considerable economic burden on the individual and society. It limits the daily activities and working ability of the patients.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of PUBMED, SCIENCE DIRECT, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, Google Scholar and SAGE Premier Databases to find scientific research articles evaluating the cost of COPD management from patient and societal perspective.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Estimated per patient per year direct cost in Norway, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Greece, Belgium, and Serbia was €10,701, €9580, €7847, €7448, €7045, €2896, €1963, and €2047, respectively. Annual per patient cost of work productivity loss was highest in Germany as €5735 and lowest in Greece as €998. It was estimated as €4824, €2033 and €1298 in Bulgaria, Denmark and Sweden, respectively. Several factors found associated with increasing cost of COPD management that include but not limited to late diagnosis, severity of disease, frequency of exacerbation, hospital readmissions, non-adherence to the therapy and exposure to COPD risk factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Minimizing the COPD exacerbations and controlling the worsening of symptoms may potentially reduce the cost of COPD management at any stage.</p>","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":"7 1","pages":"181-194"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81934610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The contribution of real-world evidence to cost-effectiveness analysis: case study of Dabigatran etexilate in France.","authors":"Gérard de Pouvourville, Patrick Blin, Pierre Karam","doi":"10.1007/s10198-019-01123-5","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10198-019-01123-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The goal of this study was to assess the differences between an ex ante and an ex post cost-effectiveness analysis of Dabigatran etexilate vs VKAs for the prevention of thromboembolic events in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients and to draw lessons on the design and use of real-world data for decision making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The same model was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness ratio using two sets of parameters. One set included the efficacy and safety outcomes data from RE-LY, the pivotal trial comparing Dabigatran to warfarin; cost data came from an ex ante publication. Outcomes data for the second set came from real-world data studies. Cost data were a mix of real-world data and other sources. Two treatment strategies were compared: treatment initiation by either Dabigatran or VKAs, followed by either VKAs or Dabigatran. A crude comparison of results was performed; the impact of data differences was then assessed. Probabilistic sensitivity results of the two analyses were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With real-world evidence, Dabigatran at both dosages was more effective for the prevention of ischemic strokes, intra-cranial haemorrhages, with less major extra-cranial haemorrhages and a similar risk of myocardial infarction. Using clinical trial data, Dabigatran150 mg (resp. Dabigatran110 mg) as a first-line treatment vs VKAs yielded an ICER of € 8077/QALY (resp. € 13,116/QALY). Real-world evidence scenarios were cost-saving and more effective for both dosages.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The reassessment of outcomes and cost data had an impact on results, improving the efficiency of Dabigatran. We identify methodological issues which should be discussed if post-launch RWE based cost-effectiveness data become a standard in HTA decision making.</p>","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":"235-249"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77494510","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Measuring horizontal inequity in healthcare utilisation: a review of methodological developments and debates.","authors":"Mohammad Habibullah Pulok, Kees van Gool, Mohammad Hajizadeh, Sara Allin, Jane Hall","doi":"10.1007/s10198-019-01118-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10198-019-01118-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Equity in healthcare is an overarching goal of many healthcare systems around the world. Empirical studies of equity in healthcare utilisation primarily rely on the horizontal inequity (HI) approach which measures unequal utilisation of healthcare services by socioeconomic status (SES) for equal medical need. The HI method examines, quantifies, and explains inequity which is based on regression analysis, the concentration index, and the decomposition technique. However, this method is not beyond limitations and criticisms, and it has been subject to several methodological challenges in the past decade. This review presents a summary of the recent developments and debates on various methodological issues and their implications on the assessment of HI in healthcare utilisation. We discuss the key disputes centred on measurement scale of healthcare variables as well as the evolution of the decomposition technique. We also highlight the issues about the choice of variables as the indicator of SES in measuring inequity. This follows a discussion on the application of the longitudinal method and use of administrative data to quantify inequity. Future research could exploit the potential for health administrative data linked to social data to generate more comprehensive estimates of inequity across the healthcare continuum. This review would be helpful to guide future applied research to examine inequity in healthcare utilisation.</p>","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":"33 1","pages":"171-180"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76203166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Economic burden of blindness and visual impairment in Germany from a societal perspective: a cost-of-illness study.","authors":"Yuliya Chuvarayan, Robert P Finger, Juliane Köberlein-Neu","doi":"10.1007/s10198-019-01115-5","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10198-019-01115-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Visual impairment and blindness cause a considerable and increasing economic burden affecting not only persons with vision loss and their families, but also societies. For the majority of countries, there is no solid database that would allow a comprehensive assessment of costs from a societal perspective. The present study was conducted to fill this gap.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate resource utilization of blind or visually impaired people and to assess the economic burden of blindness and visual impairment in Germany.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional cost-of-illness study measures the economic burden of blindness and visual impairment bottom-up and from a societal perspective. Therefore, blind and visually impaired persons were recruited via national self-help organizations (prevalence-based approach) and interviewed regarding their utilized resources using various survey modes (mixed-mode approach). The observation period was 6 months retrospectively. Utilized resources were valued applying standardized unit costs (macro-costing). Calculations for the study population provided direct and indirect costs per person for a period of 6 months. Further cost per category was extrapolated to 1 year for the general population of Germany. Uncertainty of results was addressed applying univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Complete data were collected from 683 participants (54.84% women; average age: 60.28 ± 17.02 years). Decreasing vision was associated with increasing costs (p < 0.001). Most costs were incurred by informal support from relatives, which was the most important resource for coping with everyday life for people with visual loss. Together with assistive/medical devices and loss of productivity due to disability, informal support accounted for 80% of total costs. Extrapolated to Germany, the annual costs of blindness and visual impairment from a societal perspective amounted to € 49.6 billion. Results of the sensitivity analyses and 95% confidence intervals showed a considerable degree of uncertainty.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Visual impairment and blindness may cause enormous overall costs from a societal point of view, as shown here for Germany. Our findings on the costs of blindness and visual impairment in Germany add in a number of different ways to the international evidence. In particular, results show that a large proportion of the costs are not obvious per se as it is caused by self-paid deductibles, productivity loss, early retirement and informal support/care by relatives. Further research should make special efforts to investigate these costs precisely as well as their influence factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":"42 1","pages":"115-127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82997379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Provision of health care services and regional diversity in Germany: insights from a Bayesian health frontier analysis with spatial dependencies.","authors":"Rouven Edgar Haschka, Katharina Schley, Helmut Herwartz","doi":"10.1007/s10198-019-01111-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10198-019-01111-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The German health care system is among the most patient-oriented systems in Europe. Nevertheless, distinct utilisation patterns, access barriers due to socio-economic profiles, and potentials of misallocation of medical resources lead to disparities in the provision of health care services. We analyse how a possible over- and undersupply of services and the utilisation of and the access to the health care system relate to regional variations in the population's well-being. For this purpose, we employ a recent Bayesian stochastic frontier approach that allows for spatial dependence structures. Our results indicate that patient migration plays an important role in contributing to regional differences in the utilisation of the medical infrastructure. As a consequence, policy should take spatial patterns of health care utilisation into account to improve the allocation of medical resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":"6 1","pages":"55-71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74318043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"HTA for pharmaceuticals in Europe: will the mountain deliver a mouse?","authors":"Livio Garattini, Anna Padula","doi":"10.1007/s10198-019-01103-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10198-019-01103-9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":"9 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75834503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Speeding up the clinical pathways by accessing emergency departments.","authors":"Rosella Levaggi, Marcello Montefiori, Luca Persico","doi":"10.1007/s10198-019-01107-5","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10198-019-01107-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Inappropriate emergency admissions create overcrowding and may reduce the quality of emergency care. In Italy, overcrowding is further exacerbated by patients who use emergency admissions as a shortcut to avoid the general practitioner (GP) gateway. In this paper, we investigate access to emergency departments (EDs) by patients with non-severe medical conditions and their willingness to wait. Population data for ED accesses in Liguria (an Italian administrative region) in 2016 were used to estimate the number of strategic accesses and waiting time elasticities of low-severity patients. Our results show that the practice of using EDs to skip gatekeeping is a serious problem. The percentage of patients who engage in such practice vary from 8.7 to 9.9% of non-urgent patients; they generally prefer to access more specialized hospitals, especially during weekdays, when GPs are available, but hospitals run at full capacity. Strategic patients are usually much younger than average. From a policy point of view, our results show that long waits may discourage \"genuine\" patients rather than strategic ones. It is necessary to develop a system to improve access to patients mainly requiring specialist care, along with enhancing the management of diagnostic examinations through primary care.</p>","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":"20 1","pages":"37-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85351183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}