1 / 17

Cost-effectiveness Analysis and Vaccine Policy

Cost-effectiveness Analysis and Vaccine Policy. Lisa A. Prosser, Ph.D. University of Michigan May 2, 2011. Overview. Role of cost-effectiveness evidence in current Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) process Limitations in current health valuation approaches

klaus
Download Presentation

Cost-effectiveness Analysis and Vaccine Policy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Cost-effectiveness Analysis and Vaccine Policy Lisa A. Prosser, Ph.D. University of Michigan May 2, 2011

  2. Overview • Role of cost-effectiveness evidence in current Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) process • Limitations in current health valuation approaches • Lessons from newborn screening • Future directions & global implications

  3. Evidence Reviewed by ACIP Source: Smith, 2010

  4. Cost-effectiveness in practice • Inadequacy of the cost-effectiveness framework to capture important values • Identifying a threshold for determining cost-effectiveness • Challenge of communicating results to decision makers

  5. Valuation of health benefits • Limitations of QALYs, DALYs, other established measures • Risk profile • Priorities by age • Conjoint analysis and other approaches provide complementary information

  6. QALY Losses Source: Lavelle et al., 2010

  7. Time trade-off amounts by patient age Source: Prosser et al., 2010

  8. Thresholds • Implied threshold from ACIP recommendations • WTP per QALY – no “one size fits all” • A QALY is a QALY is a QALY (or is it?) • Prevention vs. treatment • Characteristics of the condition, patient population • WHO thresholds

  9. Lessons from newborn screening • Advisory Committee for Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children (ACHDNC) • Evidence Evaluation Methods Working Group • Decision modeling to project outcomes • Short and long-term health outcomes • …but not QALYs • “false positives” vs. identified cases

  10. Newborn Screening – Projected Outcomes Source: Prosser et al., Pediatrics, 2010

  11. Newborn Screening – Projected Outcomes QALYs gained via screening 46.95 QALYs lost from FPs -0.01 QALYs lost from treatment -10.52 Total QALYs 36.42 Source: Prosser et al., Pediatrics, 2010

  12. Conjoint Analysis • Conjoint analysis, originally developed for marketing and transportation analysis, allows for: • Estimation of the relative importance of different aspects of a health service • Trade-offs between these aspects • Total satisfaction or utility respondents derive from health services • Relatively new in health applications

  13. Conjoint Analysis - Applications • Preferences for health services and barriers to utilization of health care in sub-Saharan Africa • Measuring WTP per QALY • Population-based • Condition-specific • Valuation of QALYs • Scoring algorithm for EQ-5D • Time trade-off amounts

  14. Marginal WTP *P-value <0.001 Source: Gidengil et al., forthcoming.

  15. Implications for Global Vaccine Policy • Increased need to understand public values for health and health care beyond QALYs, DALYs, or other summary measures • Research on measuring preferences in resource-limited settings • Can inform valuation of health benefits and prioritization more broadly

  16. Summary • Future research directions in cost-effectiveness research need to include new approaches for valuing health benefits • How preferences vary by condition, potential harms, patient population, etc. • How best to evaluate? Incorporated into or considered separately from the cost-effectiveness ratio?

  17. Thank You

More Related