1 / 22

QALY, Burden of Disease and Budget Impact

QALY, Burden of Disease and Budget Impact. Jan J.V. Busschbach, Ph.D. Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands J.vanbusschbach@erasmusmc.nl www.Busschbach.nl Issue Panels – Session II Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM. 3600 Citations in PubMed.

toril
Download Presentation

QALY, Burden of Disease and Budget Impact

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. QALY, Burden of Disease andBudget Impact • Jan J.V. Busschbach, Ph.D. • Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands • J.vanbusschbach@erasmusmc.nl • www.Busschbach.nl • Issue Panels – Session IITuesday, May 22, 2007 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM

  2. 3600 Citations in PubMed

  3. Health economics is not the only argument • Reimbursement decisions are a combination of arguments • Health economic • Juridical • Ethical • What are these other arguments? • Not clear in Juridical and ethics • Are other arguments important? • How can we use them?

  4. What are the ‘other’ arguments? • Used when economics evaluation ‘fails’ • Reimbursement of lung transplantation • No reimbursement of Viagra • First, debate about the validity of the health economics • lung transplantation: not all cost of screening / waiting list should be included • Viagra: preferences for sex (erectile functioning) can not be measured • Secondly, ad hoc arguments are used • lung transplantation: it is unethical to let someone die • Viagra: erectile dysfunction in old men is not a disease

  5. Ad hoc argument repressed equity concerns • Severity of illness • Looking forwards • Prospective health • lung transplantation: it is unethical to let someone die • Rule of rescue • Necessity of care • Eric Nord • Fair innings • Looking backwards • Total health • Viagra: when you get older, erectile dysfunction is not longer considered a disease in old men: you had your fair share • Alan Williams

  6. Person trade-off • Incorporates equity concerns in QALY • Nord / Richardson / Murray 100 persons additionally 1 healthy year ?? persons 1 year free from disease Q

  7. PTO differs from TTO Susan Robinson, iHEA 2001Also: Report Health Services Management Centre, Birmingham

  8. Psychometrics • “If we look at TTO and PTO… • …we see that one of them is wrong” • Paul Kind, iHEA 2001 Susan Robinson, iHEA 2001

  9. Psychometrics • “And if we look at PTO alone… • …we still see that one of them is wrong…” • Paul Kind, iHEA 2001

  10. Incorporated equity in model • Weight QALY by equity • Wagstaff 1991 • The higher the burden of disease • The more money we are willing to spend • The higher the QALY threshold • A floating threshold…. • Might be the reason we could not find it…

  11. A floating threshold

  12. Drawback • The more differentiation of the threshold… • The lower the population health • If we spend all our money in curing the worst of patients… • All others die sooner… • Equity-efficiency trade-off • Wagstaff 1991

  13. Several definition of burden (equity) • Fair innings • How good has it been? • Severity of illness • How bad is it now? Discriminate the old? But what if the severity of illness is a result of old age?

  14. Prop. Short Fall = 60% Prop. Short Fall = 50% QoL  Prop. Short Fall = 50% QALY gain QALY lost Now t  Prop. Short Fall = 25% Proportional short fall • Compares loss in QALY with expected QALY • The higher the proportion • The higher the need for equity compensation

  15. Intermediate position • Fair innings • Looking backwards • Total health • Severity of illness • Looking forwards • Prospective health • Proportionalshort fall • Intermediate Health patient A Proportional short fall Fair innings patient A Now Prospective health patient A Birth t 

  16. What can we do with it? • Better understand health policy • Why are some cost effective treatments not reimbursed • Why are some not cost effective treatment reimbursed • Cost effectiveness interact with equity • Is there indeed a shifting threshold? • Tested in policy practice

  17. CE-ratio by equity

  18. Burden as criteria Pronk & Bonsel, Eur J Health Econom 2004, 5: 274-277

  19. Dutch Council for Public Health and Health Care (RvZ, 2006) € 80.000

  20. Alternative interpretation:Budget impact….

  21. Budget impact • The Third Man • Next to cost effectiveness • Next to burden (equity) • Are we more willing to pay for: • Low incidences? • Are high incidences linked to low burden? • Opposition from economists • Abandoned efficiency as primary criterion • Like burden of disease • But might be relevant for policy…. • For good reasons

  22. Conclusions • Efficiency / Equity trade-off • The more severe the health state • The more we are willing to contribute • The more money we are willing the spend • Budget impact • High incident / prevalence are suspected • Possible link with burden

More Related