Family Spillover Effects in Pediatric Cost-Utility Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Childhood illness can impose significant costs and health strains on family members, but these are not routinely captured by pediatric economic evaluations. This review investigated how family "spillover effects" related to costs and health outcomes are considered in pediatric cost-utility analyses (CUAs). METHODS: We reviewed pediatric CUAs published between 2000 and 2015 using the Tufts Medical Center Cost-effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry and the Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation (PEDE) Registry. We selected studies conducted from the societal perspective and included in both registries. We investigated how frequently family spillover was incorporated into analyses, and how the inclusion of spillover health effects and costs changed CUA results. RESULTS: We found 142 pediatric CUAs meeting inclusion criteria. Of those, 105 (72%) considered either family spillover costs (n = 98 time costs, n = 33 out-of-pocket costs, n = 2 caregiver healthcare costs) or health outcomes (n = 15). Twenty-four studies included 43 pairs of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with and without spillover. In 19 pairs of ICERs, adding spillover changed the ICER enough to cross a common cost-effectiveness threshold (i.e., $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, $150,000/QALY; values are in 2016 US$). Incorporating spillover generally made interventions more cost-effective (n = 18; 42%), or did not change CUA results enough to cross a threshold (n = 24; 56%). Including family spillover reduced ICERs by 31% ($40,000/QALY) on average. CONCLUSION: Most pediatric CUAs conducted from a societal perspective include family costs but fewer include family health effects. Inclusion of family spillover effects tends to make CUA results more favorable. Future pediatric CUAs should aim to more fully incorporate the family burden of illness.

Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures.

Background: We examined the similarities and differences between studies using two common metrics used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs): cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Methods: We used the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry, which contains English-language cost-per-QALY gained studies, and the Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, which contains cost-per-DALY averted studies. We examined study characteristics, including intervention type, sponsor, country, and primary disease, and also compared the number of published CEAs to disease burden for major diseases and conditions across geographic regions. Results: We identified 6,438 cost-per-QALY and 543 cost-per-DALY studies published through 2016 and observed rapid growth for both literatures. Cost-per-QALY studies most often examined pharmaceuticals and interventions in high-income countries. Cost-per-DALY studies predominantly focused on infectious disease interventions and interventions in low and lower-middle income countries. We found that while diseases imposing a larger burden tend to receive more attention in the cost-effectiveness analysis literature, the number of publications for some diseases and conditions deviates from this pattern, suggesting "under-studied" conditions (e.g., neonatal disorders) and "over-studied" conditions (e.g., HIV and TB). Conclusions: The CEA literature has grown rapidly, with applications to diverse interventions and diseases.  The publication of fewer studies than expected for some diseases given their imposed burden suggests funding opportunities for future cost-effectiveness research.

A Review of Empirical Analyses of Disinvestment Initiatives.

BACKGROUND: Disinvesting in low-value health care services provides opportunities for investment in higher value care and thus an increase in health care efficiency. OBJECTIVES: To identify international experience with disinvestment initiatives and to review empirical analyses of disinvestment initiatives. METHODS: We performed a literature search using the PubMed database to identify international experience with disinvestment initiatives. We also reviewed empirical analyses of disinvestment initiatives. RESULTS: We identified 26 unique disinvestment initiatives implemented across 11 countries. Nineteen addressed multiple intervention types, six addressed only drugs, and one addressed only devices. We reviewed 18 empirical analyses of disinvestment initiatives: 7 reported that the initiative was successful, 8 reported that the initiative was unsuccessful, and 3 reported that findings were mixed; that is, the study considered multiple services and reported a decrease in the use of some but not others. Thirty-seven low-value services were evaluated across the 18 empirical analyses, for 14 (38%) of which the disinvestment initiative led to a decline in use. Six of the seven studies that reported the disinvestment initiative to be successful included an attempt to promote the disinvestment initiative among participating clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: The success of disinvestment initiatives has been mixed, with fewer than half the identified empirical studies reporting that use of the low-value service was reduced. Our findings suggest that promotion of the disinvestment initiative among clinicians is a key component to the success of the disinvestment initiative.