Do We Have the Spark?

Upgrading any system is challenging. Neglecting continuous monitoring and evaluation might impose solutions that worsen the situation. Primary orientation toward increasing productivity is the main reason for the tremendous decline in the accessibility of outpatient services in Slovenia since 2015, in addition to additional funds from the state budget. In the actual 'fee-for-service', providers are incentivised to deliver more expensive services, not first visits. Although the stakeholders are not to blame, it is high time for an orientation towards patients' needs: a breakaway from inefficient technical solutions, an acceptance of patients as active participants in decision-making, measurement of their treatment outcomes, and the adoption of already proven advanced payment models, such as population-based payments. The journey towards value-based healthcare must start!

Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states.

The purpose of this article is to explore whether any differences exist between the general population and patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states. The article discusses the role of adaptation and self-interest in valuing health states and it also contributes rigorous empirical evidence to the scientific debate on the differences between the patient and general population preferences towards hypothetical health states. Patient preferences were elicited in 2015 with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire using time trade-off and discrete choice experiment design and compared to the Spanish general population preferences, which were elicited using identical methods. Patients were chosen on a voluntary basis according to their willingness to participate in the survey. They were recruited from patient organisations and a hospital in Madrid, Spain. 282 metastatic breast cancer patients and 333 rheumatoid arthritis patients were included in the sample. The analysis revealed differences in preferences between the general population and patient groups. Based on the results of our analysis, it is suggested that the differences in preferences stem from patients being more able to accurately imagine "non-tangible" dimensions of health states (anxiety or depression, and pain or discomfort) than the general population with less experience in various health states. However, this does not mean that general public values should not be reflected in utilities derived for coverage decision making.

PRIORITIES FOR HEALTH ECONOMIC METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH: RESULTS OF AN EXPERT CONSULTATION.

BACKGROUND: The importance of economic evaluation in decision making is growing with increasing budgetary pressures on health systems. Diverse economic evidence is available for a range of interventions across national contexts within Europe, but little attention has been given to identifying evidence gaps that, if filled, could contribute to more efficient allocation of resources. One objective of the Research Agenda for Health Economic Evaluation project is to determine the most important methodological evidence gaps for the ten highest burden conditions in the European Union (EU), and to suggest ways of filling these gaps. METHODS: The highest burden conditions in the EU by Disability Adjusted Life Years were determined using the Global Burden of Disease study. Clinical interventions were identified for each condition based on published guidelines, and economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE were mapped to each intervention. A panel of public health and health economics experts discussed the evidence during a workshop and identified evidence gaps. RESULTS: The literature analysis contributed to identifying cross-cutting methodological and technical issues, which were considered by the expert panel to derive methodological research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: The panel suggests a research agenda for health economics which incorporates the use of real-world evidence in the assessment of new and existing interventions; increased understanding of cost-effectiveness according to patient characteristics beyond the "-omics" approach to inform both investment and disinvestment decisions; methods for assessment of complex interventions; improved cross-talk between economic evaluations from health and other sectors; early health technology assessment; and standardized, transferable approaches to economic modeling.

EQ-5D studies in musculoskeletal and connective tissue diseases in eight Central and Eastern European countries: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

EQ-5D is becoming the preferred instrument to measure health-state utilities involved in health technology assessment. The objective of this study is to assess the state of EQ-5D research in musculoskeletal disorders in 8 Central and Eastern European countries and to provide a meta-analysis of EQ-5D index scores. Original research articles published in any language between Jan 2000 and Sept 2016 were included, if they reported any EQ-5D outcome from at least two musculoskeletal patients from Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, or Slovenia. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Twenty-nine articles (5992 patients) were included on rheumatoid arthritis (n = 7), osteoporosis (n = 5), chronic pain (n = 5), osteoarthritis (n = 4), ankylosing spondylitis (n = 2), psoriatic arthritis (n = 2), total hip replacement (n = 2), and scleroderma (n = 2). Low back pain was under-represented, while studies in neck pain, systemic lupus erythematosus, gout, and childhood disorders were lacking. EQ-5D index scores were reported in 24 studies, while the version of the instrument and the value-set was not specified in 41% and 46% of the articles, respectively. Meta-analysis was performed on 24 disease states involving 6876 observation points. Intervention effect was reported in 22 subgroups, out of which risk of bias was low in 41%. This review provides recommendations to improve reporting standards of EQ-5D results and highlights potential areas for future research. Coordinated research in conditions with greatest public health impact as well as a development of a regional value-set could provide locally relevant health-state utilities that are transferable among countries within the region.

Is There a European View on Health Economic Evaluations? Results from a Synopsis of Methodological Guidelines Used in the EUnetHTA Partner Countries.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to review current methodological guidelines for economic evaluations of all types of technologies in the 33 countries with organizations involved in the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), and to provide a general framework for economic evaluation at a European level. METHODS: Methodological guidelines for health economic evaluations used by EUnetHTA partners were collected through a survey. Information from each guideline was extracted using a pre-tested extraction template. On the basis of the extracted information, a summary describing the methods used by the EUnetHTA countries was written for each methodological item. General recommendations were formulated for methodological issues where the guidelines of the EUnetHTA partners were in agreement or where the usefulness of economic evaluations may be increased by presenting the results in a specific way. RESULTS: At least one contact person from all 33 EUnetHTA countries (100 %) responded to the survey. In total, the review included 51 guidelines, representing 25 countries (eight countries had no methodological guideline for health economic evaluations). On the basis of the results of the extracted information from all 51 guidelines, EUnetHTA issued ten main recommendations for health economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: The presented review of methodological guidelines for health economic evaluations and the consequent recommendations will hopefully improve the comparability, transferability and overall usefulness of economic evaluations performed within EUnetHTA. Nevertheless, there are still methodological issues that need to be investigated further.

Health technology assessment of medical devices: a survey of non-European union agencies.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to review and compare current health technology assessment (HTA) activities for medical devices across non-European Union HTA agencies. METHODS: HTA activities for medical devices were evaluated from three perspectives: organizational structure, processes, and methods. Agencies were primarily selected upon membership of existing HTA networks. The data collection was performed in two stages: stage 1-agency Web-site assessment using a standardized questionnaire, followed by review and validation of the collected data by a representative of the agency; and stage 2-semi-structured telephone interviews with key informants of a sub-sample of agencies. RESULTS: In total, thirty-six HTA agencies across twenty non-EU countries assessing medical devices were included. Twenty-seven of thirty-six (75 percent) agencies were judged at stage 1 to have adopted HTA-specific approaches for medical devices (MD-specific agencies) that were largely organizational or procedural. There appeared to be few differences in the organization, process and methods between MD-specific and non-MD-specific agencies. Although the majority (69 percent) of both categories of agency had specific methods guidance or policy for evidence submission, only one MD-specific agency had developed methodological guidelines specific to medical devices. In stage 2, many MD-specific agencies cited insufficient resources (budget, skilled employees), lack of coordination (between regulator and reimbursement bodies), and the inability to generalize findings from evidence synthesis to be key challenges in the HTA of medical devices. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of evidence for differentiation in scientific methods for HTA of devices raises the question of whether HTA needs to develop new methods for medical devices but rather adapt existing methodological approaches. In contrast, organizational and/or procedural adaptation of existing HTA agency frameworks to accommodate medical devices appear relatively commonplace.

Use of the EQ-5D Instrument and Value Scale in Comparing Health States of Patients in Four Health Care Programs among Health Care Providers.

OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this article was to explore the use of the patient evaluation of health states in determining the quality of health care program provision among health care providers. The other objectives were to explore the effect of size and status of health care providers on patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: The EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire was used in four health care programs (hip replacement, hernia surgery, carpal tunnel release, and veins surgery) to evaluate patients' health states before and after the procedure, following carefully prepared instructions. Data were collected for a single year, 2011. The number of questionnaires filled by patients was 165 for hip replacement, 551 for hernia surgery, 437 for vein surgery, and 158 for carpal tunnel release. The data were analyzed using linear regression model and the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire value set for Slovenia. Differences between providers were determined using the Tukey test. Potential quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained for all four programs were calculated for the optimal allocation of patients among providers. RESULTS: There are significant differences among health care providers in the share of patients who reported positive changes in health care status as well as in average improvement in patient-reported outcomes in all four programs. In the case of optimal allocation, each patient undergoing hip replacement would gain 2.25 QALYs, each patient undergoing hernia surgery would gain 0.83 QALY, each patient undergoing veins surgery would gain 0.36 QALY, and each patient undergoing carpal tunnel release would gain 0.78 QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis exposed differences in average health state valuations across four health care programs among providers. Further data on patient-reported outcomes for more than a single year should be collected. On the basis of trend data, further analysis to determine the possible causes for differences should be conducted and the possibility to use this approach for measuring health care providers' performance and its use in contracting should be explored.