Prediction and cost-effectiveness comparison of amblyopia screening methods at ages 3-4 years.

PURPOSE: Compare the performance of different amblyopia screening tests. METHODS: Based on exploratory factor analyses (EFA) of different screening tests performed in 3295 children, we created models of screening strategies in a matrix with: uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), Plusoptix measurements (PO), Randot Stereo-test (SR), and Cover-Test (CT). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and confusion matrix were used to compare performance of different model's algorithm to predict new diagnosis of amblyopia. Estimated screening costs per screened and treated child were compared. RESULTS: Regression analyses revealed that, although all models predicted amblyopia (all p < 0.001), only models including PO or UCVA had higher prediction capacity (R2 > 0.4) and better discriminating ROC curves (AUC > 0.95; p < 0.001). For 96% sensitivity, UCVA + PO was the most cost-effective model, since the estimated average screening costs per treated child, almost doubled and tripled if using PO or UCVA alone, respectively, versus using both exams. When UCVA + PO is not possible to implement, adding SR to either UCVA or PO resulted in cost-savings of 28% and 18%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a previous unscreened population, aged 3-4 years, screening programs using either UCVA or PO alone, should reconsider doing both tests simultaneously, since, for a high level of sensitivity, using simultaneously UCVA + PO is more cost-effective, per screened, and treated amblyopia. Concerns relating higher time-consuming exams for the combination of UCVA + PO should be surpassed, since costs per treated child drop considerably. When children benefit from good primary-care routine examinations since birth, no benefit was found for using CT in a screening setting. SR showed little benefit.

[Cost-utility analysis as a mechanism for allocation of health care resources: a review of the debate]. / Avaliação de custo-utilidade como mecanismo de alocação de recursos em saúde: revisão do debate.

Priority setting in health care involves choosing between alternative health care programs and/or patients or groups of patients who will receive care. Traditionally, health economists have proposed maximizing the additional health gain measured in QALYs as a way of setting priorities and maximizing social welfare. This requires that the social value from health improvements be a product of gains in years of life, quality of life, and number of people treated. The results of a literature review suggest that potential health gain is not a single relevant determinant of value, nor is the rule of maximizing this gain sufficient. The social value of a health gain appears not to be linear in terms of mortality and morbidity, or neutral vis-à-vis people's characteristics or the ultimate distribution of health in society. In parallel with the review of the debate on the role and limitation of QALYs for prioritizing health care resources, the article attempts to justify the controversy over some empirical results, particularly in relation to the construction and expression of social preferences.

Avaliação de custo-utilidade como mecanismo de alocação de recursos em saúde: revisão do debate / Cost-utility analysis as a mechanism for allocation of health care resources: a review of the debate

Estabelecer prioridades em saúde traduz-se em escolhas entre programas alternativos e/ou entre pacientes ou grupos de pacientes. Tradicionalmente, os economistas da saúde propuseram a agregação dos ganhos de saúde, avaliados em QALYs, como forma de estabelecer prioridades e maximizar o bem-estar social. Isso requer que o valor social dos ganhos de saúde seja um produto dos ganhos em anos de vida, qualidade de vida e número de pessoas tratadas. Resultados da revisão de literatura sugerem que nem os potenciais ganhos de saúde são, por si só, um determinante significativo de valor nem a regra da maximização dos ganhos de saúde parece suficiente. O valor social de um ganho de saúde parece não ser uma função linear dos ganhos de mortalidade e morbidade, nem parece neutral às características dos doentes ou à distribuição final de saúde entre a população. Paralelamente à revisão do debate sobre o papel e limitação dos QALYs para a priorização dos recursos da saúde, o artigo procura justificar a controvérsia de alguns resultados empíricos, em particular, no que se refere à formação e manifestação das preferências sociais.

Priority setting in health care involves choosing between alternative health care programs and/or patients or groups of patients who will receive care. Traditionally, health economists have proposed maximizing the additional health gain measured in QALYs as a way of setting priorities and maximizing social welfare. This requires that the social value from health improvements be a product of gains in years of life, quality of life, and number of people treated. The results of a literature review suggest that potential health gain is not a single relevant determinant of value, nor is the rule of maximizing this gain sufficient. The social value of a health gain appears not to be linear in terms of mortality and morbidity, or neutral vis-à-vis people's characteristics or the ultimate distribution of health in society. In parallel with the review of the debate on the role and limitation of QALYs for prioritizing health care resources, the article attempts to justify the controversy over some empirical results, particularly in relation to the construction and expression of social preferences.