Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

P J Neumann

Publications and source records attributed to P J Neumann.

46 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

A comparison of HUI2 and HUI3 utility scores in Alzheimer's disease.

PURPOSE: The Health Utilities Index (HUI) is a generic, multiattribute, preference-based health-status classification system. The HUI Mark 3 (HUI3) differs from the earlier HUI2 by modifying attributes and allowing more flexibility for capturing high levels of impairment. The authors compared HUI2 and HUI3 scores of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and caregivers, and contrasted results of a cost-effectiveness analysis of new drugs for AD using the two systems. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of 679 AD patient/caregiver pairs, stratified by patient's disease stage (questionable/mild/moderate/severe/profound/terminal) and setting (community/assisted living/nursing home), caregivers completed the combined HUI2/HUI3 questionnaire as proxy respondents for patients and for themselves. RESULTS: Mean (SD) global utility scores for patients were lower on the HUI3 (0.22[0.26]) than on the HUI2 (0.53 [0.21]). Patient HUI3 utility scores ranged from 0.47(0.24) for questionable AD to -0.23 (0.08) for terminal AD, compared with a range of 0.73 (0.15) to 0.14 (0.07) for the HUI2. Among the 203 patients in the severe, profound, and terminal stages, 96 (48%) had negative global HUI3 utility scores, while none had a negative HUI2 score. The utility scores for caregivers were similar on the HUI3 (0.87 [0.14]) and HUI2 (0.87 [0.11]). Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new medication to treat AD showed somewhat more favorable results using the HUI3. CONCLUSIONS: The HUI2 and HUI3 discriminate well across AD stages. Compared with the HUI2, the HUI3 yields lower global utility scores for patients with AD, and more scores for states judged worse than dead. The HUI3 may yield substantially different results from the HUI2, particularly for persons who have serious cognitive impairments such as AD.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

A comprehensive league table of cost-utility ratios and a sub-table of "panel-worthy" studies.

OBJECTIVES: The authors compiled a comprehensive league table of cost/QALY ratios, and a standardized table of analyses satisfying selected Reference Case criteria from the USPHS Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. METHODS: They identified 228 cost-utility analyses (CUAs) through literature searches, and abstracted data on methods and cost-utility ratios. The subset of "Panel-worthy" analyses used: a societal or broad health-care perspective, community or patient preference weights, net costs, incremental comparisons, and discounting of costs and QALYs. RESULTS: The 228 CUAs included ratios for 647 interventions, ranging from cost-saving to $52,000,000/QALY (median = $12,000/QALY). The standardized table presents 112 ratios that met the "Panel-worthy" criteria, with articles published in recent years more likely to meet all of the criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive league table (available on the Web) provides a useful reference, but ratios may not be comparable because of methodologic variations. The standardized table focuses on studies meeting basic methodologic criteria, potentially allowing for better comparison with future Reference Case analyses. Future studies should investigate the quality of analyses' underlying assumptions in addition to whether certain key procedural protocols were met.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

An off-the-shelf help list: a comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analyses.

PURPOSE: The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommends an organized collection of preference measure values for health states that can be used in costutility analyses (CUAs). The authors sought to construct a catalog of preference scores from published CUAs, organize the catalog by clinical categories, and identify methods of preference score assessment. METHOD: The authors systematically searched Medline and other databases to identify original CUAs published through 1997. Information was abstracted on the health state descriptions, corresponding preference scores, method of preference score elicitation, and the source of the estimate. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-eight CUAs were appraised. The authors found 949 health states and corresponding preference scores. Most frequently, health states pertained to the circulatory system (21.7%), health states were valued by experts (35.8%), and values were derived through community-based preference scores (23.5%). CONCLUSION: A catalog of preference scores for health states can be constructed. The catalog (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/organizations/hcra/cuadatabase/ intro.html) may provide a useful reference tool for producers and consumers of CUAs but also underscores the methodologic variation and inconsistencies present in the field.

Consumer Behavior↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Are methods for estimating QALYs in cost-effectiveness analyses improving?

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to examine variations in the methods used by researchers to estimate QALYs in published cost-effectiveness analyses, and to investigate whether the methods have improved over time. DATA AND METHODS: Using a MEDLINE search, the authors identified 86 original cost-effectiveness analyses, published between 1975 and 1995, that used QALYs as the measure of effectiveness. For each study, they recorded the health-state classification system, the source of the preference weights, the measurement technique, and the discount rate. The methods used were compared with the recommendations of the U.S. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. RESULTS: Only 20% of the studies used "generic" health-state classification systems (e.g., health utilities index); 21% relied on community-based weights; 40% used formal measurement techniques (e.g., time-tradeoff method); and 88% discounted both future costs and QALYs. There was little evidence that methods had improved over time. CONCLUSIONS: The results illustrate extensive variation in the construction of QALYs in cost-effectiveness analyses and reveal that most studies have not adhered to practices now recommended by leaders in the field. There is a need for more methodologic rigor and consistency if the results of such studies are to be compared and used for purposes of allocating resources.

Classification↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Alzheimer's disease care: costs and potential savings.

A cross-sectional study of 679 Alzheimer's disease patients from thirteen sites in nine states provides a unique opportunity to estimate costs of Alzheimer's disease care by disease stage and care setting and to explore potential areas of cost savings. In 1996 annual costs of caring for patients with mild, moderate, and severe Alzheimer's disease were $18,408, $30,096, and $36,132, respectively. Monthly savings of $2,029 in formal services are possible if disease progression can be slowed. Annual institutional cost savings of $9,132 also are achievable if alternative residential settings are used.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Are pharmaceuticals cost-effective? A review of the evidence.

The argument that prescription drugs are cost-effective has been made both by the pharmaceutical industry to support rising drug prices and expenditures, and by advocates of expanded drug coverage for elderly and low-income persons. A new database of 228 published cost-utility analyses sheds light on the issue. According to published data, some drugs do save money or are cost-effective, but the issue depends critically on the context in which the drug is used and the intervention with which it is compared. Cost-utility analyses funded by the drug industry tend to report more favorable results than do those funded by nonindustry sources. Cost-effectiveness analysis can help policymakers to determine whether drugs and other interventions offer value for money.

Bias↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The FDA's regulation of health economic information.

Section 114 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 was intended to increase the flow of health economic information from pharmaceutical manufacturers to managed care decisionmakers. But the legislation raises a host of complex questions and has provoked diverse opinions from inside and outside the pharmaceutical industry. Moreover, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to issue interpretative guidance on the subject. The challenge in implementing Section 114 lies in developing a policy that improves health economic information exchange while protecting consumers from misleading claims and preserving incentives for manufacturers to conduct rigorous studies.

Drug Industry↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Public attitudes about genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease.

In a general population survey (N = 314), 79 percent of respondents stated that they would take a hypothetical genetic test to predict whether they will eventually develop Alzheimer's disease. The proportion fell to 45 percent for a "partially predictive" test (which had a one in ten chance of being incorrect). Inclination to obtain testing was similar across age groups. Respondents were willing to pay $324 for the completely predictive test. Respondents stated that if they tested positive, they would sign advance directives (84 percent), get their finances in order (74 percent), and purchase long-term care insurance (69 percent). Only a third of respondents expressed concern about confidentiality. The results suggest that people value genetic testingfor personal and financial reasons, but they also underscore the need to counsel potential recipients carefully about the accuracy and implications of test information.

Adult↗