PubMed · 16387903
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Ronald L Koretz. The perspective less viewed.. https://doi.org/10.1177/014860710603000163
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has recently changed its guidelines on discounting costs and effects in economic evaluations. In common with most other regulatory bodies it now requires that health effects should be discounted at the same rate as costs. We show that the guideline leads to sub-optimal decisions because it fails to account for the changing value of health. NICE (and other regulatory bodies) should either use differential discounting or stipulate how the changing value of health should otherwise be dealt with. We also show how binding health service budget constraints should be incorporated in evaluations.
An important subject of debate in cost-utility analysis of health care programmes is whether to include costs of unrelated medical care in life years gained. The inclusion of such costs is likely to be of consequence in the case of primary prevention. This paper presents different strategies regarding the inclusion not only of the costs, but also of the health effects of unrelated medical care in economic evaluations. Four different cost-utility ratios are presented and related to the criterion of internal consistency. In addition, the possibility to relate the ratios to a well-posed decision problem is analysed. An example computes the different ratios for smoking cessation interventions in different age groups. Including health care costs of unrelated medical care in life years gained increases cost utility ratios, but excluding unrelated medical costs favours smoking cessation interventions targeted at older smokers over those at younger smokers. We conclude that for primary prevention only a cost utility ratio that includes both the costs and effects of unrelated medical care meets the criterion of internal consistency and is related to a meaningful decision problem. Therefore, this type of cost-utility ratio should be preferred even if the data requirements may be substantial.
BACKGROUND: Home-based cardiac rehabilitation offers an alternative to traditional, hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation. AIM: To compare the cost effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation and hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation. METHODS: 104 patients with an uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction and without major comorbidity were randomized to receive home-based rehabilitation (n=60) i.e. nurse facilitated, self-help package of 6 weeks' duration (the Heart Manual) or hospital-based rehabilitation for 8-10 weeks (n=44). Complete economic data were available in 80 patients (48 who received home-based rehabilitation and 32 who received hospital-based rehabilitation). Healthcare costs, patient costs, and quality of life (EQ-5D4.13) were assessed over the 9 months of the study. RESULTS: The cost of running the home-based rehabilitation programme was slightly lower than that of the hospital-based programme (mean (95% confidence interval) difference - 30 pounds sterling (- 45 pounds sterling to - 12 pounds sterling) [-44 euro, -67 euro to -18 euro] per patient. The cost difference was largely the result of reduced personnel costs. Over the 9 months of the study, no significant difference was seen between the two groups in overall healthcare costs (78 pounds sterling, - 1102 pounds sterling to 1191 pounds sterling [-115 euro, -1631 euro to -1763 euro] per patient) or quality adjusted life-years (-0.06 (-0.15 to 0.02)). The lack of significant difference between home-based rehabilitation and hospital-based rehabilitation did not alter when different costs and different methods of analysis were used. CONCLUSIONS: The health gain and total healthcare costs of the present hospital-based and home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes for patients after myocardial infarction appear to be similar. These initial results require affirmation by further economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation in different settings.