Capacity Constraints and Cost-Effectiveness: A Discrete Event Simulation for Drug-Eluting Stents

Abstract

Background. Waiting times for access to care, for example, for diagnostic imaging or surgery, are a highly relevant issue in health care. Waiting or deferred treatment caused by limited resource capacities can affect treatment success, quality of life, and costs. However, when treatment alternatives are compared in economic models, often unrestricted availability of resources is assumed, and dynamic changes in waiting lines remain unconsidered. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of potential real-world capacity restrictions and implied waiting lines on cost-effectiveness results and additional model outcomes. Methods. A case study of drug-eluting and bare-metal stent treatment illustrates the effect of hypothetical capacity limitations of daily stenting procedures. Therefore, a decision-analytic model which allows for explicitly defined resource capacities and dynamic waiting lines was built using discrete event simulation. Cost-effectiveness, utilization, waiting time, and budgetary impact of alternative treatment scenarios are analyzed under the assumption of limited and unlimited resource capacities. Results. The compared treatment allocation scenarios in the case study demonstrate that the additional cost for waiting increases the average treatment cost per patient. The different scenarios have different impacts on waiting lines because of the number of repeated interventions. Additionally, this effect leads to changes in cost-effectiveness results for the hypothetical capacity limit. Explicitly modeled capacities allow for further analysis of capacity utilization, waiting lines, and budgetary impact. Conclusion. Our model shows that neglected limited capacities can cause wrong cost-effectiveness results. Therefore, capacities should be explicitly included in decision-analytic models if there is evidence of scarcity.

Keywords

health economic evaluation cost-effectiveness analysis modeling technology discrete event simulation capacities limited resources. (Med Decis Making 2010;30:16—28)

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barton P. , Bryan S. , Robinson S. Modelling in the economic evaluation of health care: selecting the appropriate approach. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2004;9(2):110-8.

Gold MR , Siegel JE , Russell LB , Weinstein MC Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

Drummond MF , O’Brien B. , Stoddart GL , Torrance GW Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.

Trueman P. , Drummond M. , Hutton J. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics . 2001;19(6): 609-21.

Adang E. , Voordijk L. , van der Wilt GJ , Ament A. Cost-effectiveness analysis in relation to budgetary constraints and reallocative restrictions. Health Policy. 2005;74(2):146-56.

Willcox S. , Seddon M. , Dunn S. , Edwards RT , Pearse J. , Tu JV Measuring and reducing waiting times: a cross-national comparison of strategies . Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26(4):1078-87.

Canadian Institute for Health Information. Waiting for health care in Canada: what we know and what we don’t know. Available from: www.cihi.ca

Ball P. Introduction to discrete event simulation: 1996. In: Management and Control: Tools in 447 Action. Algarve, Portugal: European Community Copernicus Network; 1996. p 367-76.

Jun JB , Jacobson SH , Swisher JR Application of discrete-event simulation in health care clinics: a survey . J Oper Res Soc. 1999; 50(2):109-23.

10.

Cochran JK , Bharti A. Stochastic bed balancing of an obstetrics hospital. Health Care Manag Sci. 2006;9(1):31-45.

11.

Caro JJ Pharmacoeconomic analyses using discrete event simulation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(4):323-32.

12.

Weinstein MC Recent developments in decision-analytic modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006; 24(11):1043-53.

13.

Karnon J. Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation. Health Econ. 2003;12(10):837-48.

14.

Brennan A. , Chick SE , Davies R. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies . Health Econ. 2006;15(12):1295-310.

15.

Banks J. , Carson J. , Nelson BL , Nicol D. Discrete-Event System Simulation. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall ; 2005.

16.

Fishman GS Discrete-Event Simulation: Modeling, Programming, and Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2001.

17.

Hill R. , Bagust A. , Bakhai A. , et al. Coronary artery stents: a rapid systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(35):1-256.

18.

Hill RA , Boland A. , Dickson R. , et al. Drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and economic evaluation . Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(46):1-242.

19.

Bowen J. , Hopkins R. , He Y. , et al. DES report systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of drug eluting stents compared to bare metal stents for percutaneous coronary interventions in Ontario. Report no. HTA002-0512. December 2005.

20.

Zahn R. , Hamm CW , Zeymer U. , et al. "Real life" use of sirolimuseluting coronary stents in Germany: results from the prospective multi-centre German Cypher Registry. Z Kardiol. 2004;93(4):287-94.

21.

Hamon M. , Petrescu V. , Rossi P. , et al. Initial and follow-up results of the European Seaquence coronary stent registry. J Interv Cardiol. 2004;17(1):9-15.

22.

Williams DO , Kereiakes DJ Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents . Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2005;6 Suppl 1:S22-30.

23.

Mühlberger V. , Leisch F. , Probst P. Reports of the Working Group Interventional Cardiology of the Austrian Society of Cardiology. 2004; Available from http://iik.i-med.ac.at/files/2004/countrysum_04.pdf

24.

Mauri L. , Hsieh W-h , Massaro JM , Ho KKL , D’Agostino R. , Cutlip DE Stent thrombosis in randomized clinical trials of drug-eluting stents . N Engl J Med. 2007;356(10):1020-9.

25.

Serruys PW , Unger F. , Sousa JE , et al. Comparison of coronary-artery bypass surgery and stenting for the treatment of multivessel disease. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(15):1117-24.

26.

Accounting System, Innsbruck Medical University Hospital. Unpublished report 10.2005. Innsbruck, Austria.

27.

McGregor M. Cost-utility analysis: use QALYs only with great caution. CMAJ. 2003;168(4):433-4.

28.

Berger ML , Bingefors K , Hedblom EC , Pashos CL , Torrance GW , ed. Health Care Cost, Quality, and Outcomes: ISPOR Book of Terms. Lawrenceville, NJ: ISPOR; 2003.

29.

Birch S. , Gafni A. The biggest bang for the buck or bigger bucks for the bang: the fallacy of the cost-effectiveness threshold. J Health Serv Res Policy . 2006;11(1):46-51.

30.

Gafni A. , Birch S. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(9):2091-100.

31.

Nuijten MJC , Rutten F. Combining a budgetary-impact analysis and a cost-effectiveness analysis using decision-analytic modelling techniques . Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(12):855-67.

32.

Sendi PP , Briggs AH Affordability and cost-effectiveness: decision-making on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ. 2001;10(7):675-80.

33.

Mauskopf JA , Sullivan SD , Annemans L. , et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices-budget impact analysis. Value Health . 2006;10(5).

34.

Kelton WD , Sadowski RP , Sturrock DT Simulation with Arena. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2004.