Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2017-2
Why Do Health Economists Promote Technology Adoption Rather Than the Search for Efficiency? A Proposal for a Change in Our Approach to Economic Evaluation in Health Care
At a time of intense pressure on health care budgets, the technology management challenge is for disinvestment in low-value technologies and reinvestment in higher value alternatives. The aim of this article is to explore ways in which health economists might begin to redress the observed imbalance between the evaluation of new and existing in-use technologies. The argument is not against evaluating new technologies but in favor of the “search for efficiency,” where the ultimate objective is to identify reallocations that improve population health in the face of resource scarcity. We explore why in-use technologies may be of low value and consider how economic evaluation analysts might embrace a broader efficiency lens, first through “technology management” (a process of analysis and evidence-informed decision making throughout a technology’s life cycle) and progressing through “pathway management” (the search for efficiency gains across entire clinical care pathways). A number of model-based examples are used to illustrate the approaches.
BryanSMittonCDonaldsonC.Breaking the addiction to technology adoption. Health Econ. 2014;23(4):379–83.
2.
BarniehLMannsBHarrisA. A synthesis of drug reimbursement decision-making processes in organisation for economic co-operation and development countries. Value Health. 2014;17(1):98–108.
3.
RiggsKRUbelPA.The role of professional societies in limiting indication creep. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(2):249–52.
4.
ElshaugAGMossJRLittlejohnsPKarnonJMerlinTLHillerJE.Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money. Med J Aust. 2009;190(5):269–73.
5.
IsaacsD.Palivizumab: an example of indication creep. BMJ. 2009;339:b2724.
6.
DjulbegovicBPaulA.From efficacy to effectiveness in the face of uncertainty: indication creep and prevention creep. JAMA. 2011;305(19):2005–6.
DaviesCBriggsALorgellyPGarellickGMalchauH.The “hazards” of extrapolating survival curves. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(3):369–80.
9.
FronsdalKBFaceyKKlempMNorderhaugINMorlandBRottingenJA.Health technology assessment to optimize health technology utilization: using implementation initiatives and monitoring processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(3):309–16.
10.
SculpherMDrummondMBuxtonM.The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997;2(1):26–30.
11.
HoomansTFenwickEAPalmerSClaxtonK.Value of information and value of implementation: application of an analytic framework to inform resource allocation decisions in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Value Health. 2009;12(2):315–24.
12.
WilliamsIMcIverSMooreDBryanS.The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12(7):iii, ix–x, 1–175.
13.
JavittJCAielloLPChiangYFerrisFLIIICannerJKGreenfieldS.Preventive eye care in people with diabetes is cost-saving to the federal government: implications for health-care reform. Diabetes Care. 1994;17(8):909–17.
14.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998;352(9131):837–53.
15.
HollingworthWRooshenasLBusbyJ. Using clinical practice variations as a method for commissioners and clinicians to identify and prioritise opportunities for disinvestment in health care: a cross-sectional study, systematic reviews and qualitative study. Health Serv Deliv Res2015;3(13).
16.
BynumJSongYFisherE.Variation in prostate-specific antigen screening in men aged 80 and older in fee-for-service Medicare. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(4):674–80.
17.
LeggettLNoseworthyTWZarrabiMLorenzettiDSutherlandLRClementFM.Health technology reassessment of non-drug technologies: current practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(3):220–7.
18.
GarnerSDochertyMSomnerJ. Reducing ineffective practice: challenges in identifying low-value health care using Cochrane systematic reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(1):6–12.
19.
FaceyKCumminsEMacphersonKMorrisAReayLSlatteryJ.Organisation of Services for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: Health Technology Assessment Report 1. Glasgow, UK: Halth Technology Board for Scotland;2002.
20.
LookerHCNyangomaSOCromieDT. Predicted impact of extending the screening interval for diabetic retinopathy: the Scottish Diabetic Retinopathy Screening programme. Diabetologia. 2013;56(8):1716–25.
LeeseGPStrattonIMLandM. Progression of diabetes retinal status within community screening programs and potential implications for screening intervals. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(3):488–94.
23.
ScotlandGMcKeiguePPhilipS. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of adopting risk-stratified approaches to extended screening intervals in the national diabetic retinopathy screening programme in Scotland. Diabetic Med. 2016Apr4 (Early view).
24.
RichardsonGBloorKWilliamsJ. Cost effectiveness of nurse delivered endoscopy: findings from randomised multi-institution nurse endoscopy trial (MINuET). BMJ. 2009;338:b270.
25.
WonderlingDSawyerLFenuELovibondKLarameeP.National Clinical Guideline Centre cost-effectiveness assessment for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(11):758–65.
26.
TappendenPChilcottJBrennanASquiresHGlynne-JonesRTappendenJ.Using whole disease modeling to inform resource allocation decisions: economic evaluation of a clinical guideline for colorectal cancer using a single model. Value Health. 2013;16(4):542–53.
27.
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Colorectal cancer: diagnosis and management. NICE guidelines (CG131). 2011. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg131
28.
MowattGScotlandGBoachieC. The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(20):vii–xix, 1–281.
29.
D’AmicoAVWhittingtonRMalkowiczSB. Pretreatment nomogram for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(1):168–72.
30.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).Prostate Cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment. NICE Clinical Guideline 175. 2014. Web based document; available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175
31.
SelvaduraiEDSingheraMThomasK. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):981–7.
32.
LaingKBramwellSMcNeillACorrBLamT.Prostate cancer is Scotland: does geography matter? An analysis of incidence, disease characteristics and survival between urban and rural areas. J Clin Urol. 2014;7(3):176–84.
33.
BarryMJEdgman-LevitanS.Shared decision making—pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780–1.
34.
ThompsonSEkelundUJebbS. A proposed method of bias adjustment for meta-analyses of published observational studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(3):765–77.
35.
GreenlandS.Multiple-bias modelling for analysis of observational data. J R Statist Soc A. 2005;168:267–306.
36.
WiltTJBrawerMKJonesKM. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):203–13.
HollingworthWChamberlainC.NICE recommendations for disinvestment. BMJ. 2011;343:d5772.
39.
KarnonJCarltonJCzoski-MurrayCSmithK.Informing disinvestment through cost-effectiveness modelling: is lack of data a surmountable barrier?Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2009;7(1):1–9.
40.
TappendenPChilcottJBrennanASquiresHStevensonM.Whole disease modeling to inform resource allocation decisions in cancer: a methodological framework. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1127–36.
41.
LordJWillisSEatockJ. Economic modelling of diagnostic and treatment pathways in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines: the Modelling Algorithm Pathways in Guidelines (MAPGuide) project. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(58):v–vi, 1–192.
42.
MurrayCJEvansDBAcharyaABaltussenRM.Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2000;9(3):235–51.
43.
EddyDMSchlessingerL.Validation of the Archimedes diabetes model. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(11):3102–10.
44.
EddyDMSchlessingerL.Archimedes: a trial-validated model of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(11):3093–101.
45.
WeinsteinMCCoxsonPGWilliamsLWPassTMStasonWBGoldmanL.Forecasting coronary heart disease incidence, mortality, and cost: the coronary heart disease policy model. Am J Public Health. 1987;77(11):1417–26.
46.
GoffinJRFlanaganWMMillerAB. Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in Canada. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(6):807–13.
47.
Bibbins-DomingoKChertowGMCoxsonPG. Projected effect of dietary salt reductions on future cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(7):590–9.
48.
BottOJHoffmannIBergmannJ. Simulation based cost-benefit analysis of a telemedical system for closed-loop insulin pump therapy of diabetes. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2006;124:435–40.
49.
EddyDMSchlessingerLKahnR.Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of strategies for managing people at high risk for diabetes. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(4):251–64.
50.
MoranAEOddenMCThanataveeratA. Cost-effectiveness of hypertension therapy according to 2014 guidelines. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(5):447–55.
51.
OddenMCPletcherMJCoxsonPG. Cost-effectiveness and population impact of statins for primary prevention in adults aged 75 years or older in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(8):533–41.
