Current policies aim to promote and develop community-based support of disabled elderly persons, yet knowledge of the cost implications is insufficient. Thus, we aimed to estimate, for three disability profiles and three presence levels of the main informal carer (none, non-cohabitant, cohabitant), the cost of formal and informal support currently provided at home in Belgium. In this cross-sectional study, a sample of 5,642 disabled elderly persons living at home was established between 2010 and 2016. The administrative database of the Belgian public healthcare insurance was merged with other prospective data on social care service utilisation, informal care and disability. The total cost of formal support ranged from €725 to €1,344 (on average, per person, per month), depending on the three disability profiles identified. Twenty-five per cent of persons with the highest level of disability (important functional limitations and cognitive impairment) and helped by a cohabitant carer, had a low total cost of formal support: below €382 per month. Informal care represented the main cost component of total support costs in the three disability profiles (between 64 and 76%). To prevent the worsening of situations of disabled older persons and their informal carers, better detection of seriously disabled persons with low levels of formal support is crucial.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate how the societal perspective is conceptualized in economic evaluations and to assess how intersectoral costs and benefits (ICBs), that is, the costs and benefits pertaining to sectors outside the healthcare sector, impact their results.

Methods: Based on a search in July 2015 using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO, a systematic literature review was performed for economic evaluations which were conducted from a societal perspective. Conceptualizations were assessed in NVivo version 11 using conventional and directed content analysis. Trial-based evaluations in the fields of musculoskeletal and mental disorders were analyzed further, focusing on the way ICBs impact the results of economic evaluations.

Results: A total of 107 studies were assessed, of which 74 (69.1 percent) provided conceptualizations of the societal perspective. These varied in types of costs included and in descriptions of cost bearers. Labor productivity costs were included in seventy-two studies (67.3 percent), while only thirty-eight studies (35.5 percent) included other ICBs, most of which entailed informal care and/or social care costs. ICBs within the educational and criminal justice sectors were each included five times. Most of the trial-based evaluations analyzed further (n = 21 of 28) reported productivity costs. In nine, these took up more than 50 percent of total costs. In several studies, criminal justice and informal care costs were also important.

Conclusions: There is great variety in the way the societal perspective is conceptualized and interpreted within economic evaluations. Use of the term “societal perspective” is often related to including merely productivity costs, while other ICBs could be relevant as well.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore definitions of value and the use of budget impact and affordability considerations in health technology assessment (HTA) in the Asia region, particularly in relation to high cost technologies.

Methods: Issues were debated by senior representatives from HTA and payer systems in Asian countries, delegates from industry, and invited experts at the 2016 meeting of the HTAi Asia Policy Forum (HAPF). A premeeting survey was used to gather data on how value is assessed and budget impact calculations are used within current processes, as well as current approaches to managing affordability.

Results: All systems consider health benefit to be the key component of value. There is little consensus around “wider” elements of value that should be included. All systems use budget impact in decision making, although meeting attendees noted the challenges in making accurate estimates. The most common strategies used to address affordability concerns to date have been: restricting coverage, for example, to patients who are likely to get the highest value; discounts; and revenue caps. It was noted that these “solutions” may have unintended consequences of creating inequitable access to therapies and failing to provide adequate rewards for innovation.

Conclusions: Decision makers, HTA agencies, and industry need to continue to work together to find mutually agreeable solutions to ensure that patients continue to get equitable access to effective therapies at costs that can be afforded throughout the Asia region.

Objectives: Some experts have promoted preparticipative cardiovascular screening programs for young athletes and have claimed that such programs were cost-effective without performing a critical analysis of studies supporting this statement. In this systematic review, a critical assessment of economic evaluations on these programs is performed to determine if they really provide value for money.

Methods: A systematic review of economic evaluations was performed on December 24, 2014. Web sites of health technology assessment agencies, the Cochrane database of systematic review, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database of the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, Psychinfo, and EconLit were searched to retrieve (reviews of) economic evaluations. No language or time restrictions were imposed and predefined selection criteria were used. Selected studies were critically assessed applying a structured data extraction sheet.

Results: Five relevant economic evaluations were critically assessed. Results of these studies were mixed. However, those in favor of screening made (methodological) incorrect choices, of which the most important one was not taking into account a no-screening alternative as comparator. Compared with no screening, other strategies (history and physical examination or history and physical examination plus electrocardiogram) were not considered cost-effective.

Conclusions: Results of primary economic evaluations should not be blindly copied without critical assessment. Economic evaluations in this field lack the support of robust evidence. Negative consequences of screening (false positive findings, overtreatment) should also be taken into account and may cause more harm than good. A mass screening of young athletes for cardiovascular diseases does not provide value for money and should be discouraged.

Background: Many jurisdictions delivering health care, including Canada, have developed guidance for conducting economic evaluation, often in the service of larger health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement processes. Like any health intervention, personalized medical (PM) interventions have costs and consequences that must be considered by reimbursement authorities with limited resources. However, current approaches to economic evaluation to support decision making have been largely developed from population-based approaches to therapy—that is, evaluating the costs and consequences of single interventions across single populations. This raises the issue as to whether these methods, as they are or more refined, are adequate to address more targeted approaches to therapy, or whether a new paradigm for assessing value in PM is required.

Objectives: We describe specific issues relevant to the economic evaluation of diagnostics-based PM and assess whether current guidance for economic evaluation is sufficient to support decision making for PM interventions.

Methods: Issues were identified through literature review and informal interviews with national and international experts (n = 10) in these analyses. This article elaborates on findings and discussion at a workshop held in Ottawa, Canada, in January 2012.

Results: Specific issues related to better guiding economic evaluation of personalized medicine interventions include: how study questions are developed, populations are characterized, comparators are defined, effectiveness is evaluated, outcomes are valued and how resources are measured. Diagnostics-based PM also highlights the need for analyses outside of economic evaluation to support decision making.

Conclusions: The consensus of this group of experts is that the economic evaluation of diagnostics-based PM may not require a new paradigm. However, greater complexity means that existing approaches and tools may require improvement to undertake these more analyses.

Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions aiming to increase the adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in HIV-infected patients in developed countries (WHO stratum A).

Methods: A systematic search for comparative health economic studies was conducted in the following databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, CINAHL, HEED, and EconLit. The identified publications were selected by two reviewers independently according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Furthermore, these were evaluated according to a standardized checklist and finally extracted, analyzed, and summarized.

Results: After reviewing the abstracts and full texts four relevant studies were identified. Different educational programs were compared as well as the Directly Observed Therapy (DOT). A critical aspect to be considered in particular was the poor transparency of the cost data. In three cost-utility analyses the costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the baseline scenario were each under USD 15,000. The sensitivity analyses with a presumed maximum threshold of USD 50,000/QALY showed a predominantly cost-effective result. In one study that examined DOT the costs add up to over USD 150,000/QALY.

Conclusions: It seems that adherence interventions for HAART in HIV-infected patients can be cost-effective. Nevertheless, the quality of the included studies is deficient and only a few of the possible adherence interventions are taken into consideration. A final assessment of the cost-effectiveness of adherence interventions in general is, therefore, not possible.

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.

The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).

We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Effective emergency response among hospitals and other health care providers stems from multiple factors depending on the nature of the emergency. While local emergencies can test hospital acute care facilities, prolonged national emergencies, such as the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, raise significant challenges. These events involve sustained surges of patients over longer periods and spanning entire regions. They require significant and sustained coordination of personnel, services, and supplies among hospitals and other providers to ensure adequate patient care across regions. Some hospitals, however, may lack structural principles to help coordinate care and guide critical allocation decisions. This article discusses a model Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that sets forth essential principles on how to allocate scarce resources among providers across regions. The model seeks to align regional hospitals through advance agreements on procedures of mutual aid that reflect modern principles of emergency preparedness and changing legal norms in declared emergencies.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:54-61)

Aims – The use of specialised services to avoid admission to hospital for people experiencing mental health crises is seen as an integral part of psychiatric services in some countries. The aim of this paper is to assess the impact on costs and costeffectiveness of a crisis resolution team (CRT). Methods – Patients who were experiencing mental health crises sufficient for admission to be considered were randomised to either care provided by a CRT or standard services. The primary outcome measure was inpatient days over a six-month follow-up period. Service use was measured, costs calculated and cost-effectiveness assessed. Results – Patients receiving care from the CRT had non-inpatient costs £768 higher than patients receiving standard care (90% CI, £153 to £1375). With the inclusion of inpatient costs the costs for the CRT group were £2438 lower for the CRT group (90% CI, £937 to £3922). If one less day spent as an inpatient was valued at £100, there would be a 99.5% likelihood of the CRT being costeffective. Conclusion – This CRT was shown to be cost-effective for modest values placed on reductions in inpatient stays.

Aims – This paper seeks to provide a methodology to assess the cost-effectiveness of anti-stigma campaigns for people with mental health problems. Methods – The costs of running a national campaign in Scotland were obtained and combined with the number of adults in the Scottish population and the estimated number of people with improved attitudes towards people with mental health problems. A decision model was constructed to estimate the economic impact of a campaign in terms of increased use of services by people with depression and increased work time. Results – If the campaign caused 10% of changed attitudes then it was estimated to cost £35 per one less person who felt that people with mental health problems were dangerous and £186 per one less person who felt the public needs protection from people with mental health problems. The decision model suggested extra economic benefits (employment gains minus service costs) as a result of an anti-stigma campaign compared to the absence of a campaign. Conclusions – Data on the economic impact of anti-stigma campaigns are scarce and evaluation is intrinsically difficult. We have demonstrated a method to conduct such analyses. The model proposed here should be tested further as data become available.